[Stefan_O]

 nullve, on 2016-September-05, 01:52, said:

Maybe for starters one should stop marketing bridge as a "unique mix of brain-challenge, competition, "psychology", gambling, team-work, social aspects, and much more"...

Mmmm... I'm not sure if it is actually 'marketed' that way -- here was just my personal opinion expressed in this forum of already 'hooked' people
But if it is... why stop?

 nullve, on 2016-September-05, 01:52, said:

...when there are games like Dota 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dota_2) out there.

Not sure I got it.... are you saying, there are other games with similar qualities, and therefore not "unique"?

If so -- OK -- but I still would think there are also some differences between Bridge and Dota 2 that would make both of them unique?

 nullve, on 2016-September-05, 01:52, said:

And maybe not insult the intelligence of young people by telling them that bridge is a game of mental skill while implying that the skill is best measured by accumulated masterpoints.

I totally agree -- "masterpoints", being more indicative of how long you've been playing the game, rather than how well you have played, I will not miss for a second if they scratched it.

A ranking system based on your results in the last few years or so, is clearly much more meaningful.

[nullve]

 Stefan_O, on 2016-September-05, 14:53, said:

Mmmm... I'm not sure if it is actually 'marketed' that way -- here was just my personal opinion expressed in this forum of already 'hooked' people

Marketed that way (with money) or not, it seems to be the way both bridge players and bridge organisations talk when they try to persuade people to take up the game. For example,

EBU said:

Primarily, bridge has been proven to be very good for the mind, and each game played will offer a unique challenge of problems and solutions. Every single deal is different; every deal poses a new problem and can taunt the players to find the solution!

The American Jazz composer Duke Ellington famously said, “a problem is your chance to do your best", and it won’t come as a surprise to know that bridge players soon develop special skills in problem solving! It’s frustrating for players when they don’t rise to the challenge, but tremendous when they are successful – whether through finding great technical play, by outwitting their opponents, or by co-operating really well to achieve success with their partner.

Secondly, bridge is an excellent social game and can be played by everyone - players can meet new people, make new friends, take on new challenges and learn the game through the many bridge clubs and teachers.

Finally, you can play bridge anywhere! You can play locally and nationally; there are open, women’s and mixed; senior and junior events throughout the year. Next time it could be you!

So much potential to play this wonderful game!

Probably little of interest to non-bridgeplayers here that isn't equally true of Dota 2.

 Stefan_O, on 2016-September-05, 14:53, said:

But if it is... why stop?

Because the resources could be spent more efficiently?

 Stefan_O, on 2016-September-05, 14:53, said:

Not sure I got it.... are you saying, there are other games with similar qualities, and therefore not "unique"?

If so -- OK -- but I still would think there are also some differences between Bridge and Dota 2 that would make both of them unique?

They're both unique, but that's hardly a reason for picking bridge over Dota 2.

[Kaitlyn S]

 nullve, on 2016-September-05, 01:52, said:

And maybe not insult the intelligence of young people by telling them that bridge is a game of mental skill while implying that the skill is best measured by accumulated masterpoints.

Everybody wants to quote this statement and I am no exception.

The organizations that want to promote bridge would not serve their interests with a true rating system. Let's look at USCF and ACBL.

USCF: you play chess. You play more, you get better. Your rating goes up. Cool.

ACBL: Lets assume they implement a true ranking system. Would I go and mentor a friend that is a newer player if it means my rating goes down? Me, if I was still playing in the ACBL, maybe yes, but most people, no. Would I try a new partnership if I cared about my rating? New partnerships have results that tend to be worse than either of the players in an old partnership, so new partnerships that may blossom and become tournament regulars just don't happen. Say I have this one partner that I do well with but he's getting on in years and can only play a couple of games per month. However, we have a great partnership and understand each other so well, so if I play with anyone else, my rating will go down.

