[the hog]

eyhung, on Nov 27 2009, 06:26 AM, said:

nige1, on Nov 26 2009, 03:30 PM, said:

I also agree with the BBOers who think that young, bright, and adventurous would-be players are frustrated by system-restrictions.

Poppycock. As a younger player myself who has taught several peers how to play, I never met anyone who "refused to continue to play bridge" because of system restrictions. Rudeness, yes. Too complex, yes. Too many other competing interests, yes. But too restrictive on system? Come on! Oh, I grant you there probably exists some person who has stopped playing bridge due to the "draconian regulations". But for every player who refuses to play bridge because "they won't let me play what I want to play" I will bet there are dozens who aren't interested in playing because it's too hard.

Sure, system wonks are frustrated that their systems are not allowed. I myself would like to see some changes to the current system policy in ACBL-land. But saying that would-be players are frustrated to the extent that they're not going to play bridge? Give me a break. Bridge is declining in popularity not because of system restrictions, but for many other reasons, and it is misleading to project your frustrations onto the mass of beginning bridge players.

It's not "poppycock". I know of many who have stopped precisley because of these reasons. This is in Australia, by the way, where systems regulations are far less draconian than in your country.

[maggieb]

eyhung, on Nov 26 2009, 06:26 PM, said:

Poppycock.  As a younger player myself who has taught several peers how to play, I never met anyone who "refused to continue to play bridge" because of system restrictions.  Rudeness, yes.  Too complex, yes.  Too many other competing interests, yes.  But too restrictive on system?  Come on!  Oh, I grant you there probably exists some person who has stopped playing bridge due to the "draconian regulations".  But for every player who refuses to play bridge because "they won't let me play what I want to play" I will bet there are dozens who aren't interested in playing because it's too hard. 

Sure, system wonks are frustrated that their systems are not allowed.  I myself would like to see some changes to the current system policy in ACBL-land.  But saying that would-be players are frustrated to the extent that they're not going to play bridge?  Give me a break.  Bridge is declining in popularity not because of system restrictions, but for many other reasons, and it is misleading to project your frustrations onto the mass of beginning bridge players.

Great post.

[aguahombre]

It is partly semantics. Young people have a harder time accepting restrictions which they cannot do anthing about, so they tend to take their marbles and go home. With maturity we all learn to deal with what we don't like, work to change things we don't like, and accept the fact that we cannot have everything our way.

It is not the system restrictions themselves, but some people's inability to accept rules, that cause them to drop bridge or quit other endeavors which are regulated.
Drug restrictions are the reason many athletes drop out --or is it their refusal to comply with the drug restrictions?

[Trinidad]

eyhung, on Nov 27 2009, 12:26 AM, said:

nige1, on Nov 26 2009, 03:30 PM, said:

I also agree with the BBOers who think that young, bright, and adventurous would-be players are frustrated by system-restrictions.

Poppycock. As a younger player myself who has taught several peers how to play, I never met anyone who "refused to continue to play bridge" because of system restrictions. Rudeness, yes. Too complex, yes. Too many other competing interests, yes. But too restrictive on system? Come on! Oh, I grant you there probably exists some person who has stopped playing bridge due to the "draconian regulations". But for every player who refuses to play bridge because "they won't let me play what I want to play" I will bet there are dozens who aren't interested in playing because it's too hard.

Sure, system wonks are frustrated that their systems are not allowed. I myself would like to see some changes to the current system policy in ACBL-land. But saying that would-be players are frustrated to the extent that they're not going to play bridge? Give me a break. Bridge is declining in popularity not because of system restrictions, but for many other reasons, and it is misleading to project your frustrations onto the mass of beginning bridge players.

Nothing poppycock.

Just compare the age of bridge players with the system regulations. In the ACBL, the average age is 69, I believe. And system policies are very conservative. That is not so much because of Memphis. It is because the club owners view retired people as their "market" and they protect that market accordingly.

