Dedicated Chess Clubs/Bridge Clubs

[John Swain]

Some while ago, a past President of the Nottinghamshire Chess Association suggested at our A.G.M. that he was in negotiations with the Council for the establishment of a dedicated Nottingham Chess Club. I'm not sure whether many took the idea very seriously at the time, but nothing came of it. Yet we have a dedicated Nottingham Bridge Club in a fairly substantial building; I've no idea where the finance for this arose or how it makes ends meet. Not too long ago, I played in an U180 Notts v Lancashire county match in pleasant surroundings at Newcastle Bridge Club in Staffs (half-way venue). No doubt other examples of dedicated Bridge Clubs could be given, yet there seem to be few chess equivalents, at least in the U.K. Why is this?

Some have suggested, stereotyping no doubt, that chess players are typically males who dislike spending much money on their hobby, and, John Robinson and a few others excepted, tend not to leave money in their wills for chess activities; bridge players, on the other hand, are often widows who are more likely to leave resources for bridge purposes, particularly if they have no children.

What do others think? Can we learn something from the way bridge organises its finances?

[MartinCarpenter]

Most (nearly all I think) bridge clubs have their own venue. Its actually down to very simple economics

With a bridge club you have several sessions a week (4 or 5 typically) each of which pulls in a lot of paying customers. 30 or so perhaps typical for a normal sized club? And yes they all pay every single time they play! 5 pounds or so quite normal iirc.

This is partially because that sort of club night is the only feasible way to play bridge, but also because bridge has considerable attraction to retired people as a relatively social activity.

Well there are teams leagues as per chess teams leagues, but its the club nights where they make the money.

You can imagine what that does for their finances relative to chess! A totally different league.

Unfortunately I can't really imagine how a chess club might begin to duplicate this. Even keeping normal club nights 'alive' is typically hard enough.

[Roger de Coverly]

Even keeping normal club nights 'alive' is typically hard enough.

Are not Bridge "nights" really Bridge afternoons? With the possible exception of the CCF, chess clubs haven't generally set up events to appeal to those not at school or not employed.

[John Swain]

Most (nearly all I think) bridge clubs have their own venue. Its actually down to very simple economics

With a bridge club you have several sessions a week (4 or 5 typically) each of which pulls in a lot of paying customers. 30 or so perhaps typical for a normal sized club? And yes they all pay every single time they play! 5 pounds or so quite normal iirc.

This is partially because that sort of club night is the only feasible way to play bridge, but also because bridge has considerable attraction to retired people as a relatively social activity.

Well there are teams leagues as per chess teams leagues, but its the club nights where they make the money.

You can imagine what that does for their finances relative to chess! A totally different league.

Unfortunately I can't really imagine how a chess club might begin to duplicate this. Even keeping normal club nights 'alive' is typically hard enough.

Interesting ideas.

Keeping a Bridge Club with its own venue afloat seems to be an easier proposition than a Chess Club, but how is the initial finance for a Bridge Club generated?

Secondly, how can chess tap into the retired 'market'? Why do retired people perceive bridge rather than chess as "a relatively social activity"? How can chess change its image?

[Roger de Coverly]

Secondly, how can chess tap into the retired 'market'?

Up to a point it's already doing so, to judge from the age of participants in League and Congress chess.

The British Championships Congress has created additional senior events for players of lower grades. By contrast, the first British I played in, Rhyl in 1969, had a veterans section for over 50s which attracted just 6 players, according to the Congress programme.

[PeterFarr]

Woodpushers and Brighton chess clubs are distinct clubs that share a venue with a bridge club, which seems a good solution. It's also an excellent venue, with very good playing conditions, and a very pleasant atmosphere. I guess this is more feasible in a highly populated area.

[Martyn Harris]

Most (nearly all I think) bridge clubs have their own venue. Its actually down to very simple economics

I'd hazard a guess that in fact most bridge clubs don't own their own premises, though I suspect that a significant proportion of the larger and longer established clubs do. I'd agree though that Economics does play a role - if you can afford to but your own property why pay rent?

