ACBL Demographics
Tim Goodwin
I'm particularly interested in the percentage of members who are under
30 and under 40.
Thanks,
Tim
Eric Taylor
I am not sure, but a former ACBL insider told me that there are
an astonishing % of people over 70. (Many inactive)
I want to say 60%, but I it maybe more.
andrew p. lewis
>Does anybody have access to a breakdown of ACBL membership by age?
>I'm particularly interested in the percentage of members who are under
>30 and under 40.
Kent Burghard posted these (from a board of governors meeting) 3 or 4 years
ago. I don't imagine much has changed since then (except that I have escaped
that youngest percentile).
>- A recent ACBL demographic survey has determined that 75% of ACBL
> members qualify for senior status (55+)!! The population age is:
> Under 25 1%
> 25-34 1%
> 35-44 5%
> 45-54 17%
> 55+ 75%
Andy
st...@flash.net
tay...@us.itmasters.com wrote:
> Tim Goodwin wrote:
>
> > Does anybody have access to a breakdown of ACBL membership by age?
> > I'm particularly interested in the percentage of members who are under
> >
> > 30 and under 40.
>
> an astonishing % of people over 70. (Many inactive)
>
> I want to say 60%, but I it maybe more.
>
make your statement a statistical impossibility.
Also, IIRC, 2/3 of all members were elgible for senior events
(age 55+), which is probably one reason the ACBL has instigated
super senior events (age 65+). The under 40 crowd accounts for
somewhere around 5% of the membership.
-Stu Goodgold
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Robert Nordgren
lewis) wrote:
>Tim Goodwin wrote:
>>Does anybody have access to a breakdown of ACBL membership by age?
>>I'm particularly interested in the percentage of members who are under
>>30 and under 40.
>
>Kent Burghard posted these (from a board of governors meeting) 3 or 4 years
>ago. I don't imagine much has changed since then (except that I have escaped
>that youngest percentile).
>
>>- A recent ACBL demographic survey has determined that 75% of ACBL
>> members qualify for senior status (55+)!! The population age is:
>> Under 25 1%
>> 25-34 1%
>> 35-44 5%
>> 45-54 17%
>> 55+ 75%
>
What have went wrong in ACBL this pyramid can NOT stand like this for
long since it will not balance on the top of it forever.
some graphics shows very well how bad it is
55+ **************************************
45-54 *********
35-44 **
25-34 a half star
-25 a half star
Readed in the latest Bulletin that ACBL have increased there
membership in the last year. What i would like to see is how are the
new members divided in age. My guess is 80% or even more are in the
55+ category and as that not helping to balance the pyramid.
Do a survey among the players that are under 45 and see what they
like/ dislike about ACBL and how they think it should be handled.
It is those players that are currently below 45 that probably are
thinking will it be a game called bridge in 25 yrs from now??
Will i have a pd than, will we have opps?
Curious to know what the very very few players below 45 thinks about
the problems ACBL have with recruiting young players.
robert
to reply via e-mail, remove "gogators" from above address
Douglas McLean
lewis) wrote:
>Tim Goodwin wrote:
>>Does anybody have access to a breakdown of ACBL membership by age?
>>I'm particularly interested in the percentage of members who are under
>>30 and under 40.
>
>Kent Burghard posted these (from a board of governors meeting) 3 or 4 years
>ago. I don't imagine much has changed since then (except that I have escaped
>that youngest percentile).
>
>>- A recent ACBL demographic survey has determined that 75% of ACBL
>> members qualify for senior status (55+)!! The population age is:
>> Under 25 1%
>> 25-34 1%
>> 35-44 5%
>> 45-54 17%
>> 55+ 75%
>
>Andy
I think there is a category, or two, left off the chart. I did an
"outside" review of various published ACBL financials and regulatories
for 1993 - 95 some time ago. Here are two of the conclusions I arrived
at:
1. When a person becomes an ACBL Life Master, they continue to be
counted as a member even after they no longer pay their ACBL dues.
Extrapolating from those old numbers, a very rough current estimate is
25,000 + of about 40,000 + Life Masters are in this category. Maybe a
good name for the 25,000 + would be "Life Masters Pro Tem."
