[Bbradley62]

The more things change, the more they stay the same. This whole conversation could be a re-print from three decades ago. When I joined ACBL as a college student in the early 1980s, there were no junior or college events. A New York City Regional might include a total of two dozen college students and four pre-college kids. A few colleges had bridge clubs, but there might not have been a single high school in the country that did. Back then, the factors thought to be turning off young players were:
(1) smoking (club games and tournaments were still played in smoke-filled rooms);
(2) existing demographics (no one wants to be the only kid playing in a game full of retirees);
(3) so many other activities competing for their attention; and
(4) restrictive regulations (younger players want to be able to experiment, etc).

The smoking problem was addressed gradually in the 80s: first there were alternate non-smoking tables, then non-smoking sections, then rooms, then eventually whole tournaments. However, the other problems have continued to exist and probably always will.

To survive financially, bridge tournaments must attract retirees. ACBL has never tried to replace aging-out members with youngsters; rather, they are replaced by recent retirees. This will probably be especially true now that the Baby Boomers are reaching retirement age. The sky is not now falling; this siutation has been the same for decades. I agree with those who point out that it's very difficult to cater to both retirees and youngsters simultaneously.

I was elected to my Unit Board at 23, when I was still well-connected to the local college community. The Unit had a big emphasis on Newplicate players -- people who played house bridge but were just being brought to duplicate. As the only Board member under 40, the rest expected me to bring the college kids to the Newplicate program; they didn't understand that the youngsters didn't want to be (figuratively) patted on the head and handled with kid gloves. At least they discontinued the Masters/NonMasters event, in which only pairs including at least one player with over 100 MP could play in the Masters event; they accepted the argument that reasonably competent young players who hadn't been around long enough to accrue 100 MP would not bother to show up to play in a 0-99 game.

Online bridge could be a major asset in keeping players active. Many young adults (who may have played in high school or college) stop playing at least partly due to the time and/or financial commitment required to continue playing. If 20-and-30somethings play online, it might occur to them to return to club games as empty-nesters, rather than waiting until they're retirees. There could also be anything-goes games for the younger generation, whereas f2f games would have trouble maintaining critical mass.

[the hog]

In my opinion many of those who argue against Marston's views do so in a self serving manner. I well remember Fred saying that he does not have the time nor the inclination to learn defences to a multitude of conventions. For a professional bridge player to make a comment like this is clearly self serving. Make my life easier, please. Sure we all have other hings to do, but if you make money out of the game, you need to e prepapred to put in the hard yards - in all aspects.

I think Larry Cohen's response in the IPBA bulletinn underestimates the intelligence of the retirees who take up the game. He presents no evidence that retirees like something simple and not challenging. Indeed is there such evidence?

I also disagree with Helene's extremely broad over generalisation that "The problem is that old people don't like teenagers and teenagers consider it uncool to play a game that is mainly for the 70+ segment. System regulations is not the issue." Where is the evience for a gross generalisation like this?

[fred]

The_Hog, on Apr 18 2010, 12:38 AM, said:

In my opinion many of those who argue against Marston's views do so in a self serving manner.

Excuse me, but I argue against Marston's views because they are complete BS - there is nothing "self-serving" about it.

Marston is obviously the one who is being self-serving. He wants something that he can't have (to play whatever methods he chooses). So he makes an argument that attempts to create a link between what he wants and something unrelated that everyone wants (more young people playing bridge).

I state the obvious truth that what Marston wants will have negligable impact on what everyone wants.

What I want (for there to exist some restrictions on systems) turns out to be different from what Marston wants, but at least I am honest enough to admit that none of this is relevant as far as what everyone wants.

If I was being self-serving I would be the one trying to appeal to what everyone wants in order to advance what I want - I am not doing that here.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[nige1]

I agree with Fred that most of the reasons for the decline of Bridge are beyond player control. But we should do what little we can.

Based on my experience of Bridge teaching, I disagree about the significance of regulation. I think it would help to have simpler rules that ordinary players can understand. Including simpler licensing regulations.

Brige novices who can hardly follow suit are keen to learn the latest conventions. Beginners who blossom in a cosy class, wither in cruel cold club competition. An irate director call and incomprehensible ruling are enough to blight their enthusiasm.