The ACBL wants people to go out and play with many different partnerships as many times as possible and to go to tournaments as often as possible even if your favorite partners aren't available, and they certainly want people to go out and play with new players, especially young ones that they can hook for 60 years. Putting in an ELO-type system would be an disincentive to players to do exactly what the ACBL wants them to do.

[Stefan_O]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-September-05, 19:44, said:

ACBL: Lets assume they implement a true ranking system. Would I go and mentor a friend that is a newer player if it means my rating goes down?

Mmmm.... true....
that was the continually recurring complaints when I played on okbridge years ago with their "Lehmann rating".
Even though you were (at least partly) compensated when playing with lower-ranking players,
players kept complaining, it was always their various partners' fault that their rankings were too low

So Bridge then (as different from chess) would have this partnership issue if replacing the masterpoints with a ranking system...

Are there any workable solutions to that?
Anyone got ideas?

[Stefan_O]

Perhaps, one could just let masterpoints expire after 5 years or so.
Only the points you had acquired within the last 5 years would count in the standings...
Then you would not be penalized for playing with a weaker player.

That would give younger players a chance to "catch up" much faster and not have to wait until retirement to do so....

Maybe you could even have a
"last 1-years" ranking, a
"last 3-years" ranking, and a
"last 5-years" ranking.

Problem solved?

[Stefan_O]

 nullve, on 2016-September-05, 17:24, said:

They're both unique, but that's hardly a reason for picking bridge over Dota 2.

I see.

Btw, just curious.... I your view, what are your reasons for picking Bridge over Dota 2?

(I assume, at least sometimes, you do, since you're following this forum?)

[nullve]

 Stefan_O, on 2016-September-06, 06:29, said:

I see.

Btw, just curious.... I your view, what are your reasons for picking Bridge over Dota 2?

(I assume, at least sometimes, you do, since you're following this forum?)

Dota 2 didn't exist when I was sort of end-played into playing bridge, at the age of 14.

[Stefan_O]

 nullve, on 2016-September-06, 07:35, said:

Dota 2 didn't exist when I was sort of end-played into playing bridge, at the age of 14.

OK.
But are you still being 'end-played' into it?

Or is there something abt Bridge that (at least at some occasions) makes it a more
satisfying/thrilling/challenging/enjoyable/addictive/.../whatnot activity?

[Vampyr]

 Stefan_O, on 2016-September-05, 23:40, said:

Mmmm.... true....
that was the continually recurring complaints when I played on okbridge years ago with their "Lehmann rating".
Even though you were (at least partly) compensated when playing with lower-ranking players,
players kept complaining, it was always their various partners' fault that their rankings were too low

So Bridge then (as different from chess) would have this partnership issue if replacing the masterpoints with a ranking system...

Are there any workable solutions to that?
Anyone got ideas?

The EBU ranking system is regarded as a bit of fun and doesn't, ax far as I can tell, discourage new or casual partnerships.

But of course the solution is to rank pairs, not individual players.

[Vampyr]

 Stefan_O, on 2016-September-06, 06:29, said:

I see.

Btw, just curious.... I your view, what are your reasons for picking Bridge over Dota 2?

(I assume, at least sometimes, you do, since you're following this forum?)

Have just looked up Dota 2 and one huge difference is that this is an online game. Also I, at least, cannot imagine persuading four friends to play a video game.

[Kaitlyn S]

 Stefan_O, on 2016-September-05, 23:50, said:

Perhaps, one could just let masterpoints expire after 5 years or so.
Only the points you had acquired within the last 5 years would count in the standings...
Then you would not be penalized for playing with a weaker player.

That would give younger players a chance to "catch up" much faster and not have to wait until retirement to do so....

Maybe you could even have a
"last 1-years" ranking, a
"last 3-years" ranking, and a
"last 5-years" ranking.

Problem solved?

Yes. I could now rejoin the ACBL and play as a professional in the novice game!

[Vampyr]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-September-06, 09:36, said:

Yes. I could now rejoin the ACBL and play as a professional in the novice game!