I don't know about Australia, but in Europe, the participation of "younger people" (not only juniors, but anybody under 45) is much larger. And the system regulations are more liberal.

Since in Europe there actually are younger players, you can see where the dividing lines go: The older generation claims that they (the younger players) should not be allowed to play this (funky systems). But in many European countries they are allowed to play that.

I agree with you that there are other factors that are dominating in driving new players away, with rudeness being on top of my list. But system restrictions are a significant factor in driving away young players. Please note that there is a difference between "young" and "new".

Rik

[eyhung]

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

eyhung, on Nov 27 2009, 02:26 AM, said:

Poppycock.  As a younger player myself who has taught several peers how to play, I never met anyone who "refused to continue to play bridge" because of system restrictions.

I stopped playing specifically because of system restrictions

Oh really? A quick Google search turns up :

http://web2.acbl.org.../04/0904035.htm

Richard Willey earned 1.28 masterpoints in April 2009.

http://www.nebridge....T08totalMPs.htm

Richard Willey earned 13.78 masterpoints for the 2008 Flight B GNTs.

You may have started your boycott after April. I wonder if the ACBL has even noticed.


Besides, I actually thought you of all people might say something like this, Richard, which is why I specifically noted that there do exist some people who would choose not to play due to system restrictions. I just have not personally met someone who has, and you cannot disprove that. From my perspective, and I suspect the perspective of most others, the Richard Willeys are far outnumbered by the Aunt Gerties who have been playing for years and the recent retirees who are looking to have a good time.

People on Internet forums are unrepresentative of the general membership -- they tend to be younger, more inquisitive, less conforming, and more mathematical. For example, I doubt 1 US duplicate player in 100 has bothered to learn a symmetric relay system. The percentage is far higher on Internet forums -- heck, even I've learned TOSR. But I at least know I am not representative of the US population. I can't speak for Down Under, apparently, but neither can they speak for us.

[eyhung]

Trinidad, on Nov 26 2009, 11:59 PM, said:

I agree with you that there are other factors that are dominating in driving new players away, with rudeness being on top of my list. But system restrictions are a significant factor in driving away young players. Please note that there is a difference between "young" and "new".

No, system restrictions are a significant factor in driving away scientific players. Most scientific players are young, but not all young players are scientific -- and I'd say a small minority are scientific enough to want to play an illegal system. But the post I was originally replying to stated it was driving away "young adventurous would-be players" i.e. young and new players. I think we agree that for new players, rudeness, culture, and complexity is far more of a problem. To conflate these problems with system restrictions is putting way too much emphasis on the latter.

[eyhung]

eyhung, on Jan 17 2004, 04:19 AM, said:

A good topic, but I see it has devolved into the usual scientist vs. naturalist wranglings, a topic that generates far more heat than light.

My opinion is that people tend to superimpose their personal views for improving the game as the "solution" towards bridge's popularity.   After all, if X were changed, they would like the game better, so why wouldn't more people like the game better?  I think such a view is simplistic.  For example, I believe that if many more conventions were allowed (or banned) there would be little significant change.  More scientists would play (or quit), but then more naturalists would do the opposite.  No, I think the problem is due to a combination of factors beyond the technical: namely, cultural, social, and marketing.  Not just one, but all of these need to be addressed before a "tipping point" in bridge popularity is reached.

Why do I believe this?  Because I look at why things in general are popular, before pinning the blame on convention support or the lack thereof.  Take bridge in the 30s, and then poker in 2003.

Why did bridge become so popular in the 30s?

1) It was a high quality game.

2) It was invented by Harold Vanderbilt, one of the social elite of New York.  Everyone wanted to play his version of auction bridge, in order to be like the Vanderbilts.

3) It was new, so the gap between experts and beginners was not so great as it is now.  The experts could play the cards very well, but bidding did not require nearly as much study as it does now.