2. It is unlikely that these Pro Tem people's relatives notify the
ACBL when they pass on. By now a significant portion of the 25,000 are
no longer with us. I do not pretend to know how to estimate any sort
of hard number. I would be surprised if it were less than 5,000. It
could be as much as 15,000, or even more. If my conclusions are
correct, maybe a better name for the 25,000 + might be "Life and Death
Masters."
I am originally from Chicago. Therefore, I think of this situation as
another tombstone politics variation.
Douglas
MoDaKohs
>1. When a person becomes an ACBL Life Master, they continue to be
>counted as a member even after they no longer pay their ACBL dues.
What is this about Life Masters not having to
pay dues?
Christopher J. Monsour
Robert Nordgren wrote in message <35abd3c0...@news.iag.net>...
>Curious to know what the very very few players below 45 thinks about
>the problems ACBL have with recruiting young players.
I think their real problem is not recruiting us, but holding our
interest. (I say 'we' because I'm 29.)
A few things that would help:
(1) Scheduling multi-session weekday evening events at
regionals--say a Tuesday evening-Wednesday evening
Swiss or Pairs (or Wed eve-Thurs eve), while making the
two-session day games morning-afternoon instead of
afternoon-evening. It's extraordinarily annoying to have a
regional going on five miles from home and not be able to
play any weekday games except the Continuous Pairs. (I
don't think I've ever played in a Continuous Pairs; we all have
standards.) Occasionally having a weekend KO (starting Fri
eve or Sat morn) instead of a KO that starts Fri morn would
be a nice change for some districts.
(2) Implement something like the idea Hank Youngerman
mentioned in another thread, to improve the competition in
flight A. I've seen some unbelievably weak fields in flight A,
especially at sectionals. In played in a flight A Open Pairs at
the Palo Alto, CA, sectional a couple of weekends ago, and I
swear I've seen stronger fields for club games when I lived in
Illinois. If people are worried that this would allow 'ringers' to
play in the lower flights, forbid players to play for pay in
anything but flight A. Possibly also, have tighter regulations
against playing in a flight in which you've won an event than
Hank is suggesting. (The 'every wasp gets one sting' rule.)
(3) Liberalize the convention charts. Most importantly, quit
adding restrictions. It's disingenuous to say that tournament
players are incapable of defending against a convention
they've _had_ to defend against for the past five years. On
the other hand, it's very annoying to have to throw out a
system because the chart changes. I don't think any flight A
Pairs or Swiss event should be allowed to use anything more
restrctive than what is currently called 'Mid-Chart', and I think
even that list should be liberalized over time, as new methods
are developed and people get used to dealing with them in
KOs (which I would propose, given that you are playing at
least 24 boards against one team, ought to be Super-Chart).
Remember when reading this that if Hank's suggestion is
implemented, far fewer seniors would be forced to play in
flight A, so the argument that LOLs can't handle a multi-2D, or
a Herbert negative, or opponents who swap the 1S and 1NT
responses to 1H, goes out the window.
I realize that some conventions are used by players in pairs
games simply because they are difficult to defend without
discussion, though easy for prepared opponents to destroy
(i.e., theoretically unsound). I think the ACBL would best
combat this by preparing better pamphlets of suggesting
defenses, even if that meant <gasp> paying one of the stars
to do it. Certainly, there should be a class of conventions that
are permitted, but at the cost of allowing the opponents to
refer to their notes (or the suggested defense) to defend. I
don't think all mid-chart conventions should receive that
treatment, though. Subjecting essentially constructive
agreements to that requirement results in very little good and
a lot of slow plays because of opponents who argue about
whether they are going to play the suggested defense.
I haven't mentioned clubs catering to young players, not
because it's not a good idea, but because that's more up to
individual entrepreneurs, and I don't know that the ACBL can
really do much on that front. It _can_ change the
tournaments.
Christopher J. Monsour
Georgiana Gates
>
> Robert Nordgren wrote in message <35abd3c0...@news.iag.net>...
>
> >Curious to know what the very very few players below 45 thinks about
> >the problems ACBL have with recruiting young players.
