[Rain]

I think bridge doesn't suit all temperements. Most children/youths will be at a point in life where more physically energetic activities appeal. I've observed my friends' preferences over the years. Girls <18 or so and Guys up till 25 mostly cannot seem to sit still to even concentrate 1 hour on reading. How to bridge?

That being said, not everyone is like that. Its just temperement...imo.

Oh, and what type of course were you thinking of?

http://www.comp.nus....g/~cs1305/info/

See this, singapore university offering bridge-computer course ! You'd think it'd be a most popular course anyway, but bidding 1 point gets you in. (Bidding system to get your course in this university). So what I'm saying is, bridge is offered as a real course to youths in singapore anyway. But we have far far far less players % wise than most other countries. And so far our skill level is horrible

I'm not sure about people not bridging. I can assure you I do know a form of bridge when I was very young..its called "floating bridge" and you take tricks and all, but partner isn't fixed. The winner of bid gets to name a partner by asking for a card partner may hold. Most of my friends know this form of bridge, yet they still are shocked and amazed whenever I tell them I LOVE contract bridge. They all feel there are better/more worthwhile/more engaging activities than bridge.

Will friends' attitude shift as we all mature more? That is my theory...of course, no way to prove that fast......

I think the best way right now to address the "perception" problem is really a puff type of method--marketing.... I hate marketing. It preys on psychology and you feel like such a hypocritical predator after, but it works and satisfies and gratifies. If a pop icon adored by many fans were to suddenly declare "Bridge is kewl!" bridge *will* be cool, till the next big ad campaign. If harry potter plays bridge, you'll get your young kiddy bridge players.

It hurts me to see people being manipulated, so I don't like the idea as much as I should have, but.......


R. Dog

(add: I just saw free's post. Agree 100%. )

[the hog]

My last comment re Free's post:
I realise Americans are far more conservative than us "Old Europeans", (thanks Rumsfeld, love that phrase!),when it comes to issues of morality, but for anyone to take any offence is unbelievable imho, and Ben, I would have no hesitation in showing that to my 12 yo niece. However Ben, afaiak you can keep your role - I don't have the time nor the inclination to moderate.

Now the "Dying Bridge" question. Bridge is not dying in all countries; Australia eg has an increasing membership. Part of the trouble in the US is that idiotic system regulations discourage the type of experimentation so beloved by youth players. YP do not want to play in an artificially cosseted environment designed to protect the interests of the rich - read sponsor here - , the intellectually lazy and the geriatrics who now control Bridge administration in the US. Wolff has a lot to answer for for his past pecadilloes in administration. The conservative fort is being maintained now by Meckstroth and his ilk, who go out of their way to protect the interests of sponsors.

The best way to encourage young players to take up the game is to:

1) educate ins schools - as has already been pointed out
2) Lighten up system regulations to allow experimentation
3) Simplify the inconsistent and sometimes over litigious rules of the game
4) Promote more on line bridge, particularly stressing the international flavour of that game.

[the saint]

Hi

I am a regional youth officer for the development of Bridge in England. It is a voluntary post.i only do it in my spare time because I have to earn a living! I have been involved in developing youth bridge for 4 years. I am 27 now and decided to get involved while I was still young and the kids could still relate to me. I am also a former U25 International, and I made no secret of this fact because the fact that I represented my country made it cool - a game which we all accept has an image problem amongst the young. I would certainly advocate players of similar status to get involved and gove something back to the game that has given so much.

There are many problems I encounter in England. Teaching in schools is preferable - I learnt at school, played for my school and so on. But I was lucky because I had a teacher who played and gave her time. There aren't bridge playing teachers in every school, and increasing curiculum workloads mean they have less and less time to give. Some are unwilling to do so. It would seem therefore that the solution is to get outsiders to go in, but schools don't like strangers with their children. I have to have a police background check in order to do my job because I am working with children. Child-abuse is a very hot political subject in England at the moment. So I have to look for teachers in the schools who play and are willing or people to go in from outside who the schools trust and have the relevant clearances. This is before we even get to the children.