With a bridge club you have several sessions a week (4 or 5 typically) each of which pulls in a lot of paying customers. 30 or so perhaps typical for a normal sized club? And yes they all pay every single time they play! 5 pounds or so quite normal iirc.

Bridge clubs vary in size from a score of diehards to hundreds of members. Certainly a club with 100 members is not at all unusual in the bridge world. Consequently the turnout can vary considerably, with some clubs being pleased to see four tables, others believing the end is nigh if they shrink to 10 for a given session. Clubs with their own premises naturally try to make the fullest use of them, and may hold more than one session in a day. There is a tendency for evening sessions to attract a greater proportion of serious players than afternoon or morning ones, but this is not a universal truth. A fiver per session is perhaps towards the top end of the going rate, half of that perhaps being more normal.

This is partially because that sort of club night is the only feasible way to play bridge, but also because bridge has considerable attraction to retired people as a relatively social activity.

Well there are teams leagues as per chess teams leagues, but its the club nights where they make the money.

You can imagine what that does for their finances relative to chess! A totally different league.

It is not the only feasible way to play bridge, but it is true that the club session is the staple diet for bridge players in the same way that a league match is for many chess players. Yes, I do know that there are parts of the country where play in the club championship is the standard fare for chess clubs.

Unfortunately I can't really imagine how a chess club might begin to duplicate this. Even keeping normal club nights 'alive' is typically hard enough.

The biggest problem in trying to replicate this is that playing bridge is addictive in a way that playing chess isn't. I wouldn't be surprised if a typical bridge player played at least twice a week fifty weeks of the year. More players playing more frequently and paying every time means that bridge club economics and chess club ones are entirely different.

[Martyn Harris]

Keeping a Bridge Club with its own venue afloat seems to be an easier proposition than a Chess Club, but how is the initial finance for a Bridge Club generated?

There are (or were) a small number of proprietor's clubs, effectively businesses run by the owner who would not only make a profit from the normal running of the club but also charge for coaching and other activities. Presumably they raised their initial finance in the same way as any other business.

More normal is the member's club model where the club is owned and run by it's members. I dare say that there are a variety of ways in which finance is raised. I know that the Newcastle Club was initially partly financed by loans from its members. I believe that they also had a mortgage, though this may be wrong. They are now debt-free.

Don't forget that there are ongoing costs to cover - utility bills, insurance, maintenance, business rates. If your projected income isn''t large enough to cover these with a comfortable margin allowed for error, then there is no sense in even investigating the possibility of purchase.

Given current property prices and club sizes, not to mention the tightness of chess players wallets, it is difficult to see a chess club acquiring its own premises now. Possibly a league, particularly one whose geography would make it reasonable to insist all matches were played at the venue. So if Notts CA bought a central venue they would want a program such as Mondays division three and four alternating, Tuesday open individual rapidplays, Wednesdays Divisions one and two alternating, Thursdays Division five alternating with county individual matches, Fridays juniors. Perhaps some afternoon sessions in association with U3A. Home county matches at weekends, plus other one off events then. With players paying board money every time they turn out.

Could you get that through your clubs?

Secondly, how can chess tap into the retired 'market'? Why do retired people perceive bridge rather than chess as "a relatively social activity"? How can chess change its image?

In bridge players will change opponents every fifteen to 20 minutes, giving several opportunities for a little chat between completion of one round and the beginning of next. If you hold a five round quickplay event at your club does that seem more social than a match night or ordinary club night?
You have a partner (of choice) with whom it is natural to interact.
There is a more even balance between the sexes.
You join a bridge club and you get to play the same bridge as the other members. With many chess clubs, joining is only a start. You then have to get into a team, which depending on the local philosophy may involve serving time as a reserve to be called upon in emergencies, this being particularly true if you are perceived as a weak player.
Because bridge players play more often they get to know each other better on a personal level, which makes it seem better socially.
Bridge players are more civilised and can communicate in more than grunts.