Of course, I accept that individual experience is unconvincing. But administrators and regulators are in the ideal posiiton to objectively assess the views of ordinary players. They can conduct official polls like those in these fora; and call for suggestions and comment as here.

[awm]

While I still doubt that system regulation (or lack thereof) has any substantial effect on recruitment of new players, I do think that the lack of clearcut rules combined with erratic (and sometimes seemingly capricious) enforcement of the rules has some effect.

The most obvious example is acbl's "zero tolerance" policy which is enforced very rarely. Facing players who are rude or even possibly cheaters does drive people away from duplicate. For a variety of reasons, younger players often seem to get the short end here.

I know that a series of awful incidents with directing staff (from very bad rulings to things that border on harrassment) have caused me to basically quit attending local sectionals. While this is far from "quitting bridge" it does lose attendence for the league, especially since I am coaching a local university team and they are much more likely to play local tournaments if I encourage them and help arrange teams and transport.

Looking at cases like hrothgar, lack of coherent rules and a fair and clear process play as much role as "system regulation." I can think of many other examples of people who quit duplicate or cut way down on their play due to run-ins with directors or seeming unfairness of the way rules are enforced.

Fred is right about "getting people in the door" being critical, but there are also a lot of people who know the basics but never make the leap to duplicate. Often "intimidation" seems to play a role here. Clearer rules and explanations, plus more egalitarian enforcement, can help here.

[qwery_hi]

awm, on Apr 17 2010, 10:29 PM, said:

While I still doubt that system regulation (or lack thereof) has any substantial effect on recruitment of new players, I do think that the lack of clearcut rules combined with erratic (and sometimes seemingly capricious) enforcement of the rules has some effect.

The most obvious example is acbl's "zero tolerance" policy which is enforced very rarely. Facing players who are rude or even possibly cheaters does drive people away from duplicate. For a variety of reasons, younger players often seem to get the short end here.

I know that a series of awful incidents with directing staff (from very bad rulings to things that border on harrassment) have caused me to basically quit attending local sectionals. While this is far from "quitting bridge" it does lose attendence for the league, especially since I am coaching a local university team and they are much more likely to play local tournaments if I encourage them and help arrange teams and transport.

Looking at cases like hrothgar, lack of coherent rules and a fair and clear process play as much role as "system regulation." I can think of many other examples of people who quit duplicate or cut way down on their play due to run-ins with directors or seeming unfairness of the way rules are enforced.

Fred is right about "getting people in the door" being critical, but there are also a lot of people who know the basics but never make the leap to duplicate. Often "intimidation" seems to play a role here. Clearer rules and explanations, plus more egalitarian enforcement, can help here.

I am another of those young players who has given up serious bridge in favor of poker. The main attraction of poker is that it has no rules that I consider to be arbitrary or stupid.

(Alert - some boring, ranting stuff follows)
I had no problem getting attracted to bridge, since I already played chess from when I was 8 and go and strategic board games from 12. Unfortunately, growing up in India offered few opportunities for bridge, but I picked it up when I arrived in the US when I was 25. Enjoyed playing bridge for 3 years, this is proof for me that newcomers don't bother much with system regulations and attracting newcomers has little to do with system regulations.

The problem is this - if all systems were allowed, even if only at the highest levels of bridge, I would be motivated to try to improve and try to play at the highest level. However, even if at National level open event, so many arbitrary restrictions apply, there is little motivation for me to try to play in them. This is even more true at the lower levels of the game, where the number of restrictions increase rapidly.

IMO, Marston is self-serving for saying that system regulations effect entry of younger players, and Fred, Meckstroth, Chip, all of the current elite of bridge who are in favor of current restrictions at National level and International level events are equally self-serving.

[Fluffy]

What I don't understand is why don't people try something in between, getting the clubs to allow any methods 1 day a week doesn't seem very hard, and if it might get some people into the game that's great. Let the wild method players play gainst each other and have some laughs. In reality I believe not many club players will notice a big difference.

Then you can put also a couple low level/mid level tournaments a year with no restrictions and see what happens.

