[Phil]

I started to post in "Is Bridge Dying", but to avoid a threadjack, I started another.

Let's accept that Bridge is a segmented game with two distinct groups:

(The references made here apply to the ACBL, but I suppose they could be true in nearly any large bridge playing country).

Group 1 consists of the following:

- Club players that enjoy the accumulation of points. Players in this group want recognition from their peers, and enjoy the social element.

- Their card play is intermediate at best, and will spend a lot of their time discussing conventions and the latest fads, although the heart of their bidding knowledge will come from older players that learned Hardy 2/1 30 years ago. Their judgement is based on "rules".

- Many in this set learned when they were younger, but probably took a lot of time off for work, family, etc., although a lot of them started in their 40-50's as beginners. They do not learn at the same clip as a younger player, and won't be as competitive at a higher level.

- Many of them spend a lot of time on their game, although many do not. Some are achievement-driven, since they were probably successful at something during their careers, but again, many are simply interested in seeing their friends on Wednesday afternoons. The better ones will read, but Kelsey, Reese, Pottage and Root are too difficult for them, so they will gravitate toward Bergen, or the articles in the ACBL Bulletin.

- You will occasionally see a group of them break through and win a Bracket I or II KO an A/X swiss at a regional, and this will be their most significant accomplishment of their lifetime. They have little interest in competing at NABC's, and when they go, they frequently play in regionally rated events. Sometimes a player that does things differently than their peers will transcend this group and become part of group 2.

- Their goal was to become a life master and have a letter in front of their player number. Once they accomplished that, goals became less important. For these players, getting more points is a mixed blessing. They have to leave their group of friends in the 99/NLM/499er game and play in the "open" game with the sharks.

- They are of the opinion that there is a strong correlation between masterpoints and skill.

- They generally disdain unfamiliar methods.

- They do not support the ACBL's support of the WBF, or the subsidizing of international teams.

- They hate psyching.

- They will oppose making rank requirements more difficult by having to earn extra gold or platinum, and will support the league's desire to award more points for charity games, and for KO's with players that have a lot of MPs.


Group 2 is generally younger, smarter and better than Group 1.

- They tend not to play in club games, but when they do they will usually place in the top 2 or 3.

- They spend a lot of time playing and thinking about bridge, and working on their partnerships. Many are interested in building a better mousetrap (i.e., system), and enjoy the problem solving aspects of the game. Many of this group are actually older, but when they are they have a lot of points.

- They might have started as juniors, but at the very least started in their 20's or 30's at the latest. Their annual point totals will vary greatly, depending on other commitments they have. Some are social, but many of the younger players are not, although you see this changing as their social skills catch up with their intellectual talent.

- They have very lofty goals, although the accumulation of masterpoints is not one of them.

- They are abstract thinkers, and disdain 'rules'.

- Any younger player that learns, and sticks with the game, will almost always gravitate to Group 2.
-------------------------------------------------------

My guess is that Group 1 outnumbers Group 2 by a multiple of about 30, but about 1/2 of Group 2 also belong in Group 1. The objectives and goals of the each group are different, but there are some common denominators. They both love the game, and many of both groups now play online.

Can these diverse groups live in peace?

My answer is YES, but the other needs to respect the other's 'turf'. I would propose that daytime club games are the domain of Group 1. Evening club games and all tournaments are the domain of Group 2.

Both groups will play in their other's domain, and both will complain. Group 1 will hate playing against pros at the regionals and nationals. Group 2 will claim that the directors at clubs are terrible, and that the players are unethical.

Certain rules violations at clubs are not expected to be enforced as strictly tournaments.

Yet, as long as the league understands the objectives of each Group, everyone can be happy.

P.S., CHudacek's ideas could be tried at Clubs or Sectionals, since thats whom he is trying to appeal to. He will claim that better players will support his concepts, but he is wrong.

[paulg]

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.

[Bbradley62]

Group 1 includes many subsets, one of which is "has no intention of ever playing in a tournament, never mind a high-level tournament".

Added after initial post: I don't think many of the non-tournament players object to a small amount of their ACBL dues going to subsidize ACBL teams in international competition.

This post has been edited by Bbradley62: 2011-May-22, 17:47

[awm]

There is some truth to this, but I think you too strongly correlate the skill level of the player with the group they belong to. It's certainly true that the elite-level players will belong to your group two...

