[cargobeep]

I've heard it before. "Bridge is for grandmas and grandpas". I think I'm probably one of the few people below the age of 25 who actually play.

Why hasn't bridge been able to skew younger?

[billw55]

IMO there are two issues:

One, it is perceived as a game for old people, and so young people avoid it for purely social reasons. A self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

Two, it takes too much patience and attention for most of today's youth.

[hrothgar]

cargobeep, on 2012-October-09, 09:54, said:

I've heard it before. "Bridge is for grandmas and grandpas". I think I'm probably one of the few people below the age of 25 who actually play.

Why hasn't bridge been able to skew younger?

Here's my take on things. (I don't claim that this is scientific or even accurate)

Bridge benefited enormously from two world class promoters. The first was El Culbertson. The second was Charles Goren.
They both did a phenomenal job at promoting and popularizing the game.

Sadly, when Goren left the scene there was no one else big enough to fill his shoes.

As a result, you had a "bulge" develop in the population of bridge players.
You have a big cohort who all started playing at about the same time with similar demographic characteristics.
Over time, that cohort got older and eventually, bridge is an "old persona's game".

I think that there are a number of other demographic trends which have exacerbated this issue. From my perspective, the biggies are

1. Changes in technology. Kids have a wealth of gaming options available to them that didn't exist 30 years ago. My nephew is addicted to Minecraft and loves Settlers of Cataan. I doubt that he knows how to play any card games.

2. Increase in the number of two income families

[Free]

Not sure how bridge got it's reputation, but I do have a little anecdote from Belgium.

At New Year 2012, bridge (and some other mind sports) was no longer considered a sport for some insurance companies, so membership was no longer subsidized. So during the reportage, a short film is shown with people playing bridge. Needless to say, it was the president of the Belgian Bridge League (an old man), his wife (an old women), and I believe it was their daughter (middle aged) and their grandchild (finally someone young).

This was a golden opportunity to show some youngsters and middle aged people playing bridge, in an attempt to change the bad image of the game. But nooooo, they had to go for personal glory (they've been on television, yaaaay!).

[trevahound]

cargobeep, on 2012-October-09, 09:54, said:

I've heard it before. "Bridge is for grandmas and grandpas". I think I'm probably one of the few people below the age of 25 who actually play.

Why hasn't bridge been able to skew younger?

In the Seattle area (and other cosmopolitan tech areas), bridge skews younger than in most of the USA. One thing I would like is much more freedom to experiment than the ACBL allows (and tied with that much more full disclosure than the ACBL requires). Basically all teaching for the general player is wildly conservative, in my opinion.

By no means do I think this is a majority reason for the average age being what it is, but I think it matters in a small way. The ACBL alert charts and convention charts are non-functional, even if one takes the time to try to understand them and to discuss them with experienced folks.

[mycroft]

As I often say when this comes up, the places where we should be looking for young bridge players are:

- current CCG players (especially tournament players)
- current younger poker players.

In both of these cases, however, the rabid anti-gambling stance of the ACBL (which, to give them credit, comes from US laws past and present, and not any moral issues) will be an issue.

On a side note, the rabid anti-gambling stance of the ACBL really helps me when I cross the border to go to the Nationals;
ICE agent: "Reason for entering the US?"
Me: "I'm playing in a bridge tournament."
ICE agent: "What do you get when you win?"
Me: "Recognition. a slightly higher standing in the rankings."
ICE: agent: "Good luck. Next!"
I'm guessing that were there significant prizes, even if I had no hope of getting them, the conversation would be more laboured.

[dwar0123]

mycroft, on 2012-October-09, 11:58, said:

ICE agent: "What do you get when you win?"
Me: "Recognition. a slightly higher standing in the rankings."

I wonder if an elo style ranking system such as the one Europe recently adopted might help attract newer players. The current ranking system does favor longevity over skill.

[mikeh]

My unscientific take on the game is that there have always been two broad groups of players attracted to the game: the social players and the geeks, with (I suspect) every poster on BBF and probably every reader being in the latter group.

As for the geeks, we love the competitive element of the game: the intellectual challenge.

I learned the game in university, starting about 1970. In 1972, Atari released Pong, the first commercially successful video game. I think the first one I saw was on campus in about 1974.

My hypothesis is that those late adolescents/young adults who would, in former years, have become bridge players became, instead, video game players.

