[qwery_hi]

Online bridge might force the ACBL to make bridge more affordable. If the goal is to have a fun time, then a BBO speedball beats the hassle of driving 10 miles and paying 8-10 dollars. When more online masterpoints are counted toward the ranks, and there will be greater pressure from the members for this to happen, then online bridge is going to dominate club bridge. Now, if only we had a 2-2.5 hour speedball with 24 boards on BBO, that would be ideal for lot of players I guess.

 crazy4hoop, on 2011-May-24, 13:39, said:

I was also thinking that making bridge affordable might be in the list of priorities. Unfortunately, I don't think I have the solution(s).

[han]

 gnasher, on 2011-May-24, 14:47, said:

I used to think that there were two types of bridge player: those who knew how many masterpoints they had, and those who knew how to play bridge. Then my world view was shattered by overhearing a Bermuda Bowl winner telling someone how many masterpoints he had.

Just wait until you meet me, I don't fit in either category!

[helene_t]

 paulg, on 2011-May-22, 16:53, said:

I cannot challenge whether Group 1 exists in the ACBL, but it is not a description that I would apply to any group in the UK bridge community.

I am generally suspicious of describing populations as comprised of "groups", and also in this case I think it is more like a continuum. Except that there is an almost-clear segregation between club players and non-club players, with very few people playing "some club bridge but more kitchen bridge". At the club in Lancaster, one could break down the demographics like this (percentages my rough estimates):
10% members who almost never show up except for maybe charity events, they may or may not play kitchen bridge outside the club
25% people who play almost only at "simple systems session" (kitchen bridge at the club's premises, you could call it)
25% people who play in various club sessions, simple systems as well as level 3 (and for some level 4 also). A few of these play kitchen bridge outside the club also.
20% people who play in various clubs sessions, mainly EBU level 3 sessions. Most of these people are not EBU members so have no masterpoints. A few will occasionally play minor tournaments.
10% people who play regularly in level 4 sessions but almost never at tournaments. Some of these collect masterpoints. Some of these play in other sessions also.
3% people who play level 4 session regularly and also tournaments at various levels regularly.
7% people who almost never show up at the club and mainly play serious (or for some: semi-serious) tournaments.

but obviously the categories are arbitrary and however you define them you will find people on the borderlines between types. For some the choice between simple systems, level 3 and level 4 has not so much to do with the level but more with the friendliness on these evenings, or simply which evening fits into the weekly family routine.

[helene_t]

 awm, on 2011-May-22, 17:55, said:

There are also a number of beginner/intermediate players in group two. This includes a lot of young players who are just starting out, or a lot of our B/I posters to the forums. They don't necessarily "finish in the top few" at the local club because they are lacking in experience. They may experiment with unusual methods or agreements, but a lot of times they don't know how to build a cohesive system and end up playing funny stuff that doesn't exactly work.

As mentioned in Dana Berkowitz's post on bridge dying, there is a serious issue that bridge seems to have no place for the B/I members of group two. If these players go to their local club or play in a low bracket at a local tournament, they will be surrounded by "group one" players who don't like playing against them. But if they try to play in a top-level event (bracket one at the regional, say) then they will be totally overmatched. The directors may not even let them "play up" that far, and while the experts from "group two" may not mind trouncing the newcomers, the level of play is so far above them that they may get frustrated and may not actually learn all that much.

I think this group which we could call the wannabee experts (I recon myself in this group, although the reason that I am not an expert is more due to lack of talent than lack of experience), is reasonable catered to in the EBU structure where many serious and semi-serious events are open swiss. You will get to play some decent opps early in a swiss event unless you are very unlucky. If you are better than your masterpoints suggest it is no problem, nobody cares about masterpoints anyway. If your ability to participate in gadget ranting and post-mortems (as in my case) or social skills (as in some other players' cases) somehow compensate you lack of abilities then you will be able to get teammates and partners above your own level at least on occasions.

I found it more difficult in the Netherlands where the bridge community is more level-segregated, presumably because the number of NBB members per square kilometer is about 20 times higher than the density in the UK so the Dutch can afford the segregation.

[RMB1]

Nigel, quoting Cabaret:

Quote

Now Fatherland, Fatherland, show us the sign
Your children have waited to see
The morning will come
When the world is mine
Tomorrow belongs to me.

See Godwin's Law

[nige1]

Naturally, professionals, tournament directors, officials, and other groups may each have a slightly different agenda. As ordinary players, however, we regularly played in open competition against Benjamin, Flint, Cansino, Collings, Markus, Harrison-Gray, Omar Sharif, the Sharples Brothers, Reese, Schapiro, Belladonna, Garrozzo, Kelsey, Crowhurst, Zia, Rosenberg, and so on and on and on. There are few games more homogenous than Bridge and we should resist attempts to segregate it.