Here gold points degrade at about 20%/year, but gold points are mainly a prestige thing. Cumulative rankings or NGS ratings are used for flighting (we don't have very much separation of events, but prizes are available for pairs or teams that fall under a certain threshold.)

[billw55]

 lcsmw, on 2016-September-04, 09:26, said:

Sticking with bridge but moving on to low stakes online no limit holdem tournaments. Poker adds some additional thought processes.

And subtracts quite a few. On balance, bridge is definitely a more complex game.

 The_Badger, on 2016-September-04, 15:11, said:

It's up to the schools, colleges and universities to promote bridge. However, as it is probably one of the games in the world where seniors can compete at the same level as juniors, it is probably not looked upon as trendy enough for today's younger generation.

I think younger people expect success to come much more swiftly. But in bridge there is no substitute for experience. No instant success, no interest.

[Stefan_O]

 billw55, on 2016-September-06, 12:26, said:

No instant success, no interest.

But that would definitely apply to Chess and Poker, too, both doing MUCH better recruiting new followers than Bridge.

Cannot be the right answer.

[kenberg]

 lcsmw, on 2016-September-03, 12:15, said:

I haven't played live bridge for 5 years. I'm retired but spending 4 hours playing in a club game isn't a good use of my time, so I play here. About 3 months I decided to play in the Santa Clara regional. I need 3.5 gold points to make life master. I added it to my bucket list.

My plan was to find a partner and practice before going to the regional. I posted on my local units online partnership desk and ACBL. No response. I emailed the partnership contact twice with no response. I noticed on the flier that there was a tournament partnership website. I clicked on the link and it said the tournament was over (2015). I emailed the tournament chairman about finding a partner and was told that the online partner desk was no longer being used because the index card system works so well. After exchanging a lot of emails the chairman supposedly put in a card for me. I provided her my phone number and email address. What I was expected to do was show up at the tournament and see if anyone was interested in playing with me. My plan was to drive to the tournament, play two sessions and drive home. Total driving time 2 1/2 hours. I am not willing to do that with only the hope of finding a partner in an open pairs event. I take care of my wife and spending a few days away in a hotel was possible, but not practical.

I am 71, retired for two years and was a systems analyst so my brain is still functioning well. I have played bridge for almost 60 years. I took a twelve year break from playing and when I resumed I saw the same players at the tournaments. I was always younger than the field and when I was 66, it was the same.

These players, have cell phones, tablets and use the internet, yet finding a partner for live bridge is antiquated. Is there a huge divide between live and online players?

Given the number of worldwide players and the technology you would think there would be worldwide gold point events. I understand the issues of hacking and cheating. ACBl could consider having proctored sites like the SAT with communication restricted, but I guess they are happy with the way things are until most of the live players die off.

I think it can be done but, and there is no way to say this gently, I think you have to re-think your approach. You have solid reasons for not wanting to drive 2 1/2 hours for a pick-up partnership. Ok. But later you say "I don't have the interest in spending a lot of time at the local club establishing a partnership. It would be about as bad as dating, but that's just me.".Well, this makes it tough.

I learned to play in 1961, reading Goren. So, like you, it was a while ago. And I have played a lot sometimes, and very little other times. A few years back, I got a call from someone who said someone had suggested me. I hadn't played f2f for years, but we started playing again. I now play in a club once a week or so, with him or someone else, and in Regionals etc as long as it doesn't require too long a drive.

I suggest that you ask around. Go easy on the business of how many gold you need for LM, just play. You will meet other people who play, and keep you options open. Play in a sectional. Nobody is going to make it his goal to fulfill your bucket list, but if you would like to play some cards I bet you can find someone. And, in time, you will get your gold.

[nullve]

 Stefan_O, on 2016-September-06, 07:58, said:

Or is there something abt Bridge that (at least at some occasions) makes it a more
satisfying/thrilling/challenging/enjoyable/addictive/.../whatnot activity?

