[sceptic]

Quote

I play with juniors I know because I enjoy playing with them, even if they are not very good. Yet when I play with certain juniors that are still learning the game (or trying a new system), then we won't do as well. Should I have any incentive not to play with them? I think the incentive should rather be to improve the game encourage young players to play.

I have noticed on here, that quite a few want to encourage the youngsters to play as they think it is the futuire of bridge.

I think this is odd, surely the future of bridge lies with anyone with an interest in the game, what ever age, or anyone with some money that afford to play it and keep the EBU and ACBL afloat, you never see any young ones doing anything constructive like learning to be a TD

I never played bridge until I was 40+ and the reason for this was I had a sex life and wanted to enjoy myself, I find it sad that a few youngsters under 25 want to play cards when they could be earning money or getting laid.

your thoughts on this subject would be welcomed and the500th poster will get a crate of beer from me, where ever you live in the world

[Al_U_Card]

It's not so much leading a horse to water as it is finding thirsty horses.....you know the type of person that enjoys bridge (and moreso competitive bridge) While this may not be symptomatic, the subset of individuals that make up the bridge community all have very similar characteristics......just a question of targeting our "market" and then.....

[awm]

Let me try and give some reasons why encouraging young people to play bridge is important for the future of the game:

(1) Most young people do play games. In fact they even play card games. The problem is that these days, most of them are playing poker. Others are playing the various collectable card games (magic or whatever) or playing video games (halo, world of warcraft, etc). The goal is not to get these young people to play bridge instead of earning a living, dating, going to classes, etc. It's to get them playing bridge instead of the various other games listed above.

(2) A majority of the people who "take up bridge" later in life were actually exposed to the game when they were young. Most played a little social/rubber bridge, or at least hearts or spades in college. In most cases they weren't "serious" about these games, but the idea of "trick taking games" and playing cards with friends is present in their minds. Then when they are older and suddenly discover a lot of leisure time and/or that they don't have the energy for athletic activities they persued in their youth, they become more serious about bridge. Therefore it's important to give the current generation of young people some level of exposure to the game.

(3) The top-level "star" players almost all started playing fairly young. Young beginner players usually improve at a much faster rate than older beginner players. If we want to train up the next generation of national team players, we have to start young.

(4) There was a time when bridge was a spectator sport. This was possible because almost everyone understood the basics of the game. Even chess receives more news coverage now than bridge, because almost everyone knows how to play chess (yes, like bridge, there is a big difference between knowing how to play chess and being a serious chess player). If bridge is ever to be widely publicized again, we need the basics of the game to be widely understood, which means learning it should be a normal activity at least among the brighter youngsters (much like learning chess is today).

[sceptic]

Chess vs bridge

bridge loads of systems and conventions

chess pieces that only move certain ways that you can not decieve and played with a strategy

I only assume that chess is usually brought into to the equation because it supossedly is for people of great intelect and if you are trying to show bridge and chess are similar you will only draw in the ones that consider themselves intelectual sor equivolent, thus alientating the masses

Bridge may be falling in popularity because of the pompous twits that contro;l the game nd some of the stupid rules, or perhaps ban duplicate and only play rubber bridge (that is a fun game with an element of luck0 BUT NONE THE LESS FUN

may be encouraging the university youngsters is not the way forward, may be glamorising bridge a bit is the way forward, get rid of the beer bellied porkers and put Zia in a cat suit.

I saw a bit in the forums about Zia making a snipe at Brad, well maybe a bit more of that and WWF money may become available to bridge and it may become a better spectator sport
Some people want strict rules and good ethics, do you not find that boring? lets add some personality to the gane, then it will become more popular

[Rain]

The reason for encouraging youngsters to bridge is obvious. Its the same reason any economy invests in education, training, benefits for younger people. The expected return over their remaining years is going to be larger than for someone older.
----

What's your post about really wayne? I mean, there seem to be so many things you're trying to say in the opening post alone. I recommend you split your thoughts up into many posts if you're serious about trying for 500 posts. =P
----

"Never see youngsters doing anything constructive like learning to be a TD"
Well this is just inaccurate. There are other "constructive" things people do. Some of these are just like steps in life--you grow into them at different ages. I seldom see any 12 year old doing anything constructive for mankind, like inventing great medicine cures or giving birth to replenish the world's population or whatever. =P

Some youngsters introduce Bridge to their friends. "Hey this is cool, lets play it!".

Some youngsters are teaching others how to play, the rules, etc.

Some youngsters are learning the laws so they can TD effectively.

Some youngsters who would otherwise be doing more aimless stuff that may damage and harm other people are playing bridge instead.

What most younger people probably can't do is hobnob at the highest business echelons and promote bridge there. But then the many top bridge players who happen to also be influential business people (read: oldies and richies) don't seem to care enough to do this either, although it is clearly within some of their sphere of power. But whatever.

