[MrAce]

https://www.youtube....h?v=zv_Exm15HsA

I found that old video on the net. It is well shot documentation about pro bridge life and probably a very good advertisement about our game imo. Check it out if you haven't seen before.

[PhantomSac]

Man this seems so long ago... Good times. Everyone looks so young.

[PhantomSac]

It's funny now (even though I'm sure it was true then) how Gavin was portrayed as lazy and Vince a hothead. Nowadays Gavin is known as the responsible one out of all of us, having 2 kids (more on the way), a house in a community, a dog, basically the suburban life And Vince, who is one of my closest friends, has completely mellowed out and also has a couple of kids of his own. He is probably one of the nicest teammates/partners you could ask for. Maybe having kids does change people, or maybe people just grow up heh.

Also funny they both play for USA and will represent our country in the bermuda bowl this year.

[MrAce]

 PhantomSac, on 2015-August-20, 22:09, said:

Man this seems so long ago... Good times. Everyone looks so young.

Yea that's what I figured. But whoever made that, did a good job. Imo it was shot and edited by pros. My friends watched it, who has no idea about the bridge, they were excited from the start to the end. It was like reality show. wins, losses, love, anger, money, you name it they had it there. Perhaps this is a good way to advertise the game.

[Siegmund]

Not everyone would equate being responsible with having 2 kids and another on the way, I daresay

[Zelandakh]

Am I right in thinking 50-100 thousand per tournament times 5 players means a professional at the time got 10-20 thousand per tournament? How is the market holding up to the financial difficulties?

The commentary for the "key hand" of the Swiss is just bad, no? A takeout double means "I have lots of clubs" and a cue rebid is a grand slam try. Not to mention that the largest score in bridge is a grand slam. Yes indeed.

Anyway, will watch the rest at the weekend. Thanks for posting it.

[barmar]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-August-21, 07:11, said:

Am I right in thinking 50-100 thousand per tournament times 5 players means a professional at the time got 10-20 thousand per tournament? How is the market holding up to the financial difficulties?

The big sponsors are close to being billionaires. Although the financial meltdown presumably cost them quite a bit, 50% of a huge fortune is still a fortune, and I'm sure they could still afford to pay about the same amount.

JEC's wikipedia page says he lost 95% of his $900 million net worth in 2008. Yet he was still able to purchase two condos overlooking Central Park for $27.4 million.

[MrAce]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-August-21, 07:11, said:

Am I right in thinking 50-100 thousand per tournament times 5 players means a professional at the time got 10-20 thousand per tournament? How is the market holding up to the financial difficulties?

The commentary for the "key hand" of the Swiss is just bad, no? A takeout double means "I have lots of clubs" and a cue rebid is a grand slam try. Not to mention that the largest score in bridge is a grand slam. Yes indeed.

Anyway, will watch the rest at the weekend. Thanks for posting it.

I think it was shot by Canadian TV as a documental. I noticed that explanation of dbl showing clubs too. I think they did not want to get into technical detail and just wanted to show the notion of "bidding language can be translated in such meanings" As I said 2 of my friends found it VERY interesting and immediately started digging the net for more info about bridge. I would not be surprised if they start taking lessons pretty soon. I thought and still think we may have actually been advertising bridge the wrong way all these years. At least for NA population. Perhaps this type of, probably a paid and well documented documentary movie by ACBL can create lot of new fans for the game and among youngsters rather than 70+.

[Al_U_Card]

A lot of players played cash games in school (me, and it cost me a certain amount of marks...) .01 $ /point was still beer money back in the 70's.

With poker on the rise, only $$$ can compete.

[Zelandakh]

 Al_U_Card, on 2015-August-21, 18:08, said:

With poker on the rise, only $$$ can compete.

I disagree very strongly. The only reason I did not play in a bridge club as a child is precisely because all local clubs at that time played for money and I did not want to do so. Bridge attracts different groups of young players for different reasons. Certainly there is a group of players that might be attracted by the chance to make some easy money but my impression is that this tends to come later once the player realises that they are quite good at the game. Probably the biggest draw to bridge amongst juniors is actually just that they have friends or family that play and they want to join in. There are also the players that just like card games and progress to bridge as the "ultimate". Then there are the group of players that see the bidding as something like a secret code or mathematical construct. And finally there are those that see a show on TV or a newspaper/magazine article and are intrigued enough to find out about it.

No doubt others can identify some other groups too. Poker was around during the heyday of bridge as were plenty of other options for making money. The difference is that bridge was "interesting" and "cool" at that time and is generally seen as an "old person's game" now. So we have fewer groups playing and fewer children wanting to join such groups. The way for bridge to compete is, at the end of the day, to improve that image. Change of image is precisely what has driven the rise in popularity of poker; this is the lesson to learn, not "$$$".

[Al_U_Card]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-August-22, 07:20, said:

I disagree very strongly. The only reason I did not play in a bridge club as a child is precisely because all local clubs at that time played for money and I did not want to do so. Bridge attracts different groups of young players for different reasons. Certainly there is a group of players that might be attracted by the chance to make some easy money but my impression is that this tends to come later once the player realises that they are quite good at the game. Probably the biggest draw to bridge amongst juniors is actually just that they have friends or family that play and they want to join in. There are also the players that just like card games and progress to bridge as the "ultimate". Then there are the group of players that see the bidding as something like a secret code or mathematical construct. And finally there are those that see a show on TV or a newspaper/magazine article and are intrigued enough to find out about it.