[helene_t]

Gonzalo, the problem is that few directors, let alone players, are able to cope with a single set of regulations. Nobody cares about system regulations so nobody find it worthwhile to find out where to read about regulations, how to read them, let alone learning the regulations by heart.

Given that one set of system regulations is already beyond reach for most, multiple sets of system regulations for different events would be completely unrealistic.

Besides, you can't expect pairs that play in multiple events to adjust their methods accordingly: At our club, we could in principle play weak-only multi on thursday, multi with strong options on friday, and no multi on monday. But nobody knows that. As it happens, few if any players at our local club would want to play any restricted methods anyway, but what would happen if some popular methods were allowed at some evenings only would be either that people would stop playing the methods at all (you don't bother making agreements about a convention that you can't play throughout), or people would just play it throughout until someone stopped them. Which probably would never happen.

[blackshoe]

When I first started playing here in Rochester, I met a guy who wanted to play Precision. Since at the time I knew nothing about system regulations, I asked the club owner if that was okay. He said "you can play anything you want." More recently, he told me that I could play the Dynamic NT (which is GCC legal) provided I treated it as if it were a Mid-Chart convention, pre-alerted it, and provided a written defense to opponents. So apparently his first statement wasn't entirely true. The Dynamic NT, btw, was banned in another club after my partner and I had been playing it there for three months (with no complaints to us about it, or director calls, in all that time). In practice, club owners/directors around here seem to operate on the principle that they will approve or disapprove conventions on an individual, at the time, basis. But it doesn't seem to matter — I haven't heard anyone else complain that they can't play their pet convention. People don't seem to think of playing Mid-Chart or higher conventions. OTOH, many of them seem to have difficulty figuring out how to play correctly the simple stuff they do play .

[blackshoe]

In ACBL terms, one might hope that a club would allow Mid-Chart conventions once in a while. One would hope that a club would not restrict agreements to less than the General Convention Chart, even though there are some things on that chart that are rarely seen (Dynamic NT being one such).

I agree with Helene that people don't really bother learning the regulations — they just play stuff that "everybody" plays, and don't worry about the regs (and frequently they don't know or play the whole convention/system of conventions (Bergen Raises, for example) just the bits they've seen other people play.

I once had this come up: playing with a then-regular, beginner level partner, we were NS when EW arrived at the table discussing this convention they used, of which my partner had never previously heard. 'What's that called?' asked partner. 'Sandwich NT', they replied. The only detail of the convention that she heard was that a bid of 1NT showed the two unbid suits, after opponents had bid the other two. So, on the very first board, RHO opens, I pass, LHO bids a new suit, partner gets this look on her face, and bids 1NT. 'Alert!' says I. 'Explain please', says RHO. 'We haven't discussed it, much less agreed it, but I'd bet she has the other two suits. She did - 4-4, with a scattered 8 count. I don't remember the result, but it wasn't good. She never bid it again.

[shevek]

As someone who earns all his income from bridge - club management, directing, teaching, writing - I have a few observations.

Occasionally, people ring up to book into beginner classes and ask "How old are the people in the class" or even "Are there some men in the class?"

Yes, you can attract youngish professional people to classes but they come with the aim of learning a new skill and don't envisage playing every Tuesday night for 30 years. By and large, night time players are empty nesters, wives of late-working businessmen, gays, random social outcasts plus the seniors who are prepared to venture out at night.

Daytime bridge in Sydney appears to be booming, though it's 80%+ female and average age pushing 70. The bell curve is skewed heavily to the right.

Here's a statement worth assessing ....
"The best way to encourage younger people to play is to discourage older people." Discuss.
Or at least funelling the seniors into daytime bridge.

How can this be achieved?
Lifting system restrictions might "help" in a very small way.
Bridgepads/mates appeal to younger = technologically aware.
Likewise internet results, TV screens scrolling running scores.
Golf-style Ratings rather than masterpoints, which reward longevity.

One club where I work recently spent $70k on a lift for their less mobile. Bad move, if the idea is to attract youth. Better for the club to be on the third floor with stair only access. Get the picture?

More 2-bd movements, more Howells, more individuals, more prizemoney!

Higher table fees would help. It can cost $15 for a game in Sydney's Eastern Suburbs. That weeds out a few pensioners. Then you have a bar, espresso, starts to sound like a fun night out.