Yes, there is an image problem. That was why I got involved. To show we aren't all old and decrepit! Also because when I was at school there were potentially 30-40 really good juniors (I mean really good!). The local county association wasted that talent to the extent that only three of us are still playing in any way. I resolved never to let that happen again, so that any juniors I could help wouldn't be lost to the game through the incompetence of the powers that be. It would be of their own choice. The fact remains that it is very difficult to hold the attention of the youngsters when in 30 seconds they can be doing all manner of exciting things on a Playstation. This situation will only get worse. To counter this, perhaps Bill Gates could bundle Bridge software with every copy of Windows he sells. He can afford it. I know he likes the game. And how many players (especially youngsters)would have their curiosity aroused by it. GO ON BILL. DO IT!

The one mantra I hold when doing this is that it must be fun. Take away the enjoyment of playing - surely the raison d'etre in the first place - and no-one will want to play. Junior Bridge was the most fun I ever had in the game with the most fun people and I want to ensure it stays that way. Juniors are noisy, sometimes go too far, but there is never any malice. And they play harder and fairer than the average adult. I have never heard of a junior cheating scandal and I doubt I ever will. Yet in many bridge clubs you can visibly see the Old Age Pensioners curling up their toes at the sight of them. The generation gap rears its ugly head. Yes, as I said it sometimes goes to far and a quiet word after the event doesn't go amiss. I had a couple and it never did me any harm. Is it so hard to co-exist?

The junior scene in this country is held together by a handful of hard-working people who give freely of their time, who do a stunning job within the stark limitations of their resources. Its sad, but true. But I won't stop trying to spread my love of the game to those who will follow me.

Alan Shillitoe

alan_shillitoe@hotmail.com

[fred]

The_Hog, on Jan 16 2004, 09:20 PM, said:

Now the "Dying Bridge" question. Bridge is not dying in all countries; Australia eg has an increasing membership. Part of the trouble in the US is that idiotic system regulations discourage the type of experimentation so beloved by youth players. YP do not want to play in an artificially cosseted environment designed to protect the interests of the rich - read sponsor here - , the intellectually lazy and the geriatrics who now control Bridge administration in the US. Wolff has a lot to answer for for his past pecadilloes in administration. The conservative fort is being maintained now by Meckstroth and his ilk, who go out of their way to protect the interests of sponsors.

I don't think it is appropriate for you to publicly accuse players
like Meckstroth and Wolff (or anyone else for that matter) of
having less than pure intentions unless you are able to present
evidence to back up your claims.

What makes you think you know what makes these guys tick?

Just because the views of these people as far as system regulation
go disagree with yours, it doesn't mean that you are *right* or
that the others are evil in some way.

I happen to agree (strongly) with the views about systems regulations
of the great players you mention. I know for me this has nothing
to do with sponsors. Also, I am close friends with Meckstroth and
I have every reason to believe that his views are motivated by what
he thinks is "good for bridge". I am close not enough with Wolff to be able
to vouch for him personally - perhaps you know him better than I do.

I do know that these 2 superstars have given a great deal of their
time and energy over the years to try to help make bridge a better
game for everyone. Of course it is your right to disagree with what
they have done, but I don't think it shows much class to attack their
integrity the way that you did.

I also think you are completely wrong when you claim that easing
up system restrictions would have a significant positive impact on
the number of young people playing bridge.

The trick is getting a lot of young people to try bridge, something
that is not happening now. If we can do that, the game will sell
itself to many of these (because it is a great game regardless of
what systems are allowed).

It is absurd to suggest that a 16-year old who knows nothing
about bridge won't try the game because he is told that certain
conventions are not allowed in his club (after all, he knows
nothing about bridge). In a few months when he (wrongly)
thinks he is ready to play some crazy system of his own
devising, the fact that he is prevented from doing so *might*
get him to quit bridge. Then again, some young people may be
driven away from bridge if they thought there were too many
conventions to learn to defend against.

My opinion is that the vast majority of people who get hooked
on bridge will remain hooked regardless of what system
restrictions are in effect. What we have to do is get more
people hooked to begin with.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Free]

The idea of Bill Gates inserting Bridge into windows would indeed be a great idea, but NOBODY will understand it! It's not playing Hearts or Freecell, it's BIDDING, showing shape, strength,... Imo, it's extremely difficult to learn that by just playing or kibitzing the game. My grandfather played bridge a lot, and my father watched him sometimes, but he still couldn't play bridge. He didn't understand the bidding (it's like kibitzing a completely artificial system, you won't understand unless the alerts are explained).