What is this? Youngsters versus Oldsters? Duh. I mean Wayne, are you feeling marginalised? =))

[sceptic]

hm,. I may have to start a women in bridge thread if you keep picking on me rainy

[Gerben42]

Quote

"Never see youngsters doing anything constructive like learning to be a TD"

One of the top German TD's is 28 years old. I rest my case.

Gerben (27 and certified + active club TD)

[sceptic]

28 is not young under 25 is young I rest my case

nor is 27

[MickyB]

If he's one of the top TDs, then he must have started a fair while before he was 25.

People who haven't been playing for long are unlikely to be TDs. Juniors are less likely to have been playing for a long time and are more likely to have other exams, etc to be worrying about. I bet that if you did a survey of TDs, that most of them took up the game at a comparatively young age.

[sceptic]

ok thats one you can name out of a total off how many million bridge players ? poor % I rest my case you will have to do better than that

[MickyB]

How many of those millions of bridge players are juniors? How many of the EBU TDs do you think have been playing bridge for less than, say, ten years?

Without wanting to put words into Matt (Echognome)'s mouth, I suspect that part of the reason that he plays with juniors so much is that he is a uni lecturer and plays at the university club, therefore all of the juniors are his friends or friends of friends. He is also closer in age to us than he is to the majority of bridge players.

The more juniors who play, the more young people will at least be exposed to the game, and as Adam said, these people will often take it up later in life.

And as for the sex life comment...from what I've heard, there was more than just bridge going on at the world junior camp! Relationships between the juniors are very common, and from what I've heard from the previous generation, most of the girls will land up married to one!

[Rain]

Haha.

I used to play TT. At the crucial age (early teens for most sports), my country decided the most economical way to improve country's standing fast was to:

1) Seek out foreign players who are already good and get them to represent our country.

2) Focus exclusively on getting kids who are 6-9 years old interested in the game, and giving them every opportunity to improve.

So my peers and I grew up watching the previous batch of players jet setting around the world and having fun at tourneys (which is all I cared about =D ), and thought it'd be our turn soon. But suddenly the focus shifted and the little kids got to go everywhere and travel free and get frequent flier miles free and get little goodie bags free, and it still wasn't our turn yet. (And never will be).

I was obviously upset, hurt, bitter, whatever. But the strategy paid off. Singapore TT improved by leaps and bounds...mostly due to foreigners of course, but local standard also improved tremendously. As a result, there was a lot more interest paid to the game. Young, telegenic sports stars help to raise profile *a lot*. There are now previously unimaginable sponserships, marketing income for the game, etc. All because of the relatively harsh decision taken 10 years ago.

-----------

If anything, I think bridge is suffering unnecessarily because nobody wants to take this harsh decision to promote the game actively. Mostly because the people who are in position to do so have little to gain and much to lose from this.

It'd take either an altrustic and *rich* *influential* bridger, or a *very rich* *very influential* profit seeking outsider daring to brave the often officious higher ranks of bridge, to promote and popularise bridge the way i want it to be. The way it deserves to be. Because bridge is worth it! Haha

Possibly every bridger older than say, 25, would be affected negatively in some ways.

Possibly the best looking young bridge players would be promoted and touted as superstars, and everyone else can only glare enviously and read about their megamillion contracts.

Possibly versions of bridge where youth-bestowed physical prowess is an advantage would be promoted. (Because they can be more exciting, thrilling, more palatable to audiences)

Possibly the overall standard of the game will be raised, there'll be lots more players, there will be increased prize money for less cost, it'll be easier to find bridge player friends and talk bridge all day (or a lover!, no more sneaking away to play bridge, your wife approves because she's a fellow bridger!). The intellectual stimulation as multitudes focuses on solving bridge problems will lead to increases in IQ, leading subsequently to breakthroughs like world peace and cures for all sorts of illnesses and the colonisation of Mars.

All because of Bridge.

So in summary, some pain is needed and indeed, should be welcomed, if it leads to all those desirable effects.

[Free]

Sceptic: there is a way to combine playing bridge and having a great sex life. Since I'm a man, and no tantra expert, I can't hump 24/7. So I have a lot of time on the side for other occupations, like playing bridge or earning some money. So I don't really get your point...

Quote

I think this is odd, surely the future of bridge lies with anyone with an interest in the game, what ever age, or anyone with some money that afford to play it and keep the EBU and ACBL afloat, you never see any young ones doing anything constructive like learning to be a TD

My situation is that the lessons to become a TD are at the most inconvenient time possible. Otherwise I'd already taken those lessons a long time! I like bend rules, and go as far as possible, so I need to know the rules before I can know for sure that I'm not doing something too extreme.
Money is not something which will teach you how to play bridge. If you don't have some talent you'll never make it to the top. Perhaps you'll make it, but only as a non-playing sponsor.
Why promote young people you say? Well, the younger you are, the better you are at learning new things. They also adapt a lot easier to new situations. Bridge these days requires lots of memory work, and lost of insight to get started, and the systems change. Experience is one thing, but these youngsters will get it sooner or later. And better have some young guys with experience (and the ability to learn and adapt to new situations) than having old guys playing purely on experience which can't cope with new conventions.