[peachy]

helene_t, on Apr 18 2010, 07:43 AM, said:

Gonzalo, the problem is that few directors, let alone players, are able to cope with a single set of regulations. Nobody cares about system regulations so nobody find it worthwhile to find out where to read about regulations, how to read them, let alone learning the regulations by heart.

Given that one set of system regulations is already beyond reach for most, multiple sets of system regulations for different events would be completely unrealistic.

Besides, you can't expect pairs that play in multiple events to adjust their methods accordingly: At our club, we could in principle play weak-only multi on thursday, multi with strong options on friday, and no multi on monday. But nobody knows that. As it happens, few if any players at our local club would want to play any restricted methods anyway, but what would happen if some popular methods were allowed at some evenings only would be either that people would stop playing the methods at all (you don't bother making agreements about a convention that you can't play throughout), or people would just play it throughout until someone stopped them. Which probably would never happen.

Pairs are expected to adjust their methods within a single event/session, in Australia. See "Protected Pairs" http://www.abf.com.a...ystemRegs09.pdf . I just happened to read this regulation and found it interesting.

[Rossoneri]

shevek, on Apr 18 2010, 02:36 PM, said:

Higher table fees would help. It can cost $15 for a game in Sydney's Eastern Suburbs. That weeds out a few pensioners. Then you have a bar, espresso, starts to sound like a fun night out.

Not going to attract students with this I believe

Still like Young Chelsea's policy of letting full time students have free games.

[the hog]

I have often argued that there should be two tier events. Anything goes and restricted. You could even have restricted world championships if you wanted to, so sponsors would not have to worry about odious impossible to defend bids like the multi. Why not?

[awm]

The_Hog, on Apr 18 2010, 07:40 PM, said:

I have often argued that there should be two tier events. Anything goes and restricted. You could even have restricted world championships if you wanted to, so sponsors would not have to worry about odious impossible to defend bids like the multi. Why not?

I'd be pretty uninterested in playing either of these events.

My basic belief is that as long as I'm trying to reach a good contract for my side (making or sacrifice), pretty much any methods should be allowed. So I'm not that interested in playing "simple system" or "restricted methods" events where things are banned.

But at the same time, I believe there's a class of methods that are not based on trying to reach a good contract for my side, but rather are based on forcing everyone at the table to play a guessing game. Such things could easily be good tactics for weaker pairs playing against good pairs, since they usually give a little edge to the people who use them (more "used to" it, perhaps some undisclosed "style" tendencies, etc) and even a 50/50 top/bottom shot is a good deal when a weak pair plays against a good pair. But I don't think these types of methods really add to the game, and am not particularly interested in playing them or playing against them.

Perhaps the line is somewhat arbitrary; maybe one even thinks it's a preference for the "methods I like to play" and wanting to ban those I don't like. But I think there is a substantial difference between methods which are designed to show good hands and produce a sequence to an accurate contract... versus methods which show lousy hands with no known suit and are designed to up the level of the bidding without giving either side much of an idea which suit to play in or who can make what.

With that said, I do feel that there is overregulation of methods in ACBL and some other places, and that bids which show an average hand or better and/or show substantial length in a known suit should be permitted in serious events. But I'm not clamoring for "suction preempts" or "2♥ multi" and I do believe there is a difference between this and things like game-forcing relay systems or constructive transfer openings which are designed to find good contracts for the bidding side.

[the hog]

awm, on Apr 19 2010, 08:03 AM, said:

snipped

My basic belief is that as long as I'm trying to reach a good contract for my side (making or sacrifice), pretty much any methods should be allowed. So I'm not that interested in playing "simple system" or "restricted methods" events where things are banned.

But at the same time, I believe there's a class of methods that are not based on trying to reach a good contract for my side, but rather are based on forcing everyone at the table to play a guessing game. Such things could easily be good tactics for weaker pairs playing against good pairs, since they usually give a little edge to the people who use them (more "used to" it, perhaps some undisclosed "style" tendencies, etc) and even a 50/50 top/bottom shot is a good deal when a weak pair plays against a good pair. But I don't think these types of methods really add to the game, and am not particularly interested in playing them or playing against them.
snipped

That is where we differ Adam. I strongly believe that making life difficult for the opponents and hindering them from finding their best contract is an integral part of the game. I will ignore your comment about about "Undisclodes style tendencies", as in my experience, most players of more arcane methods are far more likely to engage in full disclosure than others. How often have I heard the phrase, "Its just bridge"?