It's always the same: if some people put energy into a cause, it will have results. So it's great that you try to put energy in young bridge players in your country, it's great that some people try this here in my country, and hopefully there are such people everywhere, but we still need more such people to make the game atractive for young people!

A while ago, on teletext, there was also an entertainment page where we had chess, bridge, GO and checkers. That was great, every week 3 declarer problems, but they replaced the page with something else (I don't know the reason anymore). That's really a shame, but luckily we still have some articles in certain magazines about big tourneys (bermuda bowl and others) where top players really show they can play cards. Also through these media we should promote the game. Let a TV chanel broadcast bridge tournaments, people will watch (just like chess games - also long time ago I saw one on television)...

[the saint]

I agree that Bridge is a whole different kettle of fish compared to Freecell and Hearts - thats why we play it and love it so much. And never get bored of it. My point was really that Bridge needs more exposure, and via the PC would be ideal. Although it was a little tongue in cheek I admit! The idea is that if you can arouse curiosity in the game, then some will give it a go. Where is the mass-exposure at the moment? We have just had the most exciting Bermuda Bowl ever and where exactly did the world sit up and take notice?

[the hog]

Fred,
It is no secret that Wolff actively campaigned against allowing liberalisation of systems and conventions. Have you read some of his comments and decisions in Appeals committees of which he was a member? "Appeals Committee
Decisions From The 1994 NEC World Championships in
Albuquerque" (Devyn Press, 1995), is worth a read.

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.

Having read some of your posts on this topic in the past I am aware of your views and was half expecting a comment from you. Needless to say, I disagree with you strongly on this issue:

It is absurd to suggest that a 16-year old who knows nothing
about bridge won't try the game because he is told that certain
conventions are not allowed in his club (after all, he knows
nothing about bridge)

This comment totally misses the point. My point is that many young players are driven away from the game because of the failure to allow room for experimentation. I know of a number of such examples. Perhaps you should ask the question why Bridge numbers are increasing in NZ, Aust etc and declining in other countries. Youth Bridge is growing here, why? Perhaps you should also ask why it would seem that lols are not driven away from the game in countries which have more liberal regulations.

[Rain]

Just a few thoughts.. :

Free: "Let a TV chanel broadcast bridge tournaments, people will watch (just like chess games - also long time ago I saw one on television)... "

I think sadly, bridge on TV would just drive people away even more. (Unless they are already enthusiasts of course) Its not self explanatory, its not obvious what the experts are doing, current experts are not flamboyant enough! haha, and cards are too small, etc...

Table tennis appear to be gaining favour with international audience nowadays, and is even shown on ESPN more than in the past. (Could be just ESPN singapore though, I am not sure about other countries' ESPN) What happened was, about 2-3 years ago, ITTF changed the rules to make table tennis more attractive. Major changes include
1)scoring system to make it much more exciting, easier for an upset.
2)making the balls bigger so that the game slows down, makes it more TV friendly, makes the ball easier to spot on TV too !

Main changes. Bridge on TV will need something exciting too.....

The saint :"To counter this, perhaps Bill Gates could bundle Bridge software with every copy of Windows he sells. He can afford it. I know he likes the game. And how many players (especially youngsters)would have their curiosity aroused by it. GO ON BILL. DO IT!"

Free :"The idea of Bill Gates inserting Bridge into windows would indeed be a great idea, but NOBODY will understand it! It's not playing Hearts or Freecell, it's BIDDING, showing shape, strength,... Imo, it's extremely difficult to learn that by just playing or kibitzing the game"

I think this also means the software included for free will suck. Heh. Unless Bill includes bm2k in every copy of course...i'll love that!

And I think Justin and Fred are right about beginners, youth or otherwise...beginners will be intimidated without protection. I know I was, and now i still think it scary when opponents wield many gadgets, but its interesting to see what they do, and sometimes try to imitate them! But back when I knew absolutely nothing...if I'd faced opponents who used 4NT blackwood I'd have ran in the other direction. Luckily I was on yahoo! (or earlier even, playing "floating bridge" and having fun bidding 6NT then asking for A♠ as partner.)

[fred]

The_Hog, on Jan 16 2004, 11:13 PM, said:

Fred,
It is no secret that Wolff actively campaigned against allowing liberalisation of systems and conventions. Have you read some of his comments and decisions in Appeals committees of which he was a member? "Appeals Committee
Decisions From The 1994 NEC World Championships in
Albuquerque" (Devyn Press, 1995), is worth a read.