>
> I think their real problem is not recruiting us, but holding our
> interest. (I say 'we' because I'm 29.)
>
> A few things that would help:
>
> (1) Scheduling multi-session weekday evening events at
> regionals--say a Tuesday evening-Wednesday evening
> Swiss or Pairs (or Wed eve-Thurs eve), while making the
> two-session day games morning-afternoon instead of
> afternoon-evening. It's extraordinarily annoying to have a
> regional going on five miles from home and not be able to
> play any weekday games except the Continuous Pairs. (I
> don't think I've ever played in a Continuous Pairs; we all have
> standards.) Occasionally having a weekend KO (starting Fri
> eve or Sat morn) instead of a KO that starts Fri morn would
> be a nice change for some districts.
>
at the chance to play and not miss a day of work. The first time there
were 12 pairs and the second time 10 pairs. We don't schedule these
events any longer.
Christopher J. Monsour
Tim Goodwin wrote in message <35ad7059.3465754@news-server>...
>On Wed, 15 Jul 1998 18:33:07 -0700, "Christopher J. Monsour"
><cmon...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>It is not up to ACBL to set event schedules at regionals, that
>responsibility falls to the districts which host (and run) the
>regional.
I guess I was including the districts as part of the ACBL. You are right
that they are distinct entities. Still, I think the ACBL has a lot more
influence over them than over, say, the clubs.
Christopher J. Monsour
pwi...@dwx.com
dmc...@dakotacom.net (Douglas McLean) wrote:
> On 14 Jul 1998 11:39:28 -0700, le...@persimmon.berkeley.edu (andrew p.
> lewis) wrote:
>
> >Tim Goodwin wrote:
> >>Does anybody have access to a breakdown of ACBL membership by age?
> >>I'm particularly interested in the percentage of members who are under
> >>30 and under 40.
> >
> >Kent Burghard posted these (from a board of governors meeting) 3 or 4 years
> >ago. I don't imagine much has changed since then (except that I have escaped
> >that youngest percentile).
> >
> >>- A recent ACBL demographic survey has determined that 75% of ACBL
> >> members qualify for senior status (55+)!! The population age is:
> >> Under 25 1%
> >> 25-34 1%
> >> 35-44 5%
> >> 45-54 17%
> >> 55+ 75%
> >
> >Andy
>
> I think there is a category, or two, left off the chart. I did an
> "outside" review of various published ACBL financials and regulatories
> for 1993 - 95 some time ago. Here are two of the conclusions I arrived
> at:
>
> counted as a member even after they no longer pay their ACBL dues.
> 25,000 + of about 40,000 + Life Masters are in this category. Maybe a
> good name for the 25,000 + would be "Life Masters Pro Tem."
>
> 2. It is unlikely that these Pro Tem people's relatives notify the
> ACBL when they pass on. By now a significant portion of the 25,000 are
> no longer with us. I do not pretend to know how to estimate any sort
> of hard number. I would be surprised if it were less than 5,000. It
> could be as much as 15,000, or even more. If my conclusions are
> correct, maybe a better name for the 25,000 + might be "Life and Death
> Masters."
>
> I am originally from Chicago. Therefore, I think of this situation as
> another tombstone politics variation.
>
Yea, but unlike in Chicago they don't vote - or maybe considering some of the
things that have happened in the ACBL during last decade they still do.
Regards
Pete
--
pwi...@my-dejanews.com
Robb's Law It's impossible to devise a foolproof system as Nature will
simply evolve a more perfect fool.
Naeser's Law You can make it foolproof, but you can't make it damnfoolproof.
Tim Goodwin
<cmon...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>Robert Nordgren wrote in message <35abd3c0...@news.iag.net>...
>
>>Curious to know what the very very few players below 45 thinks about
>>the problems ACBL have with recruiting young players.
>
>
>I think their real problem is not recruiting us, but holding our
>interest. (I say 'we' because I'm 29.)