Yes. Especially system design, which I think of as a game somewhat similar to chess, only vastly more complex, at least in principle. (The first "move" in this game, if we restrict ourselves to pure strategy bidding systems, consists in assigning one of 2^{635 013 559 600} possible meanings, corresponding to the number of subsets of the set of all possible bridge hands, to Pass and each bid between 1♣ and 7N. That number is already vastly bigger than the number of possible chess games. (If I'm talking nonsense, please let me know. )) But although (bridge bidding) system design is definitely a bridge related activity, it's not really part of the game we call "bridge" that starts with someone dealing a deck of cards. And I'm afraid it's a good idea to try to make the prospect of becoming a system designer a major selling point unless we want bridge to be played by only 14 people by 2070.

I don't even know the rules of Dota 2, btw, so I don't have an opinion on which game is better. But I play chess, and right now I probably enjoy playing (mediocre to abysmal) chess on chess.com more than (hopefully quite good) bridge on BBO, something I'm afraid has everything to do with the different policies on rating systems. At least I know that if chess.com for some reason decided to adopt BBO's rating system policy tomorrow, I'd immediately run to their biggest competitor, chess24.com, or even (reluctantly) start to play more bridge on BBO again. So I guess that, for me,

unrated chess on chess.com < unrated bridge on BBO < rated chess on chess.com < rated bridge on BBO

and maybe also

unrated chess < unrated bridge < rated chess < rated bridge.

[Vampyr]

 Stefan_O, on 2016-September-06, 12:48, said:

But that would definitely apply to Chess and Poker, too, both doing MUCH better recruiting new followers than Bridge.

Cannot be the right answer.

Chess has the advantage that you don't need to find a partner, only an opponent. As for poker, you can sit down and play with no training whatsoever.

[Stefan_O]

 Vampyr, on 2016-September-07, 03:48, said:

Chess has the advantage that you don't need to find a partner, only an opponent. As for poker, you can sit down and play with no training whatsoever.

And mostly, just lose and lose and lose and lose... you mean?

[Zelandakh]

 Stefan_O, on 2016-September-06, 12:48, said:

But that would definitely apply to Chess and Poker, too, both doing MUCH better recruiting new followers than Bridge.

Cannot be the right answer.

Poker has extremely instant success. Even a complete novice can go all-in on 2-7 unsuited and win. Such instant success has been known to lead to addiction on occasion. Even chess is more instant than bridge, in that once you know how the pieces move you can sit down with anyone and play a game. In addition, chess has a certain cachet as the king of mind sports in the West. How often do you hear another sport described in such terms as "chess on ice" (curling) or the like?

Bridge is different in that just knowing the rules does not allow for any sort of reasonable game. First of all you need 3 others rather than one but more importantly you also need a new language in addition to the rules. Learning bridge can be a little like going to evening classes for computer programming except that you cannot make money from it. Back in the day bridge had a similar reputation attached to it as chess and newspaper games pages usually had columns for both. In the meantime bridge has lost that mark and so it is not surprising that interest in spending the time necessarily to learn has also decreased, particularly with so many other distractions. What teenager really wants to leave their smartphone unattended for 2 hours to take a bridge class?

The recent advertising for poker has emphasised the ability to play the game on the move. There is no chance bridge can ever be marketed in such a way so the comparison tends to be unhelpful IMO. Bridge has to find a different way targeting the children and young adults willing to take the time and effort the game requires. Or, as BBF has experimented with, find alternative lightweight forms of the game to draw people in. Something really does need to be done at some point though. Otherwise we risk the game dying out completely as a social activity.

[Stefan_O]

 nullve, on 2016-September-06, 17:52, said:

Yes. Especially system design

Ok - I got that.

I've always had a strong interest in bidding-theory, systems, conventions, and testing new ideas, too.

And I agree, it might be a tricky selling-point for the majority of new people