The learning curve is easier, and the direct stimulation of the senses far more vivid. Plus it only took 2 to play a competitive video game while bridge required 4, as well as relative quiet. Video games were often played in pubs and bars.

As for the social group, I suspect that part of the reason was that bridge was increasingly identified with an older generation by the 1970's. I don't have any opinion on whether the lack of media coverage played a role in the decline of the game, or whether the decline of the game played a role in the lack of media coverage...I suspect a feedback relationship may have existed. I do know that attempts to show bridge on television met with very little success.

Entertainment options were exploding in the 1960s and beyond. Television had become or was about to become colour, even tho the abundance of channels we now take for granted didn't exist. Households had more disposable income so could go out and do things that cost money, whereas in former years, it made economic sense to invite the neighbours around for an evening of bridge.

And of course video games, and television, would serve to distract the children who might otherwise have watched their parents play bridge.

Today, at least in our area, the 'new' players are all older...they either have retired or are getting close to retirement and seem to be looking for a relatively inexpensive and non-physically demanding means of socializing and finding entertainment. None of this demographic are likely to become serious players, since we seem to lose our ability to acquire new cognitive skills by this time in life...plus I can't see many of them staying up all night to play bridge. I remember, for example, that during my first year in residence at university, which was a year after learning the game, the only times I ever made it to breakfast were when I had played bridge all night....I'd go to breakfast then to bed. My marks weren't very good that year, but I learned a lot about the game.

[lalldonn]

In the ACBL, policy after policy has been designed to cater to the old people who are currently members rather than the young people they want to be members.

- Cell phone ban
- Earlier start times
- In Las Vegas (a city full of young people who love card games??) the sectionals are now Monday to Friday, no weekends! I suspect this has occured in other places as well.

I know there are reasons they do these things, conflicting goals, etc. But in my opinion they are getting exactly what they should expect.

[Bbradley62]

I don't think this is primarily due to "today's youth" or "gaming options... that didn't exist 30 years ago". I joined ACBL 30 years ago, as a college student. Three pairs of us would go to the twice-weekly duplicate game at the local Y and we'd routinely be the only ones under 40 in a 15-table game. The median age was probably 60, although I'm looking back 30 years later, and maybe 50-year-olds looked like 60-year-olds to me at the time. We'd play sectionals and regionals and experience the same demographics. In addition to the obvious "bridge is an old person's game" reputation, the main culprit was thought to be the smoke-filled rooms where bridge was played. Gradually, smoking was eliminated, but bridge was still an old person's game. There were no junior games back then, only a few colleges had clubs, and virtually no high schools did. ACBL's recruiting programs clearly focused on recent retirees, who were seen as the cash cows.

I'd really like to see a comparison of demographics of 2012 and 1982. It appears to me that there are more young people playing today than there were 30 years ago. (I will concede that 50 years ago many more colleges had bridge clubs than 30 years ago. Both of my parents belonged to such clubs.)

[Antrax]

Mikeh, my intelligent friends who aren't into Bridge do play other card games and other intellectual, non-video-game activities. As far as I can see their problem with Bridge is the learning curve (even chess is rewarding faster) and the social atmosphere (all sorts of nice grannies trying to set you up with girls they've heard exist) is a bit off-putting.

[32519]

Over 30 years ago when I was a university student, there was always a bridge game underway in the cafeteria, mostly run by the engineers. These guys even had a league of their own among the different university hostels. Playing bridge was regarded as a “mandatory extra subject” for them. As an accountancy student, we never had something similar and I often found myself joining the engineers whenever they were a player short.

Today the engineers qualifying and starting employment at the petro-chemical plant in my hometown have no interest in the game. It appears as though the “mandatory extra subject” is no longer applicable for the guys qualifying today.

So yes, a big shift away from the game has occurred in my home country as well.

[kenberg]

Goren was mentioned above, and I learned bridge in 1961 by reading Goren. I was 22. I had played various card games and board games more or less from infancy on. But it was different. Four people would get together and play rubber bridge. I played duplicate once or twice and didn't see the point of it. Then I got busy and really there wasn't time. Also there wasn't much money so even if I knew about regional tourneys and had an inclination to play, it wasn't practical. So that's why this young person did not much play much back then. Later I had more time and more money. I started playing bridge.

but I recall driving to a tournament and, on the way, seeing young people out playing tennis. It was a really nice day. I wondered seriously about my choice.

