[nige1]

ggwhiz, on Nov 28 2009, 11:12 AM, said:

It reminds me of my favorite committee ruling of all time though from the days of zero system restrictions.  One pair opened 2 hearts (a home cooked gadget) alerted and explained as "Could be this, could be that, could be something else".  This guy asked 2 or 3 more times for an explanation and got the same yada yada, finally bid 3nt, wide open in hearts but making after a spade lead.  When the committee asked why he bid 3nt, he said, "I figure that if he didn't have the courtesy to explain the bid, he didn't have the courtesy to lead his partners suit".

Won the ruling after the shortest deliberation in history.

Great story .

My own experience is that most scientists are so proud of their concoctions that they give lucid explanations. I'm afraid that it is so-called "natural-bidders" who tend to be economical with the truth about subtle implicit understandings and negative inferences.

[aguahombre]

nige1, on Nov 28 2009, 10:38 AM, said:

My own experience is that most scientists are so proud of their concoctions that they give lucid explanations.  I'm afraid that it is so-called "natural-bidders" who tend to be economical with the truth about subtle implicit understandings and negative inferences.

Yes, that is my experience, too when playing against scientists.

And, being a mostly natural bidder, I enjoy (so proud ) the opportunity to provide extra disclosure about subtle inferences, but agree that most players seem annoyed and reluctant to do the same.

[eyhung]

hrothgar, on Nov 27 2009, 06:51 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 26 2009, 04:46 PM, said:

I stopped playing specifically because of system restrictions

....

I readily admit, I play in ACBL events once in a blue moon.

So you haven't "stopped" playing -- you've just reduced the amount you played. I wonder how many of the other scientist players "stopped". It's hard to go cold turkey when you've learned enough to be able to think about playing an illegal system. (Notice there's a difference between an illegal system and a non-standard system, like, say, Polish Club here in the US).

Anyway. There have been comments about how bridge is great because it is complex. I agree! I, and many current bridge players, personally don't want bridge to be "dumbed down". Look at the failure of the "Classic Card" several years ago -- duplicate bridge addicts want their conventions. But when you are talking about appeal to the masses, to the man on the street, you either have to dumb down or accept that you will be participating in a niche hobby.

I think we can group people's tolerance of complexity as a pyramid. At the base are the hordes of people who would never be interested in playing in a card game in their spare time. Higher up are a class of people who can, but don't want to have to know too much to play. Higher up are people like my dad who enjoy bridge but want nothing to do with tournaments -- they're just looking for a good time and a socializing opportunity. Higher up are people who are willing to go to duplicate clubs, and higher up are people who are willing to go to duplicate tournaments. Near the top are the scientists who want to spend a lot of time designing/tinkering systems -- they are higher because I don't think I see any scientists from the level of "casual players", so they are a subset of tournament players. If you want to expand the popularity of bridge, it seems better to cater to people towards the bottom of the pyramid base, than to the people at the very top.

[hrothgar]

eyhung, on Nov 28 2009, 10:06 PM, said:

So you haven't "stopped" playing -- you've just reduced the amount you played. I wonder how many of the other scientist players "stopped". It's hard to go cold turkey when you've learned enough to be able to think about playing an illegal system. (Notice there's a difference between an illegal system and a non-standard system, like, say, Polish Club here in the US).

Anyway. There have been comments about how bridge is great because it is complex. I agree! I, and many current bridge players, personally don't want bridge to be "dumbed down". Look at the failure of the "Classic Card" several years ago -- duplicate bridge addicts want their conventions. But when you are talking about appeal to the masses, to the man on the street, you either have to dumb down or accept that you will be participating in a niche hobby.

I think we can group people's tolerance of complexity as a pyramid. At the base are the hordes of people who would never be interested in playing in a card game in their spare time. Higher up are a class of people who can, but don't want to have to know too much to play. Higher up are people like my dad who enjoy bridge but want nothing to do with tournaments -- they're just looking for a good time and a socializing opportunity. Higher up are people who are willing to go to duplicate clubs, and higher up are people who are willing to go to duplicate tournaments. Near the top are the scientists who want to spend a lot of time designing/tinkering systems -- they are higher because I don't think I see any scientists from the level of "casual players", so they are a subset of tournament players. If you want to expand the popularity of bridge, it seems better to cater to people towards the bottom of the pyramid base, than to the people at the very top.

