[jdeegan]

Avid bridge players have always been fairly rare, even in the so-called "good old days". At my college in the 1960's, we had no more than 30 players out of a 1400 student body, and only five or six played duplicate. Poker was a lot more popular. Spades and Hearts were fairly popular too. Today's youthful "gamers" are more numerous - probably 20-30% of males and a few females. Some of these might graduate to BBO bridge if offered the right product.

Providing a suitable beginners' game is something that BBO is trying to set up, but it is not there yet. My thought is that eventually GIB robots might be programmed to play with different levels of players. A true beginner could play against three such robots or two beginners could match wits with two robots. Post-mortems might even be generated by using advanced GIBs. As players progress, they could play with and against better robots.

Another aspect would be to connect BBO-style "gamers" with the live game. I have not seen any indication that the people who run these two worlds want to interact. This is a shame. Together, they could promote the game more effectively. Who really cares if a bridge player learned to play online or in a supervised play class at the club?

[Hanoi5]

helene_t, on Nov 30 2009, 09:42 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!"

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.

I loved these ideas. This program would be great to teach bridge.

[olegru]

Please correct me if I am wrong.
The biggest bridge bum was when Ely Culbertson created the new bidding system and arranged games to prove his system is better than existed. Pity there was no ACBL that time to restrict the use of new “homebrew” system … of cause for the benefit of the game future and to defend beginners.

[bill1157]

Jlall, on Nov 22 2009, 05:40 AM, said:

Recently on the most popular poker forum I found a 2700+ post thread on bridge, and most of the posters are young people (some of them post here). I still think tapping into other games like poker and spades is a great way to attract young people to bridge. The #1 thing bridge has going for it is being the most interesting/complex card game around. Naturally that should appeal to young card players from other games.

Start a new mini-bridge type game on one of the poker sites: get someone like David Sklansky to develop it (he created Carribean Stud Poker, which is quite fun and very profitable for the house so i am sure he could come up with a winner of a game). Getting rid of the bidding is the most important step to making the game popular. Let declarer name the contract as in mini-bridge.
This would be simpler, easier to learn and would be amenable to betting (and since there is no bidding less amenable to cheating, UI etc.) and would require the core skills of bridge to be sucessful.
People who wanted more complexity could graduate to duplicate bridge.

Bill

[Old York]

We need a well known name (like Bill Gates or Richard Branson) to sponsor/organise a Celebrity event which should get the media coverage that bridge needs

In the past, stars like Omar Sharif and John Wayne did much to bring bridge to the "masses", but how many celebs do we know who now play?

Tony

[HeavyDluxe]

IMO, bridge has the following problems that prevent a resurgence to popularity... I will use the surge in popularity of poker as a comparison (though, admittedly, not a perfect one).

A simplicity problem - Learning to play bridge is relatively hard. The scoring is difficult to understand, the bidding language is a barrier, and the nuances of cardplay take time to appreciate. By contrast, hold'em can be taught in 1 minute, what hand beats another can fit on the back of a playing card, and the strategy/scoring are seemingly obvious.

A publicity problem - Most people are fundamentally unaware that bridge exists as a 'serious game'. Poker is all over our TV sports networks.

An image problem - Where bridge is known, it is thought of as a stodgy game for the old and elite. "My grandma plays bridge at the senior center every week." And while it is cool that Gates and Buffet play, in some sense they perpetuate the image of the game as 'elite' and 'nerdy'. Poker, on the other hand, has re-invigorated the 'gambler' image and is viewed as thriving/youthful.

The solutions, I think, are obvious, though hardly easy to execute:
1) Figure out appropriate 'gateway' games that build into playing bridge (like Mini-bridge) and find a way to get people playing it. I think a return to 'natural' bidding would help here too - even better if a couple select, highly visible events would get some pros to test skills that way.

2) Bridge needs exposure in the media. Whatever can be done to get some tournaments on TV should be done (again, especially if the bidding complexities can be explained or ignored in the telecast).

3) When bridge is exposed, a broader swath of players needs to be seen. The game needs to work to market the diversity of age and 'lifestyles' of it's players - with particular focus on people the younger generation of players. Their image will go a long way into breathing life into things. Show the old elite, too, but show them at the table with the talented junior in his jeans and wrinkled t-shirt.