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.

Having read some of your posts on this topic in the past I am aware of your views and was half expecting a comment from you. Needless to say, I disagree with you strongly on this issue:

It is absurd to suggest that a 16-year old who knows nothing
about bridge won't try the game because he is told that certain
conventions are not allowed in his club (after all, he knows
nothing about bridge)

This comment totally misses the point. My point is that many young players are driven away from the game because of the failure to allow room for experimentation. I know of a number of such examples. Perhaps you should ask the question why Bridge numbers are increasing in NZ, Aust etc and declining in other countries. Youth Bridge is growing here, why? Perhaps you should also ask why it would seem that lols are not driven away from the game in countries which have more liberal regulations.

Agree that Wolff is against the liberalization of conventions,
but that is not the point. The point is that your post suggested
that he has some kind of ulterior motive for this position
(ie that Wolff knows his views are *wrong* but that he has
something personal to gain from them).

Similarly, you have no way of knowing if Meckstroth was
"trying to protect his client" in the incident that is described
on the web site you mentioned. Most likely he would have
handled the incident the same way regardless of who his
partner happened to be.

I am all for hearing opposing views, but that is no excuse
for character assassination.

I happen to have heard some horror stories about the
behavior of the pair you mention from Australia (which I
won't mention here because I have no idea if they are true
or not). Maybe there is more to this story than that which
was included in their report.

As for the argument that "bridge is growing in Australia and
NZ but shrinking in USA", sorry but I don't buy it. Even if
this is true (and I have not seen the numbers from any kind
of reliable source), this does not imply in any way that the
difference in system regulations is the reason.

How about his argument: Bridge was most popular in North
America in the 1950s and 1960s when system restrictions
were much stronger than they are now. Perhaps we should
go back to the rules we had then...

I am not saying I buy this either, but it makes at least as
much sense as the argument you put forward.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Free]

Rain, on Jan 17 2004, 10:04 AM, said:

I think this also means the software included for free will suck. Heh. Unless Bill includes bm2k in every copy of course...i'll love that!

Ofcourse, everything about windows sucks, but what you gonna do? Right: install it and run BBO

[mikestar]

A radical suggestion for the ACBL. Stop trying to cater to the players who love conventions and the players who hate them in the same events. Have some games with the Limited Convention Chart (perhaps made even more restrictive) and the rest with the Mid Chart without the preapproved defense requirement. Clubs would be encouraged to but not required to offer both typs of games and tournaments would be required to offer a minimum percentage of each--the exact balance to be determined by player demand.

I'm not at all sure this is a good idea--my purpose is to stimulate discussion. But I do feel that very few players are happy with the GCC. The players who want protection from what they view as excessive artificiality must cringe to know that a system as different from 2/1 as Key Lime Precision is GCC legal. [Not a criticism of KLP. It is an excellent system.] On the other hand, experimenters don't like the GCC's restrictiveness, particularly in the area of weak bids.

Personally, I will play against anything up to and including forcing pass. If they are good enough to play such complex systems expertly they would have also beaten me playing SAYC. And if they only think they can handle such a system, I will have a fine chance of winning against them even if they would have beaten me playing SAYC.

[badderzboy]

As someone new to the game and relatively young at 35 I was attracted to playing bridge for a number of reasons.

I played Whist with my parents as a child and so enjoyed playing cards and I also played Chess quite well but stopped when I got into competitive sport.

During the last 15 years I have not seen anything to advertise the game either at University or externally and my interest tweaked as I enjoy cruising and attended a couple of ship lessons 18 months ago to see what it was all about and was advised to try LTPB by the lecturer and on a later trip advised to try to play online (BBO was recommended).

I am now hooked to say the least and being a Brit play either ACOL or SAYC as required.

BBO has been a revelation for me with the myriad of lessons available for beginners+ and opportunity to play and all for free!

Indeed the best thing that could happen for bridge to promote it for younger people would be to tie get Yahoo/MSN Zone/Gameplay to use BBO instead of their software and this would introduce more people to the game in an environment where they could play and learn! I am also aware of the danger of people trying to spoil what is a superb place to play the game.

In terms of the conventions arguement - Its a mute point for getting people to learn the game - the fewer conventions the better to start with. I sometimes feel people are inventing them not to improve their constructive bidding but to confuse as many opps as possible to improve their score not by superior play but by baffling the opps. If you're playing me you'll beat me by better play just bid simply to do it!