As I said, I three maybe four events in the course of a year.
(I didn't even bother to play when the Nationals was here in Boston)

In contrast, before MOSCITO got banned I was playing weekly one club, a couple times a month in another, and usually at least one tournament a month (often more)

For all intents and purposes, I stopped playing

[glen]

eyhung, on Nov 28 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

...I think we can group people's tolerance of complexity as a pyramid.  At the base are the hordes of people who would never be interested in playing in a card game in their spare time.  Higher up are a class of people who can, but don't want to have to know too much to play.  Higher up are people like my dad who enjoy bridge but want nothing to do with tournaments -- they're just looking for a good time and a socializing opportunity.  Higher up are people who are willing to go to duplicate clubs, and higher up are people who are willing to go to duplicate tournaments.  Near the top are the scientists who want to spend a lot of time designing/tinkering systems -- they are higher because I don't think I see any scientists from the level of "casual players", so they are a subset of tournament players.  If you want to expand the popularity of bridge, it seems better to cater to people towards the bottom of the pyramid base, than to the people at the very top.

The flaw in this pyramid is that its foundation is the people around the average age of an ACBL member. However for the future of bridge try developing what the pyramid of bridge players under the age of 40 looks like (perhaps pyramid is too big in this context). If one consider the range of gaming options for the under 40 (farmville, counterstrike, uncharted, etc.) the ones that stick to the bridge are the few that love complexity, not the ones that want packaged pastimes.

[kenberg]

aguahombre, on Nov 28 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

nige1, on Nov 28 2009, 10:38 AM, said:

My own experience is that most scientists are so proud of their concoctions that they give lucid explanations.  I'm afraid that it is so-called "natural-bidders" who tend to be economical with the truth about subtle implicit understandings and negative inferences.

Yes, that is my experience, too when playing against scientists.

And, being a mostly natural bidder, I enjoy (so proud ) the opportunity to provide extra disclosure about subtle inferences, but agree that most players seem annoyed and reluctant to do the same.

I am interested in what you feel are instances. For example: !C-1H-1NT. With most of my partners I am virtually certain he holds four clubs since he has to have four of something. If he has four spades I expect him to bid them over 1H, although I suppose it is not unheard of for him to decide to grab the no trump. If asked, I would explain as above, and perhaps add that if he chooses to skip over spades we have no mechanism for uncovering it. People, including my partners, can bid what they want but on the auction above I expect four clubs.
On the auction 1H-2H I have no reason to think he cannot have four spades or perhaps five, for that matter.
On the auction 1NT-2C-2H-2NT I alert if we are playing four suit transfers since this sounds like a hand with four spades while in fact it is a hand without four spades. On the other hand, 1NT-2C-2H-3NT is a hand with four spades and I do not alert. Are you thinking that this should be?

I suppose here is a case: 1NT-2C-2H-2NT-pass, opener might have four spades while with 1NT-2C-2S opener will not have four hearts. Not playing four suit transfers a case can be made for responding either spades or hearts when holding both, but with four suit, the repsonse holding both must be hearts. So there could be something to explain here.

I have heard this complain before about natural bidders and I would like to pin down a little more just what is being said.

[onoway]

"The flaw in this pyramid is that its foundation is the people around the average age of an ACBL member. However for the future of bridge try developing what the pyramid of bridge players under the age of 40 looks like (perhaps pyramid is too big in this context). If one consider the range of gaming options for the under 40 (farmville, counterstrike, uncharted, etc.) the ones that stick to the bridge are the few that love complexity, not the ones that want packaged pastimes."

Well, I think you are judging only from a limited viewpoint. My neices and nephew(all under 40) all play and they play with their kids (all under the age of 16) as well as friends and afaik none of them have the least interest in searching out more complex forms of the game. They have challenging jobs and play for relaxation and social interaction. Their standard of play would likely compare to the lower advanced/upper intermediate level on BBO.(the kids not yet but they're coming along) They don't belong to acbl nor care about formal competitions. BUT...it's people like them who will imo opinion be keeping the game alive rather than people who decide to quit bridge because they can't use a favorite toy.

[TimG]

eyhung, on Nov 28 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

(Notice there's a difference between an illegal system and a non-standard system, like, say, Polish Club here in the US).

While I understand these bids are not integral to the system, I cannot play WJ2005 as published in most ACBL events because the 2D, 2H and 2S openings are not GCC legal.