[onoway]

If you are going to show tourneys in the media and expect the game to draw more people into it as a result I suggest it would need to both 1) have a super commentary as to what is going on and 2) be some sort of speedball. A game where nobody apparently does anything for minutes at a time does not lend itself to being a spectator sport for the uninitiated.

[ArcLight]

>>A simplicity problem - Learning to play bridge is relatively hard. The scoring is difficult to understand, the bidding language is a barrier, and the nuances of cardplay take time to appreciate. By contrast, hold'em can be taught in 1 minute, what hand beats another can fit on the back of a playing card, and the strategy/scoring are seemingly obvious.


This is the heart of the matter. Its very hard to convince people to learn basic bidding rules when its so much easier to do/play something else. This type of game is learned if you grow up in a house hold/environment where its played (like school).

This is why I hink a very bare bones (and crappy) system would be good to get people palying the game.

[babushkka]

onoway, on Dec 3 2009, 03:01 PM, said:

If you are going to show tourneys in the media and expect the game to draw more people into it as a result I suggest it would need to both 1) have a super commentary as to what is going on and 2) be some sort of speedball. A game where nobody apparently does anything for minutes at a time does not lend itself to being a spectator sport for the uninitiated.

Some people take a long time in poker. Just a little editing and no one knows.

[suokko]

ArcLight, on Dec 3 2009, 10:36 PM, said:

>>A simplicity problem - Learning to play bridge is relatively hard. The scoring is difficult to understand, the bidding language is a barrier, and the nuances of cardplay take time to appreciate. By contrast, hold'em can be taught in 1 minute, what hand beats another can fit on the back of a playing card, and the strategy/scoring are seemingly obvious.


This is the heart of the matter.  Its very hard to convince people to learn basic bidding rules when its so much easier to do/play something else.  This type of game is learned if you grow up in a house hold/environment where its played (like school).

This is why I hink a very bare bones (and crappy) system would be good to get people palying the game.

You just need a simple score reference table:

 [space] [space] [cl] [space] [space][di] [space] [space][he] [space] [space][sp] [space] [space]NT
1 [space] 70 [space] 70 [space] 80 [space] 80 [space] 90
2 [space] 90 [space] 90 [space]110 [space]110 [space]120
3 [space]110 [space]110 [space]140 [space]140 [space]600
....
7 1440 1440 1510 1510 1520
OT +20 [space]+20 [space]+30 [space]+30 [space]+30

and of course another table for red.

I think this kind of scoring tables should be standard part of beginner course. I could create printable pdf version if anyone wants.

[Vilgan]

Few thoughts:

1) #1 reason I've seen existing players of all ages quit is "I hit LM, and the higher levels seem sort of meaningless". I'm pretty disappointed that the ACBL STILL has all levels after the LM mark be total points/attendance awards only. If they don't feel likely to win a national championship.. there isn't much left for goal oriented people. Video games know this... WoW (most profitable video game I know of in the US) has thousands of milestones for their players to hit. 50+ other milestones that cater to all types of players (lots of gold points, lots of club points, platinum points, etc) should be a no brainer. Instead the ACBL sits around priding themselves on increasing the requirements for the ONE noticeable milestone they have. Blah.

2) A good idea (imo) would be getting bridge recognized by some mathematical accreditation deal for colleges. We've had people try to teach university intermission classes at nearby colleges and the colleges told them to take a hike. Like.. everything is okay for intermission classes here... weaving/baking/singing in a forest, etc. Ping pong is 3 credits but bridge gets laughed at? meh.

3) System - I really really hate being forced to play GCC at the club. I wish I could play midchart stuff at the club (mostly polish club) so I'd be more comfortable playing against it at nationals. I don't think it causes many people to quit though.

4) TV: doable, but edit the snot out of it. Get some good personalities in there (Zia is hilarious!) and cut 64 boards of play down to an hour. Or get Gates and Buffet and 2 other intermediate players to play. Its easier to explain intermediate mistakes/smart things than expert plays.

Movie like Rounders would be awesome, but I'm not sure I see it happening anytime soon.