[RMB1]

This month's "English Bridge" (EBU Magazine) celebrates the EBU's 75 anniversary and carries some articles from 1936. One article discusses opening on a 1156 hand and compares six different bidding systems: with wildly different choices on this hand. If our (great)grandparents couldn't agree on one bidding system, how can we expect any commonality now?

[Zelandakh]

If you look at bridge in this "golden age" the thing that drove it was publicity. Alot of that had to do with Ely Culbertson, of course, but bridge was marketed the way poker is now. And look, poker has essentially replaced bridge as the card game of "excitement". The publicity of the day was driven by newspapers and indeed many papers still carry a bridge column. The trouble is that newspapers are not the medium of choice for the youth. Bridge marketing has to come through online (such as BBO) and, most of all, through television. How to make bridge interesting on TV is surely the key to re-popularising the game, at least until a different medium comes along.

Whether that is actually possible I do not know. Lots of different formats have been tried and none have really captured the imagination of the public. But look at poker as a role model for what can be done. It is not a game that is any more exciting than bridge, really quite the reverse. The combination of "big money", celebrities and accessibility has driven the boom. Bridge can offer the first 2 easily; the third is more difficult of course. Crack that and the game will flourish.

[hrothgar]

 Zelandakh, on 2011-May-26, 05:09, said:

But look at poker as a role model for what can be done. It is not a game that is any more exciting than bridge, really quite the reverse.

Poker didn't become popular on TV until the widespread emergence of Hold'Em.

Hold'Em is a much faster paced game than 5 card draw or stud.
It's also significantly simpler and places a much higher premium on table feel.

You might be able to popularize something called "Bridge" on TV, however, I'm guessing that it would be another My Lai

What was the quote? "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it"

[gwnn]

Two kinds of bridge plays: those made with active cogent reasoning and those that I usually make

[billw55]

 hrothgar, on 2011-May-26, 05:16, said:

Poker didn't become popular on TV until the widespread emergence of Hold'Em.

Hold'Em is a much faster paced game than 5 card draw or stud.
It's also significantly simpler and places a much higher premium on table feel.

You might be able to popularize something called "Bridge" on TV, however, I'm guessing that it would be another My Lai

What was the quote? "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it"

If we are comparing bridge to poker ...

I really believe that the primary reasons for the popularity boom in tournament-style poker are:

1. Greatly incresed luck factor vs. limit poker. Weaker players have a much better chance now. Someone goes all in, you either call or you don't, and poof somebody is out and somebody is well placed with a stack. Basically skill has been discounted and made the game more like gambling - hence attracting gamblers, which is a pretty large group. At limit poker (or no limit with real money - see below), the low-skilled and the gamblers go broke far too quickly to sustain a boom. I'm not saying there is no skill now - there is some - but definitely less than limit poker, and much less than bridge.

2. People get to pretend they are playing for more money than they really are. For a $50 buy in, or even less, you might get 5000 "dollars" in tournament chips. Now people can say "I bet three thousand" and feel like a cowboy or a high roller. When really the most they can lose is their buy in. They're paying just a little for this entertainment, this rush of fake high stakes. And they have a non-trivial chance to win something on top of it, per above.

Bridge has a very high premium on skill. Because of this, weak players have almost no chance against strong players, and therefore will not put much money at stake. So "big money" isn't going to happen the way it has in poker. Furthermore it is much harder to get a broad audience base that can understand what the heck is going on during the play. But in poker, a spectator need know little more than the ranks of the hands .. then he can get excited, "oooooh will he call or not !?!?"

[Vampyr]

 hrothgar, on 2011-May-26, 05:16, said:

You might be able to popularize something called "Bridge" on TV, however, I'm guessing that it would be another My Lai

Remember that celebrity thing they did on Sky? The bidding was really basic, the card-play was appalling, but the players were clearly having fun and there was expert commentary so that the viewer could learn a little. I think that this format could be successful, but it needs to be on a less obscure channel than Sky Sports 2.

[ArtK78]

The one development that really made the poker boom take off was the introduction of the hole cam, so that the spectators (on TV) could see the players hands while the betting was in progress. But this can only be accomplished on a time delayed basis for security reasons.

Watching poker without hole cams is almost as exciting as watching grass grow. And I do play and watch a lot of NL holdem.

With bridge, we already have the equivalent of the hole cam. The old onsite VuGraph and now BBO VuGraph on the internet allow the spectators to see the hands as they are being bid and played IN REAL TIME.

That said, it is far easier for a layperson to understand what is going on in NL holdem than it is to understand what is going on in bridge. And the money at stake in the main event at the WSOP and at other poker tournaments adds more to the interest and excitement for a layperson.

[ArtK78]

The one development that really made the poker boom take off was the introduction of the hole cam, so that the spectators (on TV) could see the players hands while the betting was in progress. But this can only be accomplished on a time delayed basis for security reasons.

Watching poker without hole cams is almost as exciting as watching grass grow. And I do play and watch a lot of NL holdem.