>
>A few things that would help:
>
>(1) Scheduling multi-session weekday evening events at
>regionals--say a Tuesday evening-Wednesday evening
>Swiss or Pairs (or Wed eve-Thurs eve), while making the
>two-session day games morning-afternoon instead of
>afternoon-evening. It's extraordinarily annoying to have a
>regional going on five miles from home and not be able to
>play any weekday games except the Continuous Pairs. (I
>don't think I've ever played in a Continuous Pairs; we all have
>standards.) Occasionally having a weekend KO (starting Fri
>eve or Sat morn) instead of a KO that starts Fri morn would
>be a nice change for some districts.
In New England, all our regionals run Wed-Sun (sometimes Mon when it's
a holiday). There is always a KO which starts Friday night. I notice
some people who come only for the weekend, but I don't think these are
locals who were working on Thursday and Friday. More likely, they are
non-locals who were working. I've been going to regionals on a
regular basis for 10 years (I'm 30) and have only been within
commuting distance once.
It is not up to ACBL to set event schedules at regionals, that
responsibility falls to the districts which host (and run) the
regional.
Tim
Erik Flom
> Christopher J. Monsour wrote:
> >1) Scheduling multi-session weekday evening events at
> > regionals--say a Tuesday evening-Wednesday evening
> > Swiss or Pairs (or Wed eve-Thurs eve), while making the
> > two-session day games morning-afternoon instead of
> > afternoon-evening.
> >
> My district tried that Tuesday-Wednesday evening scheduling. I jumped
> at the chance to play and not miss a day of work. The first time there
> were 12 pairs and the second time 10 pairs. We don't schedule these
> events any longer.
The problems of how to get young people to come play in a tournament
instead of going to work or caring for children are likely not solved with
one effort. When the current pool of tournament players is harshly skewed
towards retired people and you hold an exceptional event to cater to
younger working people with families it is unsurprising that attendance
would be poor.
I think tournaments can try to solve the problem of weekend child care
for parents, I seriously doubt that it can do so for weekday evening
players. How many parents want to take the children home at 11pm or
midnight on a school night and then put them to bed? On-site child care
can't really get these parents to the tournaments. I think that the idea
of evening-to-evening events can only appeal to players with no children or
older children who work during the days. I think that if the ACBL examined
weekday club attendance in a unit among players in the 25-45 age group, and
then looked at the corresponding attendance at regional events in the unit
during weekdays, you could find out how much tournament audience you are
really losing. Personally, I don't think you'd find that big a difference
because tournaments and clubs tend to run too late for people who have to
get to work the next day.
If the lateness of events is a problem, then I can only see two
solutions: fewer boards or faster play. I think the second is clearly out
because many people play bridge to relax and do not want to be rushed all
the time. Anyone for 18 board sessions ending at 9:30?
Erik Flom
Craig Senior
--
Craig Senior <rts...@ix.netcom.com>
Douglas McLean <dmc...@dakotacom.net> wrote in article
<35acba6...@news.dakotacom.net>...
> Douglas
>
>
Jeff Goldsmith
> I think their real problem is not recruiting us, but holding our
> interest. (I say 'we' because I'm 29.)
>
> A few things that would help:
>
> (1) Scheduling multi-session weekday evening events at
> regionals--say a Tuesday evening-Wednesday evening
> Swiss or Pairs (or Wed eve-Thurs eve), ...
We (district 23) do this.
July 1998: 11 tables
Feb 1998: 8 tables
Aug 1997: 7 tables
July 1997: 12 tables
Feb 1997: 9 tables
> afternoon-evening. It's extraordinarily annoying to have a
> regional going on five miles from home and not be able to
> play any weekday games except the Continuous Pairs. (I
> don't think I've ever played in a Continuous Pairs; we all have
> standards.) Occasionally having a weekend KO (starting Fri
> eve or Sat morn) instead of a KO that starts Fri morn would
> be a nice change for some districts.
We always hold a KO Saturday-Sunday. It's the
smallest one of the week.
> (3) Liberalize the convention charts. Most importantly, quit
> adding restrictions. It's disingenuous to say that tournament
> players are incapable of defending against a convention
> they've _had_ to defend against for the past five years. On
> the other hand, it's very annoying to have to throw out a
> system because the chart changes.