However, there are a number of exceptional card players who belong to group one. They are consistent winners at their local club and maybe sectional tournaments... yet they complain bitterly about young players or unusual methods (often the complaint being that they "scare off new players"). Often these players have a background in rubber bridge (which is why they can be great card players) but are totally disinterested in bidding or forming partnerships. They enjoy being the "top dog" in their local unit and don't want anyone infringing on their turf.

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.

Yet the B/I members of group two are where many of our experts come from (after years of seasoning). The question is whether the people in that subgroup stick with the game, or just get frustrated and give up. I think a lot of them decide it's not worth the hassle and do give up, especially those who maybe started a little older (like mid to late 20s or early 30s) and don't have the full support of the "junior program" or of family members who play competitively.

[kenberg]

I don't recognize myself in the description of either group. Certainly if youth is required to be in Group 2 I am dead in the water.

I like to play as well as I can. I am very happy to play against people who are better than I am. I don't regard master points as any indication of anything. As to exotic systems, I have no great interest in them. I watch a fair amount of vu-graph and as near as I can tell, these players are better card players than I am. On occasion they have just the right bidding structure to handle a difficult problem but mostly it comes to judgment. Their's is better than mine. To put it another way, if I play say 28 hands of bridge, I think it fairly likely that there will not be a single hand where afterward I will say "Gee, if partner and I had only agreed to play the Vampire convention we would have reached the slam".

Or still another way of putting it: You, Phil, recently contributed to a problem hand I put up. Holding a 6=2=0=5 seventeen count I bid a spade over rho's 1D opening. Pas, Pass, and then an unexpected 2C on my right. You and many others recommended a pass. At the table I bid 3S which actually was fine as the cards lay, except pard failed to raise to 4. This is not something that the Vampire convention would solve, it's judgment.

So I use my best judgment, I like to play against good players, I don't much care about exotica, I don't plan on becoming a pro. And I'm 72. Maybe a young 72 but still it's hard to see me as "younger". So I'm in which camp?

[JLOGIC]

So, there are 2 groups, those who are good and those who are not? Interesting.

[awm]

JLOGIC, on 2011-May-22, 22:01, said:

So, there are 2 groups, those who are good and those who are not? Interesting.

I think the point is more that there are "social bridge players" versus "tournament bridge players." The former group are mostly out to have a good time; they are certainly trying to do well when they play but are not interested in devoting a huge amount of time to reading bridge literature, discussing hands or methods, etc. They tend to be uninterested in traveling to tournaments (unless it's part of a vacation or bridge cruise maybe). They are sometimes hostile to players perceived as "sharks" (they don't like to play against pros, or against unusual methods, or against people perceived as "too competitive").

The "tournament players" view bridge as a very competitive activity. They will often spend a lot of time and/or money in order to improve their game. They much prefer to play in tournaments than club games (the bigger the tournament the better). They often don't like playing against people who are too "chatty" or "not serious" and want the director to strictly enforce the laws; it tends to upset them when opponents can't explain their methods or agreements.

Tournament players tend to be better than social bridge players because they devote a lot more effort to improving, but this isn't 100% true because players have different levels of experience and talent.

Obviously there is space between these two extremes. But some of the problems in bridge come up when these groups rub against each other the wrong way.

[Elianna]

awm, on 2011-May-22, 22:52, said:

I think the point is more that there are "social bridge players" versus "tournament bridge players." The former group are mostly out to have a good time; they are certainly trying to do well when they play but are not interested in devoting a huge amount of time to reading bridge literature, discussing hands or methods, etc. They tend to be uninterested in traveling to tournaments (unless it's part of a vacation or bridge cruise maybe). They are sometimes hostile to players perceived as "sharks" (they don't like to play against pros, or against unusual methods, or against people perceived as "too competitive").

The "tournament players" view bridge as a very competitive activity. They will often spend a lot of time and/or money in order to improve their game. They much prefer to play in tournaments than club games (the bigger the tournament the better). They often don't like playing against people who are too "chatty" or "not serious" and want the director to strictly enforce the laws; it tends to upset them when opponents can't explain their methods or agreements.

Tournament players tend to be better than social bridge players because they devote a lot more effort to improving, but this isn't 100% true because players have different levels of experience and talent.

Obviously there is space between these two extremes. But some of the problems in bridge come up when these groups rub against each other the wrong way.

Yes, but adding the age thing, and bridge ability, all sounds rather condescending.