With bridge, we already have the equivalent of the hole cam. The old onsite VuGraph and now BBO VuGraph on the internet allow the spectators to see the hands as they are being bid and played IN REAL TIME.

That said, it is far easier for a layperson to understand what is going on in NL holdem than it is to understand what is going on in bridge. And the money at stake in the main event at the WSOP and at other poker tournaments adds more to the interest and excitement for a layperson.

[xxhong]

You certainly misunderstand no limit holdem. No limit is the most complicated game format of poker, especially for deep stacks. Limit holdem is pretty much a math game. The reason why you think no limit is easy is because of the game format of the tournaments. In the late stage of many tournaments, the ante and blinds are so high, that players don't have a deep stack at all and even the chip leader also has a very shallow stack. In that case, players have to gamble to avoid being eaten alive by the blinds and crap shooting happens. Beginners simply have zero chance to beat experts in a deep stack no limit holdem. Still, in the early stage of no limit tournaments, experts have much higher chances to survive.

 billw55, on 2011-May-26, 09:03, said:

If we are comparing bridge to poker ...

I really believe that the primary reasons for the popularity boom in tournament-style poker are:

1. Greatly incresed luck factor vs. limit poker. Weaker players have a much better chance now. Someone goes all in, you either call or you don't, and poof somebody is out and somebody is well placed with a stack. Basically skill has been discounted and made the game more like gambling - hence attracting gamblers, which is a pretty large group. At limit poker (or no limit with real money - see below), the low-skilled and the gamblers go broke far too quickly to sustain a boom. I'm not saying there is no skill now - there is some - but definitely less than limit poker, and much less than bridge.

2. People get to pretend they are playing for more money than they really are. For a $50 buy in, or even less, you might get 5000 "dollars" in tournament chips. Now people can say "I bet three thousand" and feel like a cowboy or a high roller. When really the most they can lose is their buy in. They're paying just a little for this entertainment, this rush of fake high stakes. And they have a non-trivial chance to win something on top of it, per above.

Bridge has a very high premium on skill. Because of this, weak players have almost no chance against strong players, and therefore will not put much money at stake. So "big money" isn't going to happen the way it has in poker. Furthermore it is much harder to get a broad audience base that can understand what the heck is going on during the play. But in poker, a spectator need know little more than the ranks of the hands .. then he can get excited, "oooooh will he call or not !?!?"

[jjbrr]

 xxhong, on 2011-May-26, 11:01, said:

You certainly misunderstand no limit holdem. No limit is the most complicated game format of poker, especially for deep stacks. Limit holdem is pretty much a math game. The reason why you think no limit is easy is because of the game format of the tournaments. In the late stage of many tournaments, the ante and blinds are so high, that players don't have a deep stack at all and even the chip leader also has a very shallow stack. In that case, players have to gamble to avoid being eaten alive by the blinds and crap shooting happens. Beginners simply have zero chance to beat experts in a deep stack no limit holdem. Still, in the early stage of no limit tournaments, experts have much higher chances to survive.

lol

[hrothgar]

 xxhong, on 2011-May-26, 11:01, said:

You certainly misunderstand no limit holdem. No limit is the most complicated game format of poker, especially for deep stacks.

The strategy space for Hold'Em seems remarkably limited compared to any stud variant or even draw

There aren't nearly as many stages to the game.
You don't have nearly as much information that you need to process on the fly.

I don't know how you interprete the word "complicated", but from a game theoretic perspective you're dead wrong.

FWIW, I did my master's thesis on Poker years and years ago.
I was identifying equilibria for 5 card draw.

Typical types of results:

If you get dealt trips, its better to draw one card than two.
Its more valuable to be able to conceal whether your drawing with

1. Two pair
2. Trips
3. Trying for a four flush

than the additional chance of improving your hand...

(Describing this sort of thing is pretty easy. Proving it... shudder)

[xxhong]

What I mean is under normal game conditions. If the beginner decides to go all in in every hand, he has some higher equities, about 1:9 in that single session, still one order of magnitude lower. Also, those who decide to go all in in every hand are clearly losers in long term, that still means pretty much close zero chance in his whole poker career to become a winning player. This is like throw a dice and you are always a 1:9 under dog, it won't take many sessions for you to go broke.

 jjbrr, on 2011-May-26, 11:09, said:

lol

[jjbrr]

anyway...

this discussion of poker demonstrates how silly it is to compare bridge to poker when discussing the viability of bridge on television. poker is a betting game that just happens to use cards. it could be played with an Uno deck or dice or brightly colored rocks and the game would be the same. it is not a card game like bridge that requires counting and thinking about combinations (why is spell check telling me that combinations isn't a word? am i missing something?). They both involve probabilities and employing some kind of strategy, but that's about the only thing the two games share in terms of game play.

[blackshoe]

Not all plurals are in the typical spell checker's dictionary.