Most regional events these days allow Mid-Chart
defenses to 1NT openings and overcalls. Yes, it
took a couple of months for the districts to react.
> I haven't mentioned clubs catering to young players, not
> because it's not a good idea, but because that's more up to
> individual entrepreneurs, and I don't know that the ACBL can
> really do much on that front. It _can_ change the
> tournaments.
There are clubs that cater to young players---
college clubs. The problem with them is that
they need consistent year-to-year leadership. The
ACBL will help greatly if someone is willing to work
to make a college club happen, but very very few non-
students are willing to do it.
The districts control regionals, not the ACBL. The
units control sectionals. (OK, units and districts
are part of the ACBL, but they are a different part
from the central authority.) It's pretty easy to
get involved at one of those levels (depending on
where you live). So, to be more precise, _we_ can
change the tournaments.
--Jeff
--
# Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of
# the masses." ...what do you suppose that means?
# Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet.
# --Watterson
# ---
# http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff
Jeff Goldsmith
> The problems of how to get young people to come play in a tournament
> instead of going to work or caring for children are likely not solved with
> one effort. When the current pool of tournament players is harshly skewed
> towards retired people and you hold an exceptional event to cater to
> younger working people with families it is unsurprising that attendance
> would be poor.
Why? If someone scheduled an event that was perfect
for me and I couldn't play normally because of the
schedule, I'd make an effort to play in it.
> I think tournaments can try to solve the problem of weekend child care
Financially, only the very biggest regionals could
possibly do this unless the parents were willing simply
to split the total cost. My guess is that it'd be
outrageously expensive; we'd need to get bonded child
care professionals. If it were really worth doing,
I suppose regionals could rob Peter to pay Paul by
subsidizing child care a little. That'd translate
to higher entry fees.
Smaller regionals and nearly all sectionals just can't
do it. Nationals run a significant loss on their
child care. Smaller tournaments just couldn't afford it.
All in all, it probably would cost less for bridge-playing
parents to hire baby-sitters. Perhaps one active person in
each area would be willing to arrange collectives, either
rotating taking care of each others' children during a
tournament, or hiring babysitters in small groups. I'm
sure tournament staffs would be willing to let someone
who was interested in taking the lead have resources they
needed within reason.
> I think that if the ACBL examined
> weekday club attendance in a unit among players in the 25-45 age group, and
> then looked at the corresponding attendance at regional events in the unit
> during weekdays, you could find out how much tournament audience you are
> really losing. Personally, I don't think you'd find that big a difference
> because tournaments and clubs tend to run too late for people who have to
> get to work the next day.
I think the answer is going to be nearly zero. Every
once in awhile, I go to a weekday club game. I used to
a bit more when I was a student. I was always the youngest
person there. Usually by at least 20 years. No, working
parents will not take the time to go to club games. They
might be willing to take the time and spend the money to
go to tournaments.
> If the lateness of events is a problem, then I can only see two
> solutions: fewer boards or faster play. I think the second is clearly out
> because many people play bridge to relax and do not want to be rushed all
> the time. Anyone for 18 board sessions ending at 9:30?
No chance. We get screams when we have 24-board sessions.
The one thing that bridge players do not want to do is play
fewer hands. There is no question about that. A club in
the area tried to hold short games figuring the same as you
do. They didn't last a month.
So, if you have children and want to play in tournaments,
you have to get a baby-sitter, or one of the two parents has
to stay home. I'd be happy to help someone arrange group
sitter arrangements at our regionals if there were such a
person interested in taking care of that. (What would you
need? A web bulletin-board? A posted phone number? Phone
access during the tournament? Publicity that you are doing
this a month or more in advance?)
Eric Landau
> Erik Flom wrote:
>
> > If the lateness of events is a problem, then I can only see two
> > solutions: fewer boards or faster play. I think the second is clearly out
> > because many people play bridge to relax and do not want to be rushed all
> > the time. Anyone for 18 board sessions ending at 9:30?
>
> No chance. We get screams when we have 24-board sessions.