[gnasher]

Vilgan, on Dec 5 2009, 12:51 AM, said:

#1 reason I've seen existing players of all ages quit is "I hit LM, and the higher levels seem sort of meaningless".

For such people, bridge was already dead.

[Vilgan]

gnasher, on Dec 4 2009, 07:15 PM, said:

Vilgan, on Dec 5 2009, 12:51 AM, said:

#1 reason I've seen existing players of all ages quit is "I hit LM, and the higher levels seem sort of meaningless".

For such people, bridge was already dead.

Poetic statement but not really true imo. You can enjoy/love the game and still be goal oriented. Many people have a variety of interests/loves, and if a better milestone system tilts their interest towards participating in bridge tournaments isn't that a good thing?

[pdmunro]

The following rings true with me.

Comments by Ulf Andersson (Chess GM, 58 yrs old in 2009, chess professional since he turned 19)

Inteviewer
"What do you think would be necessary to do in order to make chess as popular a sport as, for example, football or tennis… ?

Andersson
I do not consider chess as a sport, what so ever. ... Why would chess be as popular like football or tennis? It is how it is! Just to realise the fact. I like sports a lot. I prefer to look at sports, rather than chess on TV, when there is chess on TV. I prefer to look a game where Barcelona, Real Madrid, Manchester or Chelsea are playing, than to look at a chess game. I would look at a chess games on the professional interest, not for fun!

Source: http://susanpolgar.b...04_archive.html

      ******************
Personally, I would characterise bridge as an intellectual contest that can bring satisfaction to those who like solving puzzles in a competitive atmosphere. In comparison, sport is primarily a physical contest that can immediately engage the emotions of viewers without necessarily requiring any intellectual involvement. Viewing physical contests surely evokes a more viseral response - one involving our "reptilian brain", that part of our brain concerned with fundamental needs such as survival, dominance, preening and mating.

Do we really think that the puzzle-solving part of our brain can compete with our "reptilian brain" when it comes to spectator interest and involvement?

[gwnn]

the problem is not that bridge is not as popular as football, it is that it is much less popular than 20 years ago and the average age is growing and...

[nige1]

gwnn, on Dec 5 2009, 08:16 PM, said:

the problem is not that bridge is not as popular as football, it is that it is much less popular than 20 years ago and the average age is growing and...

IMO We want more players rather than just spectators.

[blackshoe]

I think Peter hit on a good point. "Spectator" sports are such because first, most people aren't equipped to play them — professionally, anyway — and second, the spectator gets a vicarious thrill out of watching. Bridge isn't really like that. Most people are equipped to play bridge pretty decently, even professionally, and the real thrill is in playing yourself, not watching someone else play.

[mycroft]

I'm goal oriented (sometimes), and continue to be a bridge player. There are many goals to reach after your gold card:

- Make the second day of the Red Ribbons
- Make the qualifier of the Open two-session pairs game (if you have one, and haven't yet)
- Qualify for NAP/GNT
- Win the second match of the Spingold/Vanderbilt
- Place in Flight A of your regional pairs games/Sunday Swiss
- Never being able to play in Flight B again (unfortunately, they keep changing the flights around here so that I fail at this)
- Endplay/squeeze/get a play compliment from a Name Pro

And then we go to the big ones:
- Place in the RRs
- Make the second day of the LMP/Blue Ribbons
- Make the third day of those events
- Play in your national team qualifiers
- Make it out of the RR of your national team qualifiers

And the real evil one:
- Don't screw up for N hands in a row. When you succeed, increment N and repeat.

Effectively, "do better than you have before." They aren't Achievements that get put in your book for all to see, but you know, the people that count do see them, and do mention it.

[Jlall]

Mycroft, winning the second match of the vanderbilt/spingold is by far the hardest one you listed (assuming you are not seeded well), even harder than making it out of the RR of the team trials. I would definitely put it in the "big ones" category, or even make a seperate category for it + making it out of the RR of the trials.

[mycroft]

Justin, on thinking, you are certainly correct.

It is too easy to get to the second day, especially with the 4-into-3 seeding, for it to be in the calibre I wanted; but of course, unless you are playing a 40-25 match or closer, it's probably "story-of-a-lifetime" for non-top-top-flighters.

Thanks for the correction, and well done in SD. Unfortunate, but well done.