[Winstonm]

I admit to not keeping up with this thread. However, in my case I never would have learned bridge if it hadn't been taught simply and play began immediately.

I am still a huge fan of Charles Goren for the masses.

[aguahombre]

Kenberg, the word was "inferences". And yes, even though most of our agreements on the example auctions are different from yours, we disclose --if asked. And some sequences are alertable in our style. Going into more detail would sort of hijack, so if interested will comm by email.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on Nov 28 2009, 05:53 PM, said:

I admit to not keeping up with this thread. However, in my case I never would have learned bridge if it hadn't been taught simply and play began immediately.

I am still a huge fan of Charles Goren for the masses.

I first learned bridge in 1961 so not surprisingly I learned it by reading Goren. It's very rubber bridge oriented and perhaps therein lies a tale. I had no time for or interest in duplicate, I just played with friends in the evening. Good cheap entertainment for grad students. I played a little, off and on, here and there, and then started duplicate in the late seventies.

Whenever people speak of getting young people into bridge these days, they mean into duplicate or tournament bridge. I believe that in 1961 nothing would have got me into duplicate except maybe a game very nearby (no car) and a place to put the baby while we played. Even then, probably not. Easier to play at home and the baby sleeps better there. Later, things changed, duplicate became more attractive.

Really nothing anyone could have done about that. Promoting rubber bridge at home may pay off down the line though.

[rduran1216]

I am 23 going on 24. I started playing April of this year. Nobody my age plays bridge, and all the regulars in the club have been playing since college. Well unfortunately nobody plays in college anymore, and with the advent of many other games bridge will never be as popular.

The people at tournaments are obnoxious, and many players have an archaic attachment to protocol that will never catch on in my generation. Fortunately, I'm good enough at it to enjoy playing.

[porh]

Im 22 and I've played bridge for about 6 years already. I came to the US about a year ago for school but frankly, my passion for bridge has been waning for the past few months has been waning and part of the reason is due to the inability to find a partner in my area around my age group.

[eyhung]

TimG, on Nov 28 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

eyhung, on Nov 28 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

(Notice there's a difference between an illegal system and a non-standard system, like, say, Polish Club here in the US).

While I understand these bids are not integral to the system, I cannot play WJ2005 as published in most ACBL events because the 2D, 2H and 2S openings are not GCC legal.

Well, I have actually played WJ2005 in GCC events with standard weak twos. The big selling point of the Polish Club for me is the ambiguous club opening, and that's GCC-legal. I must say I did enjoy people using their CRASH and Suction and strong club germ warfare vs. hands that were weak notrumps, but I realized I was getting better results with 2/1 because my judgement had been honed with it.

I think Polish Twos should be GCC-legal at some point, but you know what, I don't think the lack of a toy is going to impact results very much. I like to think of bridge players as cooks, and systems as the tools they use to create a meal. Good tools are better than bad tools, but even a great cook can make a great meal without a boning knife, garlic press, vegetable brush, etc. Just give them basic tools and ingredients and the results will still be pretty good (although not as good with top-class aids) . Put a lousy cook in a top chef's kitchen, though, and the meal you get still won't be any good.

[babalu1997]

kenberg, on Nov 28 2009, 09:07 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Nov 28 2009, 05:53 PM, said:

I admit to not keeping up with this thread.  However, in my case I never would have learned bridge if it hadn't been taught simply and play began immediately.

I am still a huge fan of Charles Goren for the masses.

I first learned bridge in 1961 so not surprisingly I learned it by reading Goren. It's very rubber bridge oriented and perhaps therein lies a tale. I had no time for or interest in duplicate, I just played with friends in the evening. Good cheap entertainment for grad students. I played a little, off and on, here and there, and then started duplicate in the late seventies.

Whenever people speak of getting young people into bridge these days, they mean into duplicate or tournament bridge. I believe that in 1961 nothing would have got me into duplicate except maybe a game very nearby (no car) and a place to put the baby while we played. Even then, probably not. Easier to play at home and the baby sleeps better there. Later, things changed, duplicate became more attractive.

Really nothing anyone could have done about that. Promoting rubber bridge at home may pay off down the line though.

But Ken if you had the computer back then, then you would have started playing duplicate right away.

Sometimes I play with a young couple. Couple , I say because sometimes the tournament starts when the wife is busy with the baby, and the husband fills in until she gets back on.