> The one thing that bridge players do not want to do is play
> fewer hands. There is no question about that. A club in
> the area tried to hold short games figuring the same as you
> do. They didn't last a month.
Perhaps young working bridge players, raised with Sesame Street and
video games, like their pastimes to be fast Perhaps they're turned
off by the image of bridge as a slow, dull game played by seniors.
Many of the sports they like to watch on TV are governed by fast and
strictly enforced clocks. We know that many who try club duplicate
once or twice are turned off by the excess of what they see as
distractions from the business of playing the game (director calls,
alerts, long post-mortems). Perhaps the way to get these people out
to the clubs isn't with 2-hour 18-board games ending at 9:30, but with
2-hour 24-board games ending at 9:30. This would not only fit their
lifestyles better (come directly from work and have time to eat dinner
afterwards, or get back to the baby-sitter at a reasonable hour)
without costing those extra boards, but, as a bonus, they might well
encounter fewer director calls, alerts and long post-mortems, which,
it would seem, tend to come more from the group that minds being
rushed all the time.
Eric Landau, APL Solutions, Inc.
"Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger" - Abbie Hoffman
r...@ma.ultranet.com
player demographics with a fair amount of interest. For the record, I
am a 31 year old single male. I play bridge regularly I will
typically play four hours or so on OKBridge. I try to play one
session a week in an ACBL affiliated club. I will occasionally go to
large ACBL tournaments.
When I do play at an ACBL club, I will typically drive 45 minutes each
way in order to play at MIT. At least three clubs are located
significantly closer to me. One of them (the Thursday night
Framingham game), offers a stronger playing field. However, I go out
of my way to go to one very specific club.
There are a few points that I think are worth making.
I do not go to ACBL affiliated clubs to play a "competitive" game of
bridge. If I want to play serious bridge against good opponents,
playing on OKBridge offers a much better environment. OKBridge gives
me the ability to pick and chose opponents. On any given day on
OKBridge, if I want I can get my butt kicked by World Championship
class players. I can do so in an environment where I can record every
card played and automatically note every bid. Even in large cities,
clubs can not compete based on the quality of card play.
The reason I continue to play at the local club is that I enjoy the
social experience involved. I like the people who play at MIT. The
players are close to my own age. It's a friendly bunch. There is
always a group of players going out for beer after the game. Finally,
the club offers a very relaxed playing environment. While the players
take the game quite seriously, for whatever reason director's calls
are few and far between and there doesn't seem to be any of the rancor
that I normally associate with ACBL events.
For me, it doesn't really matter how many boards are played at a local
event. I also don't care too much about starting times. If the club
offers an enjoyable playing environment, I'll attend. If it doesn't,
I have other ways to go and play bridge.
To some extent, the ACBL is caught in a real bind. For me, it is
uncomfortable to be the only 30 year old in a room full of people who
are predominantly twice my own age. The "social" conversation is
completely alien to me. Going out for beers after the game is out of
the question. And if I have to explain that I'm not in "school" one
more time, I'll scream. The playing environment that is offered
within most local clubs simply isn't conducive towards attracting and
retaining young players who are interested in socializing. If I want
to go back to my mathematics background, I'd say that ACBL clubs have
fallen into a locally stable equilibrium and new elements can not
successfully invade.
Unless a significant effort is expended to move local clubs into a new
"state", the playing environment is not going to change and the ACBL
won't see large numbers of young players taking up the game. The ACBL
has been investigating a number of different strategies to attract
more players to the game of bridge. At the moment, the predominate
efforts seem to be centered around two main strategies. First, the
Zero Tolerance effort is being used to attempt to improve the decorum
at local clubs and tournaments. Second, the Bridge America program is
being used to attempt to promote a non competitive version of bridge.
From what I can tell, Bridge America is predominantly targeted at
empty nester and retirement age players. (Lord knows, I don't know
many 20 somethings who can afford a bridge cruise)
If the ACBL is really interested in trying to promote bridge with
younger players, I think it will need to make a concerted effort at
experimenting with a specific playing environment that will attract
these players.