[awm]

Bridge also suffers from a severe image problem, especially in the United States. The game has acquired a reputation (mostly true) of being an old people's game. This creates a lot of problems because very few people want to think of themselves as old (even if they are, by most measures).

This also creates a self-perpetuating issue for young people wanting to play bridge. A big part of enjoyment of the game, especially at club levels, is the social aspect. You meet all sorts of people at the club and you immediately have something in common. But for players under 25 (or honestly under 55) most of the people you meet are substantially older. The social aspect isn't nearly as much fun when there's much less chance you'd have anything to talk to these people about besides cards, or that you'd do anything with them outside the bridge club. I think the average age at clubs and tournaments does a lot to deter young folks from the game, and makes changing the reputation difficult.

On directing, a big part of directing (especially at the club level) is being able to get the players to listen to you and respect your rulings. This is a lot harder when you're 27 (or younger) and most of the players are older than your parents. In fact many young players do become certified as directors, but how often they direct is another issue. This is a combination of the fact that it's hard to get the respect of the much older players, that many successful club games are during the day when these youngsters are at work at their day jobs, and that after working all day young people often want a more relaxing activity than directing (like say, playing bridge) for their few free hours in the evening.

[Aberlour10]

sceptic, on Oct 9 2006, 04:06 PM, said:

Chess vs bridge

bridge loads of systems and conventions

chess pieces that only move certain ways that you can not decieve and played with a strategy

I only assume that chess is usually brought into to the equation because it supossedly is for people of great intelect and if you are trying to show bridge and chess are similar you will only draw in the ones that consider themselves intelectual sor equivolent, thus alientating the masses

The leading polish bridge player Cezary Balicki started his career first as a chess player, he achived national and international very good results (FIDE Master)...so, this thesis is maybe true..

analytic capabilities in chess = extraordinary quality of the declarer play in bridge

Robert

[hrothgar]

sceptic, on Oct 10 2006, 12:06 AM, said:

Chess vs bridge

bridge loads of systems and conventions

chess pieces that only move certain ways that you can not decieve and played with a strategy

Have you ever played serious chess?

Top players spend enormous amounts of time doing nothing but memorizing openings. The sheer amount of rote memorization dwarfs anything that I've encountered in bridge. Back when I was in High School, I played a fair amount of chess. I did quite well, mainly because my "book" of prepared openings and defenses included a lot of weird variants that my opponent's hadn't bothered studying. Sure, some of these were consider unsound, but, I knew that none of the folks that I was playing against was going to be able to pick apart an Alekhine defense or an English opening in 45 minutes.

[Echognome]

To encourage youth to play in any sport or game should be a goal for any organisation. One might argue for the simple fact that they have an opportunity to play it longer than those that are older.

But, forget the youth part of my statement then and let it simply be that we want to encourage new players to the game and many of them are youth. So should I not have the incentive to play with and help new players develop? I can't possibly see what is controversial about that.

[Elianna]

sceptic, on Oct 9 2006, 12:11 PM, said:

you never see any young ones doing anything constructive like learning to be a TD

I agree with Gerben: Never is a pretty harsh assessment. Based on the amount of younger bridge players I know, I'd say that actually a HIGHER percentage of them are qualified TDs than the percentage of older bridge players I know. I mean, I can name four juniors (or very recently graduated juniors) who are directors, and direct regularly here in the US. Say there are 500 juniors in the US (and that's being generous, and not just couning ACBL members), so that make .8% of juniors are directors. I would find that hard to believe of the bridge-playing public at large, based on the people I've seen at both clubs I direct at and play at.

Further, I only know, say 50 juniors, and so 4 out of those 50 is 8%, and there could be others that I know that are directors that I don't know about!

Also, there is a junior that is on the ACBL board of governors. Compare 1 out 500 to 24 out of 65,000. Not bad.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Oct 10 2006, 03:10 AM, said:

Back when I was in High School, I played a fair amount of chess. I did quite well, mainly because my "book" of prepared openings and defenses included a lot of weird variants that my opponent's hadn't bothered studying.

Let's guess what bidding system that poster is playing :-)

Sorry, no pun intended. I just couldn't let it :-)

[mr1303]

Going back to Mike Bell's point. I met my ultra-long-term girlfriend (in my context as a junior anyway) at a bridge party, and have gone out with two other people in the time since I met her (don't ask), both of whom were bridge players.

Mike is entirely correct about more than just bridge going on over in Slovakia. I won't mention any names or details, but it wasn't the type of thing you'd tell your mother about....