4) The Great Depression gave us little outlet for cheap entertainment beyond games centered around the family and close friends.

5) It was heavily promoted by a marketing genius, Ely Culbertson.

Now compare this to the situation today:

1) It is still a high quality game, despite heated disagreements about conventions and appeals committees.  But quality alone does not guarantee popularity.  (See Monopoly vs. recent German-style board games, Betamax vs. VHS, Eagle potato chips vs. Lays, any reasonable OS vs. Windows, etc.)

2) Few celebrities play bridge, so there are no significant social factors.  The only super-famous person who frequently talks about bridge is Bill Gates.  (Yes, I greatly admire Warren Buffett and acknowledge Omar Sharif, but they are not celebrities people focus on.)

3) It is a mature game, with lots of theory that a novice must learn before he can become competent, let alone expert.  Thus, the gap appears huge and it is mostly  students, retirees, or the unemployed who have the time and effort to close this gap.

4) In our affluent and highly mobile society, we have far more options and avenues for entertainment than a card game.  We have a wide variety of physical sports, PlayStations, movies, concerts, and parties at our convenience.  Bridge must compete with all of these alternatives.

5) There is nobody promoting bridge to a mass media outlet.  We just had a sensational World Championship, with the outcome resting on the final (and controversial) board, and there was practically no mention of it in the mainstream press.

6) With near-instantaneous communications and catering of personal demands, our culture has shifted focus from a slow appreciation of subtleties to instant and immediate gratification.  This does not help bridge, which requires a lot of effort to appreciate, let alone master.  (I see this also in the decline of classical music, theater, poetry readings, letter writing, and other culturally out-of-tune pursuits.)

Now, let's look at poker, also a card game, but which got massively popular in America in 2003.  Like bridge, poker had a poor image problem before last year, that of degenerate gamblers wasting their money and lives.  But:

1) Like bridge, it is also a great game.

2) Many celebrities are shown playing and enjoying poker.  People want to be like Ben Affleck or Matt Damon or David Schwimmer.  And great poker players are becoming celebrities in their own right, because of the large amounts of money that they are winning.

3) Poker is not as deep as bridge, because there are fewer decision branches, and short-term results are much more dependent on psychology and luck rather than skill and theory.  Thus it is far more accessible to the casual player, and even an amateur can play with the experts and win the world championship (as in 2002 and 2003).

4) Poker is being written up everywhere in the media, and many networks are now sponsoring poker shows.  They're even airing a poker show opposite the Super Bowl later this month.

5) Poker is a much faster-paced game than bridge, with a hand every 1-2 minutes instead of 7-10, and is thus more culturally attuned.

6) Poker is an interesting spectator sport, because the hole card cameras give the viewer enough information to play along and experience the agonies and ecstasies of the game.  This markets the game far more effectively than anything Audrey Grant could say.

I am not saying that poker is a better game; however, it is far more suitable than bridge to being popular because it is not in conflict with as many of the negative factors I mentioned earlier.  And until bridge resolves the social, cultural, and marketing issues I cited above, I doubt any technical changes such as convention restrictions will make the game widely popular.

Eugene Hung

Oddly enough, I was looking through the history of this very thread and I found I already posted a similar argument 5 years ago. Some things never change, do they?

[Trinidad]

eyhung, on Nov 27 2009, 08:18 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Nov 26 2009, 11:59 PM, said:

I agree with you that there are other factors that are dominating in driving new players away, with rudeness being on top of my list. But system restrictions are a significant factor in driving away young players. Please note that there is a difference between "young" and "new".

No, system restrictions are a significant factor in driving away scientific players. Most scientific players are young, but not all young players are scientific -- and I'd say a small minority are scientific enough to want to play an illegal system. But the post I was originally replying to stated it was driving away "young adventurous would-be players" i.e. young and new players. I think we agree that for new players, rudeness, culture, and complexity is far more of a problem. To conflate these problems with system restrictions is putting way too much emphasis on the latter.