No doubt others can identify some other groups too. Poker was around during the heyday of bridge as were plenty of other options for making money. The difference is that bridge was "interesting" and "cool" at that time and is generally seen as an "old person's game" now. So we have fewer groups playing and fewer children wanting to join such groups. The way for bridge to compete is, at the end of the day, to improve that image. Change of image is precisely what has driven the rise in popularity of poker; this is the lesson to learn, not "$$$".

Bridge is hard. Poker is easy. Both are difficult to master but bridge is hard to start playing at a decent level where as poker can be learned and well-played with a modicum of time and effort. Targeting a mass audience will be difficult. Are we all (bridge devotees) not singular, focused, intelligent individuals that thrive on competition and like rapid gratification and success? THAT would describe a target market with potential. Sadly, not that big a group and getting smaller as we go. I learned as a kid at my Mom's home game and followed along at University. After that, with friends and lunchtime at work until getting to an ACBL club in the 80's.
Bridge needs a lot of time and effort to excel and this contrasts to the current situation of most which is no time and too tired to devote effort to a "leisure" pursuit.
Introducing it as a school subject (extra credit) might be an avenue, or just encouraging current players to promote and pursue it with their friends and family (especially kids). I fear that our favourite pastime is more or less doomed to a long-term dirth of interest and participation.

[kenberg]

I liked the video a lot. One could easily pick at the technical expertise of the narrator but for me that was no big deal. I got the idea early on that she was not writing for Bridge World so I relaxed.

The personalities, of the two and of others were brought out well, and as you listened it sounded exactly like what you would overhear at a tournament. It's a good documentary.

I suppose that it is possible that having such a documentary on You Tube could motivate some young people to give the game a try, but I don't think we will be trampled by the rush. I gave the game a try because I generally liked card games and someone I knew played bridge. Then I found that I liked it. This will always be the main source of new players.

Added: The interchange (translated) with the elder Demuy highlights a concern. Vincent planned to drop out of school and play bridge. Papa said no, not if he was living with him. Vincent left home. We speak of encouraging young people. But I would never wish to find the elder Demuy at my door asking why I was encouraging his son to drop out of school and play bridge. It worked out here, often it doesn't, and both father and son would be entirely right to tell me to mind my own business.

[broze]

Gotta say it makes me laugh. From what I can remember when I watched this, John Kranyak appears two or three times in the documentary and every time he is saying something along the lines of "lets get the beers in!"

[Al_U_Card]

The big draw with poker is on-line, real money tournaments that also serve as "qualifiers" for live tourneys. This is real marketing strategy and has now proven to be highly successful.
Kids earning real money, on their computers, may supplant higher education in a small minority, but the allure is there.
Bridge, not so much, if at all.

[Vampyr]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-August-22, 07:20, said:

I disagree very strongly. The only reason I did not play in a bridge club as a child is precisely because all local clubs at that time played for money and I did not want to do so.

You are not alone. Duplicate bridge has eclipsed rubber bridge in popularity, although possibly not by much since obviously not all rubber bridge is played in clubs.

But making tournament prizes non-negligible might be a draw. Mainly this would require sponsorship, but some gains could be made without it, for example in the EBU by not giving £50 to places 21-30 and instead putting all the money into 1st 2nd and 3rd. But this might not be best in general, since only one pair or team wins an event, and it is good to give all pairs the reasonable goal of getting into the prizes.

So sponsorship seems to be the answer.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2015-August-26, 17:00, said:

So sponsorship seems to be the answer.

But what's in it for the sponsors?

Sponsors of sporting events get to advertise, so their benefit is the millions of eyeballs who see the ads. Are there enough people who would watch bridge to make it worth the sponsors' efforts?

Back when bridge was a major national pastime, there were some TV shows about it. Now, I don't think the bridge community could deliver enough viewers to support it.

[Vampyr]

There was a pretty good celebrity bridge series on a couple of years ago. If the celecrities are popular enough, people will watch.

Anyway outside of the UK there seems to be a fair amount of sponsorship and added prize money.

[mike777]

 Vampyr, on 2015-August-27, 15:48, said:

There was a pretty good celebrity bridge series on a couple of years ago. If the celecrities are popular enough, people will watch.

Anyway outside of the UK there seems to be a fair amount of sponsorship and added prize money.

In 1990 200,000$ was put up for a celebrity bridge series. The Cavendish is still around but that is more about gambling and putting up your own money.

[Al_U_Card]

Perhaps the biggest hurdle is the partnership angle.
Poker is individual and participation requires no agreements or understandings subject to dispute or argument.
Cash prizes only need be divided according to people with a piece of the action.

Case in point, a local young man had been playing internet poker for a couple of years and wanted to be staked in the Montreal WPT event. I bought 10% for $50 and when he cashed, it came back as $211.

[Vampyr]

 Al_U_Card, on 2015-August-28, 09:46, said:

Perhaps the biggest hurdle is the partnership angle.
Poker is individual and participation requires no agreements or understandings subject to dispute or argument.

Well, obviously simple rubber bridge methods would be used on any bridge TV show.