[Andrew Zigmond]

In the 1970s Harrogate Bridge Club decided to buy their own premises and asked the chess club (then the larger club) if they wanted to go into partnership. The chess club declined. Forty years later the bridge club have paid off their initial mortgage and due to inflation in house prices have considerable assets in property. Given that it probably wouldn't be practical to do this now the chess club feel like we missed a trick here. Was this the case with bridge clubs up and down the country in the 70s?

As an aside, the current Chairman of Harrogate Chess Club - also a bridge player - noted that this proves that bridge players are gamblers while chess players are more cautious.

[MartinCarpenter]

Not sure. York I think built their own venue at some stage a bit back. Darlington the same.

Do 'serious' bridge players play much more than serious chess ones? I'm not really sure. Its quite close I think. Certainly many more 'serious' chess books sold and the number of bridge players who've actually thought about say bidding systems at a genuine level isn't high.

What is certainly unarguable is that it is possible to play bridge 'non seriously' hugely more easily and enjoyably than chess. I don't think that'll ever change. That matters because the post retirement people mostly simply don't much care about the level they're playing at. They're rather sanely more interested in enjoying themselves It is also much easier to kid yourself that you're playing reasonable bridge than it is in chess!

Some more differences: Yorkshire chess league = ~30 teams of 8 at weekends, 3 divisions. Yorkshire bridge league 87 teams of 8 spread over 11 (!) divisions. Goodness, Wensleydale field a team and Sheffield have a J team. I've played a bit in that and maybe divisions 1-4 of the bridge league directly overlap with 1-2 of the chess league. The difference is more down to how low you can drop the standard and still field motivated teams.

Compare the experience of the two. With the bridge league you've got a nice venue for starters, and then you play for two sessions and have a - mostly genuinely nice - buffet tea in the middle of the match. With the chess you turn up to a slightly random venue, spend the whole afternoon playing one game and get a few biscuits to chew on. You really do have to genuinely like the game to enjoy that.

I can still remember someone at Bradford earnestly apologising for some minor issues with their buffet at some stage.

[David Pardoe]

Interesting comparisions on Chess & Bridge.
The idea of a league obtaining or renting a central venue for chess, both social and competitive, could have some mileage.
eg...a venue in `Central Manchester`, or other city centres, might act as a useful meeting point socially at lunch times for casual chess, but might also provide a recruiting vehical and enable a new central manchester club to operate in evenings. It might also support three or four club nights, and maybe act as a neutral venue for adjourned matches (if returned..), or for clubs looking to add extra nights chess for its members (perhaps to play club championship matches, or just friendlies).. It might also prove useful for some clubs as a half way house..

South Manchester Chess & Bridge club seemed to work well for many years...
As for chess being more serious than bridge...probably not. Its two different `sports`, with different skill sets and conditions. Chess clocks drive the tempo of chess... Bridge is down to the hands of cards dealt...different starting positions for each match.
In bridge they can have some notorios `post mortims`, where playing `errors` are analysed, and friction can result.., but useful lessons can also result..
Yes, Bridge lends itself to a social element, and maybe chess needs some post match free time for social, cups of tea, etc. Although the pints of beer can flow in the course of a 3 hour league/county match....

But, I also wonder if Bridge has a slight `class` image...a cut above the chess `plebs` so to speak. And definately more willing to coff up.. I guess its just a different style and tradition. Yes, Bridge certainly attracts its fair share of `retired` folk. And, quite often, Golf clubs will have a bridge group, meeting a couple of times a week.. All jolly hockey sticks, so to speak.
I remember that Bridge in the 6th form centre was a great social passtime, years ago....
Both `pastimes`/cultural activities offer endless hours of challenge and enjoyment....thats for sure.