And social vs. tournaments is also a non-exclusive dichotomy.

It might surprise you but I feel that I fit into both. I enjoy playing bridge (granted, I would play at the club more by choice if certain people did not play there) and view playing at the club as a social opportunity. But I like going to tournaments and enjoy competing against the best bridge players I can (considering certain TDs don't let me play up in KOs unless its someone else on my team requesting it). And I know of others who feel the same way (for one of my regular partners bridge IS her social activity, and yet she reads bridge literature, and goes to tournaments to compete).

[Antrax]

It sounds like you're confusing two axes here. Different people have different motivations - this is a well known fact in organizational studies. Some are driven by a desire to be recognized, some by the challenge, some by interactions with people, etc. There's no correlation to their skill level - excellent players can have a variety of motivations.
It's also usually true that younger people are more open to experimentation with new ideas, but unless the new methods are considerably better than the old ones (I have no clue, to me the old ones are still new), again this is probably unrelated to a player's skill level.

[Zelandakh]

I learned bridge as a teenager or perhaps slightly earlier. I have never registered a Master Point in my life and believe they are no indicator of skill level. I avoid bridge clubs because they are often stuffy and stuck up. I designed a complicated strong club system that does fit together well into a cohesive sytem. Most of the time I play social bridge with Acol and when I do I psyche fairly frequently. I am not a particularly good card player although I understand basic techniques. I know a great deal about bidding theory and have spent many many hours studying this aspect of bridge, but I rarely discuss this with others (outside of these fora).

Which group am I in? I would say I am a social player but in your descriptions I seem to have more in common with group 2. For me these groupings are too generalised and simplified to be of any practical use. Perhaps a similar grouping set could be made for those players that like to play under GCC rules and those that prefer MidChart. That is no less general and, arguably, more accurate and useful.

[mgoetze]

Zelandakh, on 2011-May-23, 04:25, said:

Perhaps a similar grouping set could be made for those players that like to play under GCC rules and those that prefer MidChart.

Is there such a difference between GCC and MidChart, aren't they both very restrictive?

[paulg]

mgoetze, on 2011-May-23, 07:15, said:

Is there such a difference between GCC and MidChart, aren't they both very restrictive?

There is a big difference. Mid-Chart permits most constructive responses whereas GCC is quite restrictive. Mid-Chart also permits relay systems.

[nige1]

Cabaret said:

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.

[mgoetze]

paulg, on 2011-May-23, 08:00, said:

Mid-Chart also permits relay systems.

Oh right, Stayman is banned on the GCC, I forgot.

(ACBL still hasn't properly defined "relay system" anywhere, right?)

[blackshoe]

I suppose it depends on what you consider a "proper" definition. The ACBL's definition is

Quote

A sequence of relay bids is defined as a system if, after an opening of one of a suit, it is started prior to opener’s rebid.

IOW, if responder's first call is not a relay, it's not a relay system, or if opener's first call is not one of a suit, it's not a relay system.

Stayman is a relay, true, but it is not part of a relay system. Cannot be, by the definition. Same is true of Blackwood and its variants.

BTW:

Quote

Relay: A bid which does not guarantee any specific suit; partner is requested to make the next-step bid (usually) or make another descriptive bid if appropriate (e.g., a diamond bid which usually shows hearts but may not have hearts in some cases).

[Vampyr]

mgoetze, on 2011-May-23, 07:15, said:

Is there such a difference between GCC and MidChart, aren't they both very restrictive?

They are much more restrictive than any British or European system regulations except those for special novice games, but different strokes for different folks...

[Phil]

There are exceptions. Some people fit nicely into both groups (perhaps like Kenberg). Some don't fit into either (like Zelandakh). However, what I am concerned with is are people that play a lot of bridge week in and week out. The categories in each are meant to be generalities, and should not be taken as all-inclusive.

Condescending or not, what I wrote originally (but deleted since I didn't think it was relevant), was that if you took the median age of the 2nd day of a NABC+ open event and compared it to the league as a whole, I would bet the age is a full 10 and maybe 15 years younger. This is a concrete example why Group 2 tends to be younger.

There will be players of all ages that want to take the time to learn the game right. Many lurk on these forums. There will be players that have no desire to play in anything but club games, and because they are talented and work on their games properly, they will become damn good. Personally I think thats a shame that they limit their play to clubs, but it is their choice.