Richard
G. R. Bower
[snip]
: > (1) Scheduling multi-session weekday evening events at
: > regionals--say a Tuesday evening-Wednesday evening
: > two-session day games morning-afternoon instead of
: > regional going on five miles from home and not be able to
: > play any weekday games except the Continuous Pairs. (I
: > don't think I've ever played in a Continuous Pairs; we all have
: > standards.) Occasionally having a weekend KO (starting Fri
: > eve or Sat morn) instead of a KO that starts Fri morn would
: > be a nice change for some districts.
: My district tried that Tuesday-Wednesday evening scheduling. I jumped
: at the chance to play and not miss a day of work. The first time there
: were 12 pairs and the second time 10 pairs. We don't schedule these
: events any longer.
This has been an option open to tournament organizers for a long time.
Until this last year, the only regional I ever heard of that actually did
it was Anchorage, Alaska (they do Tues-Wed and Thrus-Fri events at the
regional, and also some horizontal sectional events there). I happen to
dislike this sort of scheduling despite being in the under-45 set, since I
often go to a tournament for 2 or 3 days, not necessarily on the weekend,
and I like to be able to play in the main events: too bad if you arrive on
Wednesday!
There are plenty of others who feel the way you do, though -- District 19
is experimenting with horizontal events on Tuesday and Wednesday, with
more traditional scheduling from Thursday onward, at its next two
tournaments -- Pasco 03-09 Aug and Seattle 21-27 Sep. I imagine that our
plans for the future wil be based on entry sales at this years
"experimental" tournaments.
If the option of 'voting with your dollars' is not available locally,
contact the chairmen of the tournaments you like to attend, and members of
your district board -- especially the torunament liaisons for the
tournamnets you play in and the representative for your unit. These are
the people who most directly influence the scheduling of future events,
and these are the people whose job it is to listen and act upon the
membership's opinions. *(At least that is the theory, and as a recent
addition to my district's board I plan to put it into practice.)
Gordon Bower
Steve Willner
> split the total cost.
There are, I'm told, a few resorts that offer child care as part of
the hotel services. Sometimes it's included in the room rate;
sometimes a little extra. Of course room rates don't tend to be
cheap at these places.... But maybe in Las Vegas or Reno, where
other income sources :-) subsidize the hotels?
Otherwise, I'm afraid Jeff is pretty close to the mark.
Cooperatives, etc. would be easier if there were lots of parents
attending tournaments. But of course they won't attend unless there
arrangements are easy to make. I don't see an easy way of breaking
the cycle. Can three-year-olds be taught to caddy? :-)
--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email is NOT appreciated.)
Tim Goodwin
wrote:
>There are, I'm told, a few resorts that offer child care as part of
>the hotel services. Sometimes it's included in the room rate;
>sometimes a little extra. Of course room rates don't tend to be
>cheap at these places.... But maybe in Las Vegas or Reno, where
>other income sources :-) subsidize the hotels?
>
>Otherwise, I'm afraid Jeff is pretty close to the mark.
>
>Cooperatives, etc. would be easier if there were lots of parents
>attending tournaments. But of course they won't attend unless there
>arrangements are easy to make. I don't see an easy way of breaking
>the cycle. Can three-year-olds be taught to caddy? :-)
I missed the start of this thread, but...
I'm 30 and the parent of two young (2 years and 4 months) children.
My daughter spent two weekends at bridge tournaments before she was 4
months old. But, hasn't been to one since then. (My wife also went
to both of those tournaments, but did not play bridge.)
For me, the availability of child care at a regional or NABC is of
absolutely no importance. I cannot imagine taking a 2 or 3 year old
child to a tournament to be taken care of by a stranger for any length
of time.
Envision this: you arrive at a tournament Friday evening in time to
check into the hotel, get something to eat and meet your childcare
provider. You kiss your kids good-bye and tell them to be good for
their new friend who is expected to put your kids to sleep in a
strange hotel room. If this is a success, you spend some time with
your kids Saturday morning, eat lunch with them and explain to them
that their new friend is going to play with them all afternoon, then
you'll take them out to dinner, then you're going away again while
their new friend puts them to bed again. "What about tomorrow?" the
kids ask. You explain to them that tomorrow they will once again
spend the day with their new friend, but instead of going to bed in
the hotel room, they're going to get into the car and drive for a
couple of hours. Never mind that the Sunday event will probably end
after bedtime and you will have checked out of the hotel room Sunday
monring. Childcare at a regional is a big selling point for young
parents? Perhaps, not.
