BBO Discussion Forums: Bridge dying? - BBO Discussion Forums

rduran1216, on 2011-May-22, 12:27, said:

I had a friend who used to say the US would be "dead" in 25 years. When he died about ten years ago, he had reduced his estimate to 15 years. I suspect he may have been close.

Bridge is a closed circle activity. You can put any game in any public room and people will start looking and be curious. IMO playing games are inherent to human nature. Any game that is mostly played in isolated placed will simply not get the exposure necessary to reach mainstream. Go and shogi are the best examples there are Imo in the top 3 of greatest games and there is almost no Shogi players outside Japan and Go is nowhere near popular as it should be in north America and in Europe.

The rest is mostly irrelevent.

blackshoe, on 2011-May-22, 16:48, said:

http://www.theonion....saturday,20500/

rduran1216, on 2011-May-22, 12:27, said:

The end of the world was a few days ago and bridge survived, why would bridge ever die?

EDIT: News flash, apparently it will die in October now...

In my country it's been dying. I don't think it will ever disappear completely, but it might reduce to a residual activity.

Young players make a lot of money from Poker by their own ability or luck. Almost all young players lose money in almost all bridge tournaments in US. Also, among those who make money in bridge tournaments, most money are paid by rich clients, not by the game itself. In some sense, many professional bridge players are like tools of rich people in US to prove that the rich can win in bridge. Many with high respect to themselves wouldn't choose this career path, although bridge is a great game. The running format of Poker actually wins more respect from me.
IMO, Bridge began dying when rubber bridge is dying and great players became the tools of the rich.

Jlall, on 2004-January-15, 16:43, said:

lol

benlessard, on 2011-May-23, 04:46, said:

I play Go, and I agree - one of the greatest games ever. Perhaps we can meet on KGS for a game sometime.

And yes, it makes a big difference to be visible. Particularly for Go, with very few players who will seek out a club meeting.

billw55, on 2011-May-23, 18:02, said:

I love games, and play lots of them. Go, to me, looks deadly dull. I am sure that I have got it all wrong and that it is a fascinating game once you start learning something about it, but there is really nothing I can think of that would induce me to go near a Go board in the first place.

If I feel this way about Go, there are probably people who feel the same way about bridge. But I'm sure I would have been more open to the game when I was a child. So perhaps the key in to get them while they're young -- expand bridge teaching in schools.

Vampyr, on 2011-May-26, 08:47, said:

Two-person games are social activities and a lot depends on fashion and on the people with whom you play. In 70s London, Go was newly in vogue. About forty of us met regularly, in a public bar, to enjoy ourselves, and amuse other drinkers. Like Chess, you can learn the rules of Go in five minutes but it takes a long time to play well. Go is better as a mixer than Chess because it has a simple stone handicap system which retains the features of the game . .

It's too hard to play bridge in person. I don't know anyplace near me where people can play bridge, nor do I know anyone else who knows how to play. When I lived in Los Angeles I used to play at the Bridge Academy in Tarzana. I started there when I was 17. I had fun, but let's face it... most people suck at bridge. Even simple things like taking a preference when you've bid 2 suits is too complicated for them. Most people on BBO are also hideously bad. I think the future of bridge is just people playing at home, alone, with the computer playing the other 3 people. It's rewarding because the computer isn't that good so you can always win, if you're careful and study a bit. I don't play bridge to lose or just to be social. I want to win.

VM1973, on 2011-May-27, 11:28, said:

Luckily, you seem to play against idiots.
Good to see that this gives you a sense of accomplishment.

hrothgar, on 2011-May-27, 11:33, said:

Doubtless you meant to say "Too bad you always find yourself partnered with idiots."
It ruins the fun of the game. As I said, it's best to just partner with a computer. It probably won't play the conventions I want, and I can't convince it to play in a different form, but at least I won't end up playing in a 4-2 heart fit instead of a 5-3 spade fit because my human partner didn't think to return me to the first bid suit.

I learned to play bridge as a teenager in the late 50's. My friend's parents didn't get a TV until around 1960 and they spent their evenings playing cards or reading. I learned to play rubber bridge wit them and a few years later started playing duplicate.

My son grew up watching TV and playing video games. He was supporting himself playing online poker until the sites were shut down. I spend a Sunday playing 7 hours in a two session event and pick up a couple MP. He plays 10+ hours and frequently wins a few thousand dollars. He now occasionally goes to poker rooms and plays.

Where I live, most of the club players are retired and the decent games are in the weekday morning or afternoon. I still work and play occasionally on Saturday and Sunday. Most of the time at sectionals and regionals. A young person is not going to be able to take time off to play on the weekdays.

The Marin sectional offered free play for players under 18. This is a rarity. As a junior high student, table fees of $9 would put a dent in your allowance.

I consider LA to be a semi-major hub of bridge in the scheme of things for the US. You can't name 10 players under the age of 40 who are lasting, will be here in 40 years type players. There may be 4-5 for the entire 10+ million of us, but just check on the median age in any bridge club. When your average patron is 75 years old, and u can count the number of people under 40 playing in your club on one hand, the writing is on the wall.

rduran1216, on 2011-May-28, 00:59, said:

I would be counting the 55-65 year-old novices instead, actually.

I don't think the LA area has been a semi-major hub of bridge for a long time.

Something I noticed throughout my life, all the young players I knew who played a lot in college either:

A) Got a job, and maybe a family, after college, and basically stopped playing bridge, except maybe sometimes on BBO. What can they do? Entry level jobs don't give you much vacation time, and you're probably not going to spend it playing bridge even if you were a big bridge enthusiast.

B) Started playing professionally.

It seems like those are really the only options for a college graduate. I suppose it's possible for some people to stick with it and show up on weekends at nationals or regionals (though this is still pretty expensive) and maybe marry a bridge player or something, but it's still costly and time consuming and not productive. Look at a guy like John Barth who was a super promising player, maybe one of the most promising young players in a long time, and could have easily chosen to become a pro imo, he is now married and has a good job and more power to him but I have not even spoken to him in over a year.

The good thing about these guys is I know at some point they will be rich, have more free time, and come back to bridge. But these are the guys who got good while they had time to do so, the post college crowd who hasn't even learned the game yet really has no chance. I think if we get people started young though it will lead to them coming back in their 40s and playing for a long time anyways, and playing well. And maybe they can keep playing on BBO.

It's funny because Jdonn loves bridge so much and has managed to continue to play, but it has definitely hurt his work life, I know he even quit his job in order to play in the world junior championships, and continually debates becoming a full time bridge pro so that he can play more.

very few people play the game in college. All the people who talk about how they used to play talk about how student unions were filled with rubber bridge games, and thats how students spent their free time. One of the major cruxes to why bridge is dying is that statistically NOBODY(less than .0001%) under the age of 50 plays.

Was gonna take exception to the statement bridge is dying, but then I noticed I am the one who started this thread! I think this might have been the first thread I ever started on BBF.