I played at a club for 6 months when i first started. In this club, the beginners gathered in a table and took turns as players and kibbitzers and the director and sitout pairs would come and fill in spaces as time allowed.

I eventually played with an 80 year old partner, but he died 3 months later. (the autopsy exonerated me).

Then i came to bbo and hung around the bil and refugee club for a while, using ltpb program.

One time this fella rated expert said he wanted to partner with me. I believed him, that he was expert and that he wanted to partner with me. i told him i was a noob.

But i tried hard, ordered a bunch of books and software, spent a couple of hundred dollars. Before the books arrived, and after about 3 games, the guy started ducking me, explaining that he would play with me at a pre-arranged time, set the time, i said. He did not. So he received the honour of being my first enemy.

So i asked this long-suffering partner if he would play 2 over 1 books with me so my money would not go to waste. He told me he was too old to learn the stuff, and then told me-- Read the books.

That is what i have done ever since, and have become obsessed with KS, and always ask new partners if they want to try it.

I have no plans of playing live bridge, so bbo is my realm, tho i like partnerships, at the end of the day, bridge above all, partners come and go. Or perhaps a fool is born every minute who will partner with me.

[awm]

There are a lot of different factors involved in getting people interested in bridge. For the most part I think the system regulation thing is a projection of people's own taste onto the problem, by both sides of the issue. There are very few people quitting bridge primarily because the methods they like are not allowed. There are also very few people who would quit bridge if more methods were allowed. The fact is that even in countries with very liberal system regulations, you don't see all that many people taking advantage of this and the vast majority play something pretty close to local standard (whether that's Standard American or Acol or Polish Club). So it's not that likely that having more liberal regulations is a huge help to growing the game. On the other hand, most of the complaints about "weird systems" come from very established long-term players (yes, sometimes their complaint is "this will scare new players away from the game" but it's important to keep in mind who's complaining -- it's almost never the new players). And the countries with more liberal regulations are doing as well or better at publicizing bridge than the countries with stricter regulations. System regulation is a really minor issue. A lot of the complaints about systems one way or the other also come down to rudeness -- people playing an unusual (but possibly even legal) system are harassed by constant director calls (usually from very experienced opponents who should be able to deal)... or people who "don't like unusual systems" develop this opinion by playing against one of the small percentage of players who don't practice full disclosure of their non-standard methods.

The reason people stick with bridge is usually a social reason. Bridge involves more interaction with other people than games like poker or chess. Bridge is played on teams and a big part of the enjoyment comes from the people you partner with. When people stick with bridge over the long term, while a bit of it probably comes from fascination with the game itself, an awful lot of it is the friends people make through bridge, the fact that it's a good way to meet people in a new town with an interest in common. What keeps people going back to the club week after week? To a great degree it's the friendships they form there. The problem for younger players is that the folks at the club are unlikely to be their social clique -- the age difference is just too great to overcome. So the way to get young players involved in bridge is to have a club where there are lots of young players.... obviously this is easier said than done, but ACBL's youth NABC is a good idea. Getting youngsters to nationals helps, since there is more of a "critical mass" of young players at a large tournament.

One thing I'm wondering about is the increasing amount of flighting in ACBL events. One of the things that's often talked up about bridge is that everyone has the opportunity to play against the best (unlike chess for example, where it's hard to get a match against a grand master unless you're a master yourself). The flighting, bracketing, etc. is designed to protect players who would prefer to compete against those of a comparable level. Both these things (the opportunity to play the best, the opportunity to compete within one's own level) seem to be desirable. The problem is that because master points are used for all the flighting and do not accurately represent skill, issues are created at both ends of the spectrum. I know some improving young players who would enjoy playing against "the best" but virtually never get the opportunity because they don't have enough master points to get into the bracket one knockout where all the top players are (very few of the top players are in the open pairs these days at regionals). I also know some folks who've played club games persistently for years and have accumulated a few thousand master points, and no longer want to go to regional tournaments because they'll be forced to play in "A" against much stronger players. I know of people who quit ACBL because they'd otherwise accumulate too many points to play in the 99er game with all their friends, or who try to negotiate the 99er game into a 299er game (and then a 499er game, etc) until it becomes inhospitable to truly new players. It makes me wonder whether basing stratification on a more legitimate rating system (while maintaining master points which only accumulate as a measure of accomplishment rather than skill) might be better for the game.