What about a local tournament? Why would I opt to use the tournament
provided childcare rather than the usual babysitter?
In my opinion, the ACBL (and district tournament managers) should not
spend any time in an effort ot provide childcare access to tournament
players.
Tim
Richard Mauren
bridge and it is very sad. I was most active when I was around 20 -- I
gained my first 50 points or so in 1 year. The system I played was
Kaplan Shienwold just before the ACBL outlawed controlled psyches. It
was fun, and K-S is broken without them. I have since played many
systems including a 1D strong system of my own creation(but I never had
a regular enough partner to air it out enough).
There are many things that are very simple that the ACBL just does not
allow that are very simple and used all over the world. I am not even
including forcing pass in this argument but I well could. I am talking
of simpler things like relay systems and bids like 1c p 1h(showing
4spades) or 1c p 1s(showing a balanced hand) -- both of which give
opener more options and are completely constructive without being a
burdon to the opponents.
I think the only way to solve the problem with the ACBL median age at
the retirement point would be to start a new bridge club. This bridge
club would allow advanced conventions and provide an arena where people
could go on to international play without ACBL shock. Such an
organization should be very much involved with the international bridge
organization and hopefully eventually at least become on par with the
ACBL officially.
It might be necessary for such a new club to also have tournaments for
other games like spades, hearts, and pinnochle in an attempt to try to
bring these players into the fold.
st...@my-dejanews.com
Richard Mauren <silv...@eclipse.net> wrote:
> I am currently 29, one of the youngest people in the area who play
> bridge and it is very sad. I was most active when I was around 20 -- I
> gained my first 50 points or so in 1 year. The system I played was
> Kaplan Shienwold just before the ACBL outlawed controlled psyches.
I didn't realize that controlled psychs were allowed as recently
as 9 years ago.
It
> was fun, and K-S is broken without them. I have since played many
> systems including a 1D strong system of my own creation(but I never had
> a regular enough partner to air it out enough).
>
> There are many things that are very simple that the ACBL just does not
> allow that are very simple and used all over the world. I am not even
> including forcing pass in this argument but I well could. I am talking
> of simpler things like relay systems and bids like 1c p 1h(showing
> 4spades) or 1c p 1s(showing a balanced hand) -- both of which give
> opener more options and are completely constructive without being a
> burdon to the opponents.
>
Well the forcing pass is forbidden in most venues and generally
even at the highest level of competition. And the ACBL mid-chart is
used extensively in regional events and also in many clubs.
I studied a colleague's "Diamond Force" system with its 100 pages of
notes and have seen it played at all levels of local competition.
It makes extensive use of relays in game forcing auctions;
most responses to strong opening bids are totally artificial.
> I think the only way to solve the problem with the ACBL median age at
> the retirement point would be to start a new bridge club. This bridge
> club would allow advanced conventions and provide an arena where people
> could go on to international play without ACBL shock.
I have always wondered why younger players would want to engage
in an event where the average person is old enough to be their
grandparents. Why can't the ACBL provide events at major tournaments
that restrict entries to those **under** a certain age.
While such an event may attract more young players, there are
some obvious hurdles to overcome, in particular getting a large
enough turnout and placating those who pontificate political
correctness (What, how can you discriminate against senior citizens?).
-Stu Goodgold
Craig Senior
few juniors games tried, I believe. But who is going to play in them?
Age discrimination appears to fly in the face of Americanism, civil
rights and so forth. It also prevents older players from having a
chance to test their skills against "new blood". I think its an awful
idea Stu.
--
Craig Senior <rts...@ix.netcom.com>
Richard Mauren
that prevents clubs from being in both leagues.
The ACBL rules only apply to tournaments(and even there the individual
units/districts have the right to change some of the rules).
If a club wanted to allow relay systems, psychic controls, or even the
forcing pass, they are allowed.