You think wrong, we don't agree on that. We only agree on the rudeness part.

When it comes to culture: When I was 30, I didn't have any problem joining the cook outs in the local bridge club.

When it comes to complexity: Bridge is a complex game. That is what makes it bridge and that is what makes it attractive. I may be wrong, but there are a lot less people playing competitive hearts than bridge. So, the complexity of bridge is an asset, rather than a problem.

And when it comes to what you call "science". Bridge is a mind sport. Who do you think is going to be attracted to mind sports? Do you think I (with my physical fitness, or lack thereof) would consider taking up boxing? To me it is fairly obvious that bridge attracts "scientists" and boxing attracts "muscles".

In reality, system regulations have little to do with scientists vs naturalists. They are about experience vs creativity. And in the ACBL, experience is protected against creativity by limiting what is unfamiliar. Unfamiliar is the bad word, it pops up everywhere.

Nobody is arguing that Stayman should be forbidden, despite the fact that it is science. That is because it is familiar science. Oh wait, yes, Stayman actually was forbidden (and maybe still is, I don't know). But that was to stop people from playing kamikaze 1NT openings. They are, of course, entirely natural but they are unfamiliar.

So, unfamiliarity is considered the bad thing, even if it is natural. And science is perfectly okay, under the condition that it is familiar to the experienced population of ACBL.

Rik

[TimG]

eyhung, on Nov 27 2009, 02:08 AM, said:

Besides, I actually thought you of all people might say something like this, Richard, which is why I specifically noted that there do exist some people who would choose not to play due to system restrictions. I just have not personally met someone who has, and you cannot disprove that.

Even if there are not those who have stopped playing completely, there are likely those who play less often and/or are less serious about bridge as a result of system regulations. I can truthfully say that over the years I have played less often than I would have under more liberal system regulations.

I do not meant to suggest that I am typical or that those in my situation are significant in number.

[hrothgar]

eyhung, on Nov 27 2009, 10:08 AM, said:

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

eyhung, on Nov 27 2009, 02:26 AM, said:

Poppycock.  As a younger player myself who has taught several peers how to play, I never met anyone who "refused to continue to play bridge" because of system restrictions.

I stopped playing specifically because of system restrictions

Oh really? A quick Google search turns up :

http://web2.acbl.org.../04/0904035.htm

Richard Willey earned 1.28 masterpoints in April 2009.

http://www.nebridge....T08totalMPs.htm

Richard Willey earned 13.78 masterpoints for the 2008 Flight B GNTs.

You may have started your boycott after April. I wonder if the ACBL has even noticed.

I readily admit, I play in ACBL events once in a blue moon.
Normally, if I'm playing, I'm playing socially with Tim Goodwin and/or Sue Ostrowski.

In the case of the 2008 GNTs, Bar Margolin (Barmar on these forums) needed a 4th to round out a GNT team. I agreed to fill in. We had a pretty good track record, up until the finals.

I suspect that TimG and Barmar would be happy to comment on the relative frequency that I play bridge here in New England before/after MOSCITO getting banned...

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Nov 27 2009, 08:51 AM, said:

eyhung, on Nov 27 2009, 10:08 AM, said:

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

eyhung, on Nov 27 2009, 02:26 AM, said:

Poppycock.  As a younger player myself who has taught several peers how to play, I never met anyone who "refused to continue to play bridge" because of system restrictions.

I stopped playing specifically because of system restrictions

Oh really? A quick Google search turns up :

http://web2.acbl.org.../04/0904035.htm

Richard Willey earned 1.28 masterpoints in April 2009.

http://www.nebridge....T08totalMPs.htm

Richard Willey earned 13.78 masterpoints for the 2008 Flight B GNTs.

You may have started your boycott after April. I wonder if the ACBL has even noticed.

I readily admit, I play in ACBL events once in a blue moon.
Normally, if I'm playing, I'm playing socially with Tim Goodwin and/or Sue Ostrowski.