[helene_t]

awm, on Nov 30 2009, 04:29 AM, said:

[.....] master points are used for all the flighting and do not accurately represent skill [....] I know some improving young players who would enjoy playing against "the best" but virtually never get the opportunity because they don't have enough master points to get into the bracket one knockout where all the top players are (very few of the top players are in the open pairs these days at regionals).

I think Swiss movement is addresses this.

In Scheveningen they first divide players into groups on the basis of self-reported skill level - not like expert/advanced/etc which is too subjective but on the basis of the highest level someone is entitled to play at (master series through 1st dvision, 2nd division through "hoofdklasse", and 1st class through 3rd class). I suspect most people would be honest about their skill level as it's an objective thing (their could be a problem with foreign pairs who are not familiar with the Dutch competition). Then after the first section players with extreme ranking are promoted or relegated.

This ranking is, w.r.t. teams, done like this: Each club is entitled to so-many pairs at this and that level o.t.b.o. their teams' performance in previous years. The club selects their two best pairs for their A team etc.

[helene_t]

The saint said:

:"To counter this, perhaps Bill Gates could bundle Bridge software with every copy of Windows he sells. He can afford it. I know he likes the game. And how many players (especially youngsters)would have their curiosity aroused by it. GO ON BILL. DO IT!"

Free said:

:"The idea of Bill Gates inserting Bridge into windows would indeed be a great idea, but NOBODY will understand it! It's not playing Hearts or Freecell, it's BIDDING, showing shape, strength,... Imo, it's extremely difficult to learn that by just playing or kibitzing the game"

Many computer games are very complex, but you typically start at a low level with simple rules, slow tempo, low complexity, weak "opponents" (or enemies or monsters or whatever they are called). As you master the skills for that level you get more challenges.

Bridge could start with declarer play problems with open cards, only two suits, only 6 cards in each hands. Notrump contracts. As you master that level, it will get more complex until you reach realistic declarer play problems. At that stage you could get some hands from real tournaments, and after the hand you could get a video showing Zia bragging about his diabolic deception play. Or, if some of your facebook (or whatever) friends happen to play on BBO you could get some hands that they have played. Possibly annotated with some comments made by your facebook friend (obviously it wouldn't work just to make random chat available but some solution could be found, i.e. players marking comments for their friends and goldstars marking comments for everyone).

You could also start practicing defense before having reached the 52-card level, so that you could play online. Here is how it works: when practicing declarer play, you check "allow humans to defend" and set "time per card" to, say, 7 secs. Anyone could then join your table as a defender, but if they take more than 7 secs to play a card, the computer will make a choice for them using a pretty dump algorithm. This prevents "stalling". Obviously you can chat with the defenders, mark them as friend etc as on bbo. In fact this should be a part of bbo.

[Kiwi_Joker]

I have a strong theory about getting young people interested in the game.

Just about every young learner I have seen has the same mindset - make the contract = good / go light in the contract = bad. That is why they beam with satisfaction at making 2C on a combined 29 count, and look disconsolate when they go -1 in 3D; not realising that in fact the first result is a shocker, but the latter one may be superb.

They need a graphic demonstration that going -1 in 3D undoubled is actually a fantastic result (when the opps have 2H cold). And they will not grasp this concept until they see their score on the brutal cold light of day on the score sheet.

So: get them out of the house and into a competitive game ASAP. Let them see their score - maybe it's 38% first time. Second time it's 42%.

I find that if they don't care why two thirds of the field are ahead of them - you're wasting your time trying to get them interested in bridge. Leave them to their Nintendo's and WII's, their Facebook's and the BEBO's. If, on the other hand, they are REALLY BUGGED by the fact that they are in the bottom half, and they want the answer to that all-important question about a bad board - WHY??? ... then nurture them. They are the champions of tomorrow.

[nige1]

helene_t, on Nov 30 2009, 08:42 AM, said:

The saint said:

:"To counter this, perhaps Bill Gates could bundle Bridge software with every copy of Windows he sells. He can afford it. I know he likes the game. And how many players (especially youngsters)would have their curiosity aroused by it. GO ON BILL. DO IT!"

Thank you for posting this Helene_t -- I couldn't find Saint's original -- but I think that's the best idea yet -- He might even include BBO as a menu link in IE.