Bridge As A Spectator Sport

There's an interesting discussion going on (in sort of slow motion) at Cathy Chua's blog, The Overtrick. The thrust of it is that Cathy wants to know how to improve Australian bridge, not just the overall standard, but particularly, how to make the top-level Australians fully competitive at World level, and bringing the Bermuda Bowl south and stuff. This is a big question, and I've no doubt a few other countries would be interested in a good answer.

Cathy contends that bridge is not taken seriously, either by the general public or by bridge players themselves, and that “professional” bridge players really aren't very professional. She thinks that if big prize money tournaments were available, so that players could actually make a living playing bridge (as opposed to teaching or writing or playing with sponsors), then the game as a whole would be taken more seriously by everyone. And as a result, the standard of play (at all levels) would improve.

I can see what she means, but I'm not sure I agree 100%. I think she's a bit too dismissive of the current “professional bridge players”. Even in sports that do have big money tournaments and international stars (say, tennis, for example) the majority of “tennis pros” toil away almost all of the time not in Grand Slam tournaments, but giving lessons and doing all the stuff that Cathy doesn't like. But I do think she's right that if there were a big money tournament circuit where top players could earn a living, that would indeed change a lot of people's perception of the game.

But having said that, I think that business model is only properly sustainable for a spectator sport. You only get the continuous infusion of cash if you get lots of people to put in a little each – paying customers, TV deals and the like. Can that ever work for bridge? I don't think so, not at the moment anyway. Even chess has such tournaments (which is a factor driving Cathy's perception, of course), but a key factor there, I think, is that a large percentage of people knows how to play chess. Very badly, it's true, but there is no need for spectators to actually appreciate the details on their own: that's what commentators are for. I mean, thousands, millions, of people watch Tiger Woods play golf. Not all of those people can actually play golf, they just understand enough to know that what he's doing is difficult. Bridge doesn't have the same penetration into the general public in terms of people knowing even just a little bit about the game. And I think the only way to change that is through the schools. I think we need to have high-school bridge clubs the way we have chess clubs. Get bridge onto the menu of after-school activities, recognized as being as brain-twisting as chess (in a different way), while being better in some ways because it is a social game where chess is essentially solitary. And get people playing (rubber) bridge at home, not just in duplicate tournaments. It will take a long time, no doubt, but you have to prepare the ground in terms of making an audience available. Not all the kids will grow up to be bridge players, but they will grow up to know what you are talking about when you mention bidding and ruffing.

Which doesn't solve Cathy's immediate problem. Is there something that can be done in the space of, say, five or ten years, rather than a generational approach?