He missed

http://www.nebridge....Ind/Overall.htm

Richard Willey won 18.91 masterpoints in a Flight B KO.

[helene_t]

Trinidad, on Nov 27 2009, 07:59 AM, said:

I agree with you that there are other factors that are dominating in driving new players away, with rudeness being on top of my list. But system restrictions are a significant factor in driving away young players. Please note that there is a difference between "young" and "new".

I dunno. I think younger players stay away from the clubs mainly because there are so few other young players. That is what I hear when I ask young card players why they don't play bridge, or young bridge players why they don't join bridge clubs.

When I was 10 I wanted to play bridge at the club but my parents thought it was a bad idea for a number of reasons, all related to the club culture (smoking, drinking, too late hours, lack of young people). I didn't insist and joined a volleyball club and a field ecologist corps instead. I would sometimes read "Dansk Bridge" or play 3-player bridge with my dad and my brother, and play one or two afternoons a year on family reunions. At 34 I considered myself old enough to play at the club although I was still seen as a kid then, after all I was younger than the kids of most of the other players.

[nige1]

nige1, on Nov 26 2009, 03:30 PM, said:

I also agree with the BBOers who think that young, bright, and adventurous would-be players are frustrated by system-restrictions.

eyhung, on Nov 26 2009, 06:26 PM, said:

Poppycock.  As a younger player myself who has taught several peers how to play, I never met anyone who "refused to continue to play bridge" because of system restrictions.  Rudeness, yes.  Too complex, yes.  Too many other competing interests, yes.  But too restrictive on system?  Come on!  Oh, I grant you there probably exists some person who has stopped playing bridge due to the "draconian regulations".  But for every player who refuses to play bridge because "they won't let me play what I want to play" I will bet there are dozens who aren't interested in playing because it's too hard.  Sure, system wonks are frustrated that their systems are not allowed.  I myself would like to see some changes to the current system policy in ACBL-land.  But saying that would-be players are frustrated to the extent that they're not going to play bridge?  Give me a break.   Bridge is declining in popularity not because of system restrictions, but for many other reasons, and it is misleading to project your frustrations onto the mass of beginning bridge players.

Online Etymology Dictionary said:

poppycock 1865, probably from Du. dialect pappekak, from M.Du. pappe "soft dung" (see pap) + kak "dung," from L. cacare "to excrete."

I feel that those who agree with hrothgar should be more vocal in his support, rather than carp about his complaints. I too know a former player who got fed up with system restrictions. Although I fear that administrators will continue to resist change.

I agree with eyhung, however, that system restrictions aren't the main reason for the decline in Bridge. Most of the causes (Computer games, Television, and so on) we can do little about. We can, however, campaign for less complex laws that would make the club-game less fraught for beginners. Older players tend to resent change in the status quo but they aren't the only players whose feelings we should consider.

In Scotland, there was a time when university bridge clubs had many members and fielded the strongest teams. Perhaps, with the right publicity, media support, and promotion by charismatic characters, we can encourage such seed-corn.

[Phil]

Agree with Eugene here. While I can't provide any statistics I can tell you from experience that more people are turned off by having to play against the cyclops 2♦ opener than get turned off by wanting to play it and cannot.

Of course when these players drag themselves to the left coast to play in some NABC I believe they need to prepare themselves accordingly for unfamiliar treatments.

I also think approval of new systems needs to be more straightforward and not based on 'who you know'.

[TimG]

Phil, on Nov 27 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

Agree with Eugene here. While I can't provide any statistics I can tell you from experience that more people are turned off by having to play against the cyclops 2♦ opener than get turned off by wanting to play it and cannot.

In my experience, it is highly correlated to age. Older newcomers (and experienced players) are often put off by exotic methods, younger newcomers are not. There are many more older newcomers than young newcomers, so you are probably correct that more people are turned off by facing the exotic than turned off by not being able to play the exotic.

