and vice versa. I only bring it up in connection with this blog on Retro Bridge Marketing because it’s essential that those in key positions planning and implementing a marketing plan “get” that the difference between sociable and serious players is basic–profound even. Essential it be understood. Also essential is immersion in the Culbertson-Goren era of bridge, and in-put from beyond the bridge establishment.
David Scott, who’s done a doctoral thesis on “Social vs Serious Participation in Contract Bridge” sums up the difference between the two kind of players as a matter of ego investment: “Tournament players share a desire to test their bridge skills to their fullest extent. . . .accumulating Master Points [is] validation . . .” Social players “have divested their egos from participation . . . few had aspirations to become serious players . . . many purposely rejected progressing to a more serious level . . .”
Read Blog #10, “A Philosophical Take on Playing Bridge.” In it, I quote Linnet, co-founder of the Wine Women and Philosophy Spa for the Mind, who sums up why players sometimes purposely reject progressing to a more serious game–so apt and true I wish I’d thought of it myself:
“I don’t feel the same kind of joy in playing bridge that I felt when I knew less–or wasn’t expected to know more–and was winging it to a certain extent.” That’s why I resist learning transfers.
Serious players don’t ever wing it. Which intensity I believe is oppressive for the sociable player–we want to have fun. Weird thing is serious players ARE having fun.
Quote from Scott’s dissertation:
Serious Player–“If you’re playing social bridge in the normal sense, you’re not playing bridge at all.”
Sociable Player–“Life’s too short for that kind of bridge . . . ”
Still . . . both kinds of players can be equally addicted to the game, and have enjoyed it as a lifelong pleasure.