[jkljkl]

Hello,

having a look at the bulletins I noticed, as german, that Auken-von Armin finished third in the Reisinger BAM with Debbie and Michael Rosenberg as teammates.

I am wondering about:

a) Aren't those four players all professionals?

b) Who is the sponsor in the team Auken-von Arnim / Debbie+Michael Rosenberg?

c) Since some time is gone since Shanghai 2007: Are the players involved in the "Affair" (on of them Debbie R.) facing negative consequences on the buisness level as professional bridge players?

with best regards
stefan
germany

[TimG]

My understanding (which I picked up either here or in rgb) is that this team has an anonymous sponsor.

[ASkolnick]

I am more curious about who is having the alleged affair.

[jdonn]

a ) yes.
b ) anonymous sponser as Tim said.
c ) as far as I know, no.

[foo]

ASkolnick, on Dec 29 2008, 01:49 PM, said:

I am more curious about who is having the alleged affair.

The "affair" in question was in not way salacious.

In Shanghai, the US Women's Team, evidently led by Deb Rosenburg, made a homemade sign as a joke during the awards cermony making a political statement ("We did not vote for Bush") that was definitely inappropriate for the setting but IMHO nowhere near worth the uproar over it that ensued.

Reactions included extremes by some such as demands that any of the women involved in the incident be banned from high level bridge for varying lengths of time or that they be forced to pay some sort of large fine.

It made the US national news and some members of the US women's team were interviewed on one of the US TV morning talk shows.

There are BBOF threads on the topic:

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?act...ote+for+Bush%22

It was poor judgement and a social gaffe on Mrs Rosenburg's part (sort of like wearing cut-offs and a tee-shirt to a black tie event or publicly gargling your champagne during a wedding toast), but IMHO nowhere near as treasonous as some tried to make it out to be, and to my knowledge the situation has been resolved.

[TimG]

foo, on Dec 29 2008, 03:45 PM, said:

It made the US national news and some members of the US women's team were interviewed on one of the US TV morning talk shows.

There are BBOF threads on the topic:

And, you thought he was serious?

[foo]

TimG, on Dec 29 2008, 04:08 PM, said:

foo, on Dec 29 2008, 03:45 PM, said:

It made the US national news and some members of the US women's team were interviewed on one of the US TV morning talk shows.

There are BBOF threads on the topic:

And, you thought he was serious?

Whether I think he was serious or not, it's IMHO well worth the safety play to guard against the possibility that the author was. Or that some reader might think the comment was serious.

Particularly given the historical precedent we have, even in this incident's example, of people reacting strongly based with little or relatively little provocation or basis.

[jdonn]

Yes, I think given the fact it was a very emotional and hotly divided topic, it's good to needlessly bring it up as often as possible.

[foo]

jdonn, on Dec 29 2008, 04:39 PM, said:

Yes, I think given the fact it was a very emotional and hotly divided topic, it's good to needlessly bring it up as often as possible.

I 100% agree with your implication.

*sigh* However, once it has been brought up it needs to be dealt with so as to "close Pandora's box" ASAP.

[jkljkl]

TimG, on Dec 29 2008, 12:08 PM, said:

My understanding (which I picked up either here or in rgb) is that this team has an anonymous sponsor.

allow me to add another question

d) are such anonymus sponsors common?

with best regards
stefan
germany

[TimG]

foo, on Dec 29 2008, 04:45 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 29 2008, 04:39 PM, said:

Yes, I think given the fact it was a very emotional and hotly divided topic, it's good to needlessly bring it up as often as possible.

I 100% agree with your implication.

*sigh* However, once it has been brought up it needs to be dealt with so as to "close Pandora's box" ASAP.

Which is why you added your opinion rather than stick with the facts or simply provide links?

[TimG]

jkljkl, on Dec 29 2008, 05:31 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 29 2008, 12:08 PM, said:

My understanding (which I picked up either here or in rgb) is that this team has an anonymous sponsor.

allow me to add another question

d) are such anonymous sponsors common?

There have been a few cases of system designers hiring teams to promote their projects. There were Precision teams in the 70s and Romex teams in the 80s, for instance.

I doubt it is common practice, but have no inside information.

[foo]

TimG, on Dec 29 2008, 05:55 PM, said:

foo, on Dec 29 2008, 04:45 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 29 2008, 04:39 PM, said:

Yes, I think given the fact it was a very emotional and hotly divided topic, it's good to needlessly bring it up as often as possible.

I 100% agree with your implication.

*sigh* However, once it has been brought up it needs to be dealt with so as to "close Pandora's box" ASAP.

Which is why you added your opinion rather than stick with the facts or simply provide links?

Given that the opinion in question was far less inflammatory than some, if not most, of the things linked to; absolutely.

[ASkolnick]

I am disappointed. When I was up in Schenectady, I heard a lot more about affairs between pro bridge players.

I think the forum may have been inappropriate, but I don;t think it is a big deal.

The way I see it, that is exactly representing one of the best things about the US, you can have a differing opinion.

[qwery_hi]

jdonn, on Dec 29 2008, 04:39 PM, said:

Yes, I think given the fact it was a very emotional and hotly divided topic, it's good to needlessly bring it up as often as possible.

Its not just good but very good. I wouldn't know what to do with all the time I would save if I stopped reading and replying to posts on BBO.

[JoAnneM]

Can't believe this is being dragged through the mud again. It's over with.

And, if you aren't on the team it's none of your business who is paying for it.

[matmat]

i think OzOne was(is?) also sponsored by an anonymous donor.

as for bringing up China again, what the hell was the point?

[qwery_hi]

JoAnneM, on Dec 30 2008, 11:12 AM, said:

Can't believe this is being dragged through the mud again. It's over with.

And, if you aren't on the team it's none of your business who is paying for it.

And telling others what their business is is your business?

[jkljkl]

JoAnneM, on Dec 30 2008, 11:12 AM, said:

Can't believe this is being dragged through the mud again.  It's over with.

And, if you aren't on the team it's none of your business who is paying for it.

Hello,

I don't know what has bitten you. I was just curiose about the bridge circus at the NABC.

And it was not on the front page of the newspaper that is something dirty to talk about the sponsors in Bridge. Do we need a peeeeeeeeeep when we talk about the Nickell Team in future?

imo your answer is truly off base.

Thank you to all the others for the answers,
ciao stefan

[JoAnneM]

The whole thing just reminded me of "gossip", which is usually found is movie star magazines. I suppose I was just a little disappointed.