Adam, I assume you play pre emptive bids and i assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you play or at least have played, weak jump overcalls. Both of these bids are attempts to make life difficult for the opponents and to some extent to induce a guessing game. So bsed on your quote above, I guess you don't believe these "really add to the game"? What about psyches? Do they add to the game? Would you ban weak jo and pre empts?

Finally to respond to your comment "I woould not be interested...." Why would you not be interested to play in a restricted event? As I said, you could even have National and International restricted events. Just because you are not interested, this does not mean others aren't. I am nt interested in playing in events where methods I enjoy are restricted. Why should you get what you want and I NOT get what I enjoy?
Ron

[awm]

I don't really care if there are events I'm not interested in playing. In fact there are many such events (play-through swiss teams at regionals are a prime example). It doesn't bother me.

But a lot of people seem to think that somehow splitting the events between "anything goes" and "simple system" will solve a problem. This ignores the fact that there are quite a few people like me who enjoy having good agreements with partner and perhaps playing slightly non-standard constructive methods, but don't enjoy playing against (or employing ourselves) a vast array of preemptive "fert" bids which carry little information about shape except "my hand is garbage, good luck guessing whether to bid/double/pass it out."

I think there is a difference between a bid that says "I have a long spade suit and a bad hand" and a bid that says "I have a bad hand with a long spade suit, or maybe short spades with both red suits, or pretty much any weak three-suiter... and partner will normally just pass my bid and hope for the best unless he has a strong hand, so good luck guessing!" The former is obstructive but describes the hand and is not too hard to defend (regardless of whether the bid is spades or some transfer to spades) whereas the latter seems very randomizing and annoying to play against.

[Mbodell]

Fluffy, on Apr 18 2010, 01:34 AM, said:

What I don't understand is why don't people try something in between, getting the clubs to allow any methods 1 day a week doesn't seem very hard, and if it might get some people into the game that's great. Let the wild method players play gainst each other and have some laughs. In reality I believe not many club players will notice a big difference.

Then you can put also a couple low level/mid level tournaments a year with no restrictions and see what happens.

We have that here. Most days at the local club it is Mid chart, but once a week it is super chart.

Not surprisingly, we have a lot of young people who play bridge (at least by bridge standards).

It is hard to keep multiple cards. For a while I was keeping 4 cards with one partner based on mid chart or not and if we could play multi or not.

When we play sectionals and regionals though it is often GCC only.

[akhare]

As other have pointed out, there are two separate issues here. Clearly, there's no evidence to support Marston's conjecture that system regulations are directly related to the decline of bridge.

At the same time, many people, including myself have been very frustrated at the lack of transparency about the proceedings of ACBL C&C and arbitrary regulations of conventions, which, at the outset can certainly appear to be designed to serve the interests of the high and mighty.

Indeed, there have been occasions on which I have considered letting my ACBL membership (on account of the stupid GCC regulations), but reconsidered because my passion for the game outweights the short sighted considerations of the powers that be.

Others in my situation may not be that patient though and it wouldn't surprise me if the regulations caused some players to quit in disgust...

[hotShot]

There are 2 issues to discuss:

1) Why are "young" people not interested in learning bridge? How do we get their interest?

2) Does system regulation drive (young) player away from bridge.


ad 1) Bridge has a bad image (at least around here). Most people (here) only read about Bridge in some Agatha Christie novel. Their impression is that is a boring game for old people to waste time.

Chess has done better advertising, being a chess player has a positive image.

ad 2) Of cause people like to experiment with the bidding system.
If they can't practice their ideas, they could get frustrated.

Offering a regular "all systems allowed" session, could help a lot.

But don't we all put to much weight to the bidding system? It's much easier to change your bidding system, than to learn to play/defend well.
Many player know lots of conventions, have an elaborated bidding systems, but lack good judgment, decent declarer play and defense.