I agree with others, that this is unlikely to be a major consideration for most newcomers (or new-to-tournament players).

[hanp]

I don't dare to repeat Eugene's word but I also agree. System regulations are completely irrelevant to the beginning player, but club atmosphere is very important.

[Cascade]

nige1, on Nov 27 2009, 11:30 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Jan 16 2004, 06:13 PM, said:

Re Meckstroth and his motives, you may know him well, however I stand by my claim. His behaviour directed at a visiting Australian team last year when he was playing with and attempting to protect his client was disgraceful to say the least. I would point any interested parties to the following link to allow them to judge for themselves:
http://www.nswba.com...news/JDR_4B.htm
I also refer you to comments that Richard Willey, (Hrothgar), has made regarding his dealings with him, and the intransigence shown.

The Hog's link doesn't work any more

Here is the relevant part of the text:

"So far Canadian bridge had been reasonably friendly but the final against Meckwell changed all our impressions. Just to give you two examples: Col and I sat down to play against Meckstroth and his client, and pre-alerted our 2C opening (weak with both majors). Meckstroth asked if we had a written defence, and we offered to write one out for him. He declined, and warned that there would be a problem if we opened 2C. We offered again, and he declined again. Of course, during the match, Col did open 2C on one hand, and all hell broke loose. After 20 minutes of heated argument, the directors told us to play the hand out but stop playing 2C for the majors after that hand. It seemed a waste of time and destructive of good sportsmanship.


By contrast, the other half of the final Col and I played against Eric Rodwell, who was completely reasonable about the 2C opening (which didn't even come up in those 12 boards). However, Michael Wilkinson was fuming about Rodwell's behavour in the first half-match. Michael admitted to psyching on the first board, and went -990 instead of the normal result of -650 for his trouble when Mark didn't get the gag. On board 4 though, Michael accidentally opened 1H on a hand with 3 hearts and 6 spades - he simply forgot that, as he wasn't allowed to play his and Mark's usual system, that 1H showed hearts not spades. To cut a long story short, Michael ended up as declarer in 3H and the opponents misdefended. Without even inquiring what had happened, Rodwell called the director and announced "This is horseshit!" Ultimately of course the directors ruled that there should be no adjustment to the score of +140, but they also apparently told Michael and Mark that if there was another director call to their table, they would be kicked out of the tournament! I wasn't at their table, but if you guessed that this threat didn't go down too well with Mark and Michael, I suspect that you are right! Imagine playing a bridge match on the understanding that any time the director was called to your table, for whatever reason, you would be kicked out of the event! If I understood correctly, the directors eventually retracted this rather unfair pronouncement, but too late to retrieve the damage done to Mark and Michael's enthusiasm for the game in the States, and their respect for the umpires. "

[kenberg]

I try to play this out in my mind:
A young person decides to give bridge a try. He learns standard bidding, enjoys the game, has some success, meets people he likes. Then he learns of the Cyclops 2D (or whatever). It sounds interesting but he learns that that this is not allowed. So he says screw it, I'm giving up bridge. If someone ells me that's what he did I guess I have to accept it but it seems like a golf player giving up golf because of regulations governing the type of golf ball or club that can be used. It seems extremely unlikely to me that this would drive away players in large numbers.

I have no objection to allowing most if not all systems in upper level games. Bringing in hi tech stuff to beat the crap out of a bunch of retirees who just learned transfers over no trump openings seems tacky. I have no objection to telling people that if they want to bring in their supersystems then they need to bring them to a suitable game.

For myself, over my life there have been times when I have played quite a bit, times when I have played not at all. Various reasons, none of them connected to system requirements or even to rudeness (which I think is greatly overstated) but rather just life issues that are not addressable by the acbl.

[nige1]

Thank you cascade.

[aguahombre]

Why do I think there was more history behind the eruption and unpleasantness involving Meck and Well and the Australian players?