Are there players in Group 1 that are good? Of course, much like Adam's example of an ex-rubber player. With the exception of the skill-based attributes, this player definitely falls into Group 1 with 'why they play'.

As far as Adam's concerns about the younger, aspiring new players, I would put them into Group 2 regardless. They won't be competitive at any level at the beginning (although they will 'scratch' in club games more than tournaments), but they will find like-minded people at tournaments. Many clubs have successful mentoring programs and tournament players have an obligation to "take care of their young (er, new)". Being a newbie in Group 2 isn't a guarantee of competency, but I would put my $ behind someone that went this route.

Through my rambling, the most important point I want to impress isn't that Group 2 are better than Group 1, but rather the needs of Group 1 are different than Group 2. I think this concept should be accepted and that league policies should be formed accordingly. Trying to appease both groups in many areas rates to be a fruitless endeavor.

Here's an example of a policy change based on these assumptions.

In the other thread, Vilgan discussed bifurcating rank requirements. For instance, a "Silver Master +" is someone that has some platinums and a lot of gold, relative to the nominal requirements for a LM. I think this is a great idea. Tournament players should be recognized for their achievements differently than club players. Do you think that Vilgan's requirements for a Gold Life Master "+" (50 plats / 250 gold) are harder to attain than a Diamond Life Master, or even a Platinum LM? I might even raise the bar a second time and designate a Gold Life Master "++" that has even higher %'s of plats and golds. Any "+" or "++" will denote a tournament player, and they need to keep a necessary % of colored points to maintain this status.

Let points escalate at the club level. Personally I do not care. If someone wants to play in a club that (up until last year anyway) offered unlimited charity games with extra points, let them go for it. AFAIC, this extra income could fund our marketing or international teams. If they become a gold life master in half the time, who cares?

Doesn't everyone win in this scenario?

[han]

As my regular partner once put it, the three things that are most important are his family, his work and his masterpoints, in that order. Now, I don't want to argue about the order of these three, nor about whether health should come before or after masterpoints. Simply put, his family, work and health are none of our business, but his masterpoints are.

When I play bridge with or against someone that I don't know well yet, the first thing I want to know is how many masterpoints they have. I am not talking about their rank or the color of their points, that is irrelevant. The only thing I care about is the straight number of masterpoints, no bells or wistles. This gives me a good indication for how I should behave towards the other person. If they have considerably more points, I should treat them with respect and at least pretend to listen to their advice. However, if I have considerably more points then I can look down upon them, give unsolicited advice and make derogatory comments about their bridge. In other words, I can enjoy the best parts of being a bridge player. My behavior towards people with roughly the same number of masterpoints depends on their gender, size, and estimated salary.

In order to make this distinction fast and accurately, every bridge player should write their masterpoints on their conventioncard. Failure to do so should be enforced with immediate masterpoint loss, and overstating your masterpoints by more than 5% should be punished severely. With this information out in the open, it will be clear how different members should behave towards eachother, and there will be peace.

These rules should lead to enhanced appreciation of masterpoints, and new members will make it to the club more often. After all, who wouldn't want to be in the position to make fun of the masses?


In my next post I'll propose that the nearest restroom is only available to silver life masters and higher.

[Zelandakh]

han, on 2011-May-23, 10:42, said:

After all, who wouldn't want to be in the position to make fun of the masses?

I thought that was the only reason you visited these forums han!

[billw55]

I think a simpler way to say this is that Group 1 players are uninterested in new things, while Group 2 players wish to pursue them.

For Group 1 players, this may mean that they don't want to play, or play against, systems or conventions beyond a certain set; play in organized events above a certain level, or at new locations; or even with players they are not socially familiar with. They will be slow to step outside their comfort zone, and often resent it when something outside their comfort zone comes to them (such as at "their" club game).

Whereas Group 2 players are willing, often eager, to do things they have not done before; who welcome new ideas into the sieve of competition; who are at ease among unknown competitors; who are untroubled by a variety of social interactions and environments.

I think that, for the most part, these are psychological characteristics that originate outside of bridge. We see the effects in bridge because that is where we are looking. But it is a larger phenomenon. And in general, across the whole population (and not just the bridge players) there is a strong correlation between Group 1 characteristics and age. Not an absolute correlation, but a strong one. As such, we may often see players transition from group 2 to group 1 - but very rarely the other direction.