I don't know how much of the above applies to the twenty-somethings of today.

And now to the confessions of a traitor: When my daughter was in college, she mentioned that someone was going to teach her to play bridge. I suggested that she wait until after graduation. Whether she took my advice or plans just fell through, she never learned to play. I have many regrets in life but discouraging my daughter from learning bridge in college is not one of them.

Bridge is a good game. But it's a game, there are other games, there are other things to do that are not games. I enjoy bridge a lot, but if I get busy with other things I don't play. I doubt any more explanation than that is needed.

[RunemPard]

I think that Sweden has about 160-180 juniors (25-) registered with the bridge federation...and I am one of them. Seeing other juniors is not so common, and most of them play at the university cities.

I started playing spades when I was 12. Only about 2 years ago did I try out bridge online for the first time. It was quite entertaining. I played rated rubber bridge on Pogo and managed to go 85%+ in my 1st 30 matches without a clue other than basic scoring and card sense. A large group of people to recruit from is the online spades community. (Even more so for the ACBL, as there are many American spades players.)

It is actually quite easy for a spades player to become a bridge player, and there are a decent amount of 30-50 year old spades players.

I would also like to mention about the weekdays thing. Sweden does this also, and it drives me mad. Currently I have no job, so this does not affect me. However, there is currently only one club playing on Sunday (an hour drive for us) to play at on the weekends. It is as if no clubs here in Sweden will play on Saturday or Sunday, and there are absolutely no events scheduled on Fridays. This to me is a huge factor as well.

Regarding the restrictions...in Sweden there are almost no restrictions, I like this a lot, but it sure hasn't helped gain youth bridge players here.

[mycroft]

MikeH (and others) talk about "the new players [are new retirees]". Many of those aren't new, they're returnees after 30 years, either "I learned in the kitchen with Mom and Dad, but never really got into it" or "I played in university, but didn't have time once I started working and a family" - once they do have the time, they say "oh, maybe I should look at this again".

We aren't doing either of those (as much) with today's 20-ers; and as far as I am concerned, any junior policy that doesn't have "put bridge into the congition of hundreds or thousands of school/university people, *expecting 90+% of them to leave the game*" as a priority is useless self-defeating; in 30 years the pool of new retirees that can say "oh, that was fun, maybe I should look at getting back into it" will dry up.

[bluecalm]

In Poland there are tons of young people playing bridge

[paulg]

The Scottish youth co-ordinator tells me that "bridge is not cool" but, to be honest, I don't think it ever was.

It is a difficult game to learn, you need four people, one of whom you get on with - real barriers. But in the UK my impression is that the biggest change has been in schools - extra-curricular activities require far more effort than twenty years ago: fewer teachers have the time or inclination; compulsory police checks put volunteers off; and the kids have less time, not least because a decent education seems more important.

[Quantumcat]

As many other people have said, it is probably the amount of learning needed to start enjoying the game that puts people off. Any other game, a quick five minute explanation of the rules is all that is needed.

I played 500 in high school, so I didn't need to learn too much before I could play without constantly asking questions - I could handle basic auctions already and knew about drawing trump, returning partner's suit etc. Probably the same for the others who said they started with Spades. Maybe it is better to be content teaching kids to play Whist (or other partnership trick-taking games that are simpler than bridge) and not bother them with bridge until they communicate that they are ready for more of a challenge?

[rhm]

cargobeep, on 2012-October-09, 09:54, said:

I've heard it before. "Bridge is for grandmas and grandpas".

Naturally you never hear this from people who know how to play Bridge well.
And those who make such statement have prejudices about old people.
If people would make a statement like Bridge is for black people you would call them racists, but making denigrating statements about old people is okay.

Quote

Why hasn't bridge been able to skew younger?

Why do so few people take up Chess or learn how to play a music instrument well?
Because it needs some endeavor.

Many young people spent a lot of time in front of a screen, whether this is a television, a playing station or an iphone does not matter much.
Whether this makes them clever or is an improvement over the past can be argued.

By the way I do not care very much for this problem.
I have no missionary zeal.
I am not worried that this game might die out in the near future.
Call me elitist if you like. I get worried if too many people are fascinated by what fascinates me.

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

Me: 'bridge is fun'
Girl: 'bridge is just for old people'
Me: 'but I play bridge!'
Girl: 'you must be old'



Yes OK not really the best pickup line..