I would think that for beginners / intermediates to play in a level playing field with fairly stringent controls can only be good and allow people to win by card play first and then as they improve - the next step is their own system / defences to play at the advanced / expert level. If this is ACBL's approach it should be condoned not criticised.


Steve

[eyhung]

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

[mr1303]

In my experience the problem is not the lack of young people playing the game, but the stereotype. Most non bridge people assume that bridge is for the "nearly dead" to quote a few of my friends, despite the fact that several young celebrities play, including Radiohead, Clive Anderson, Martina Navratilova etc (source: Christine Duckworth, EBU education services manager). However, the situation in the UK is not nearly as bad as you seem to think it is.

I'm strongly involved in (British) university bridge, and amongst the top universities, the skill level is up there. Maybe not world class, but we'd give most advanced/expert players a good game.

I've also noticed that there are a lot of young (under 25) players using BBO. As far as I'm concerned, this has to be a good thing.

Mark Reeve

General Secretary

University of Bristol Bridge Club

[Free]

As I said before, it's not a problem of keeping the current players, the problem is to get people at the table to learn the game. If that doesn't happen, you won't get new players. And how do you get people at a table? Like eyhung pointed out: resolving the social, cultural, and marketing issues. If that works, then we should look at the current regulations. Do you think someone new to bridge will say "I don't like all these regulations" when he has never played the game? No, but once he has learned it, he might change his opinion about it. And by then, we have already a new bridgeplayer

[hallway]

Justin - fear not - the BILlies are coming !!

BTW the members that were there during your visit the other day thoroughly enjoyed themselves.

The Beginner Intermediate Lounge's youngest member is the sprightly age of 10 - TEN !! <I had beetter confess I have not actually seen the birth certificate !! >

I am getting more and more applications each day from people who are telling me they are in the 16 - 35 age bracket who want to join because they have discovered bridge on the internet and now want to LEARN how to play it.

And ,imho, if they are not going to join a Bridge Club they have found the very BEST place on the Net to LEARN and become addicted to the GAME.

BBO's Beginner Intermediate Lounge is proud of the diverse range of learning / competing activities that is offered TO all ages BY all ages

[Trpltrbl]

luis, on Jan 16 2004, 11:15 AM, said:

Free:
18 whaaaat???
Children can start learning bridge at 6. At the age of 11/12 they can play normal tournaments with a good int/adv level and can reach expert level by the age of 14/15 same as in chess but harder because some extra skills are needed.
If you start teaching mini-bridge at schools children interested can then move on to bridge as a sport.

I started playing when I was 11, together with my little brothers!!! and we were playing, a few years later, already national championships. But to say I was an expert already at that early age I will not say, I do think you can play good but you are still a kid and kids wanna have fun. Bridgeplayers are a breed apart at a younger age and you either are a bridgeplayer or not. At an older age people start playing because of social aspects, we started because of our passion for cardplay And of course the many nights of rubberbridge were lots of fun too.

Mike

[bearmum]

Rain, on Jan 17 2004, 06:42 AM, said:

I think bridge doesn't suit all temperements.  Most children/youths will be at a point in life where more physically energetic activities appeal.  I've observed my friends' preferences over the years.  Girls <18 or so and Guys up till 25 mostly cannot seem to sit still to even concentrate 1 hour on reading.

How come MOST teenagers can spend HOURS and HOURS playing mindless (as in not much brainpower required )computer games -- killing enemies etc --- and not be able to sit still long enough to TRY to learn to play a CHALLENGING game

The LARGE majority of children -- youths (AND adults unfortunately ) in USA and and Australia ( as I know from living in BOTH places) are "couch potatoes" and don't want to be physically challenged

SO I guess Bridge folk need to get others involved with the MANTAL challenge of Bridge - and hopefully sites like BBO will help - ALL you need is the desire to learn - an internet connection -- BBO installed --- AND HOPEFULLY long time bridge players prepared to help NEWBIES to the game to start playing

[keylime]

I started this game on a dare, literally - only 4 short years ago, and I'm amazed at the skill level I've obtained in that short time considering that in those four years maybe two I was actively playing due to living circumstances. I'd offer bridge in the schools and get them starting BEFORE the mindless computer games take over myself...