[hrothgar]

paulg, on 2010-December-16, 13:34, said:

You have misunderstood. The European Bridge League runs two championships that are completely unrelated.

Thanks for the clarification

[fred]

hrothgar, on 2010-December-16, 13:16, said:

Citizen yes.
Permanent resident, no.

There's a pretty significant difference between "Aufenthaltsberechtigung" and citizenship...
Moreover, I think that most residents of German differentiate between a Gastarbeiter and a "German".

I don't know about Germany, but in the USA permanent residents can:

- serve in the armed forces
- vote or run in non-federal elections
- live in the country forever
- own property
- pay taxes

I am only aware of a couple of additional rights and responsibilities that USA citizens have:

- vote or run in federal elections (but you have to actually be born in the USA to run for President)
- serve on a jury

To me it is kind of dumb to think that "play international bridge" should fall into the second category instead of the first (though of course I am biased).

Disclaimer: I am not an expert on USA citizenship/immigration law. Some of the above may not be completely accurate.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[paulg]

Fluffy, on 2010-December-16, 09:46, said:

do you really think any of the Monaco new members will live there?. Neither will, just they will pay taxes there. Same as Buratti & Lanzarotti who only came to Spain to steal some weekend tournaments.

I hope that the Committee will continue to be stronger than it was in the past. The EBL's Bona Fide Residence Requirements state:

Quote

It is for the player who seeks to rely upon this requirement to satisfy the European Bridge League and demonstrate the genuineness of their residence. It is not to allow the transfer of a player's allegiance for any reason other than their genuine relocation to a country that is not the country of their birth. Those players who are unable to demonstrate to the absolute satisfaction of the EBL's Credentials Committee will not be allowed to represent the chosen country in international championships.

This seems a reasonable approach to me.

[mgoetze]

fred, on 2010-December-16, 13:05, said:

Sure, but don't you think that a person who immigrates to German and becomes either a citizen or permanent resident of Germany should be considered a German?

No. Furthermore I feel strongly that becoming a German citizen should have requirements such as knowledge of the German language, knowledge of German culture, knowledge of German history, willingness to uphold the German constitution¹, and so on.

---

¹Technically, Germany does not have a constitution at this point. What I mean is the "Grundgesetz".

[hrothgar]

fred, on 2010-December-16, 13:20, said:

In my experience, most of the people who complain about professionalism in bridge are either not wealthy enough to sponsor teams or do not have what it takes to be successful professionals themselves (or, most likely, both). For whatever it's worth, I feel that professional bridge has been a very good thing for our game. It has definitely been a major factor in the international success that countries like the USA and Italy have enjoyed in recent decades - without sponsors this almost certainly would not have happened to anywhere near the same degree.

Hi Fred

Let me play devil's advocate here...

In what way is "the international success" of the USA and Italy good for our game?

I definitely understand how this is good for professional players.
I see how this is good for the sponsors.
I even agree that professional players have improved the level of play at the top of the game.

I fail to see how any of this has any significant positive impact on the game.

With or without professionals, folks would be playing bridge.
With or without professionals, there would be world championships and someone would win.
The level of play in these championships might very well decline without pros.
But once again, what does it matter? (Would the average duffer even recognize the difference?)

One might argue that professional bridge creates more opportunity for celebrity players to emerge. In turn, this might increase participation. However, I'm far from certain there is any casual link.

Honestly, I don't really care one way or the other. However, I don't think that you've made a particularly compelling case that professionalism is good for anyone either than the pros or the sponsors.

From my perspective, the most compelling argument is probably:

Pros and sponsors like it
No one else gets hurt that much
Therefore, on balance this is a good thing...

[mgoetze]

Richard, I'm pretty sure that some of the money sponsors are pumping into the game goes towards worthwhile goals such as youth championships (I hope we can agree that those are worthwhile), even if it goes there indirectly, and I consider the argument that sponsors might well be less interested in bridge if they were not allowed to hire a team of pros to play with them valid.

[Tomi2]

is there any reason why Germany is involved in this discussion?

all "non-germans" who represeted Germany in the last events
a) live here for more than 50% of their life
came here for non brdge reasons but because they live here and work here
c) most of them are even German citizens

[mgoetze]

Tomi2, on 2010-December-16, 14:03, said:

is there any reason why Germany is involved in this discussion?

No, I think it was just a random example.

[hrothgar]

mgoetze, on 2010-December-16, 14:10, said:

No, I think it was just a random example.

Meine gross-Eltern kommt aus Deutschland.

Mein Vater unterreichtet die geschichte des Deteuches Republick.
Meine Mutter war ein Deutch Lehrerin.
Ich habe fur acht sommer in Deutschland gewohnte.

(Und I habe die meistens mein Deutch vegressen)

[Aberlour10]

Just 2cents... Why not?...The rules of the WBF & EBL are strong and clear (IMO fair), and it seems ( after the case B-Z) there is a really serious proving procedure. To be the owner of the residence permit is not enough, they prove strong if the player really live there. For this reason B-Z have never played a single hand for the official Team Russia.

[fred]

hrothgar, on 2010-December-16, 13:57, said:

In what way is "the international success" of the USA and Italy good for our game?

Well you are mixing up my post a bit in that I made two separate claims:

1) That professional bridge is good for our game (which I expressed as an opinion)
2) That professional bridge is one of the reasons why USA and Italy have been so successful (which I expressed as a statement of fact)

and you combined them into a single claim.

But no matter, I will answer why I think professional bridge is good for our game, but before that let me just say that I suspect most American and Italian fans of our game are proud of the success their respective countries have enjoyed in bridge and that this makes them feel good. It is always fun to have a strong "local" team to cheer for. Similarly, it was good for baseball in Canada when (long ago) the Toronto Blue Jays were one of the best teams

Back to the main point...

The most direct result of professional bridge is that it makes it possible for our most talented players to devote (much) more of their time to bridge than they otherwise could or would. That is because, at this point in time at least, professional bridge allows such people to make a good living from the game. If the time comes that serious prize money is awarded at a lot of tournaments or if major corporations start sponsoring bridge teams, things may change.

Having our most talented players able to focus their time and energy on bridge has several benefits (in no particular order):

1) The level of play at big tournaments is a lot stronger than it otherwise would be. People enjoy watching things they are interested in done well so this is a good thing for vugraph fans and for those who find it stimulating to study reports of premium events (by reading World Championship books for example).

2) The science of the game advances more rapidly. Many of the best new ideas in recent years have come from professional players who might not have otherwise made or shared their discoveries if they were unable to work on bridge full time.

3) A lot of good bridge literature and software comes out of it. Many of the best books and programs in recent years were written by professional players who might not have had the time, inclination, or skill to do these things if they were not able to work on bridge full time.

4) I believe that, as you suggest might be possible, professional bridge fosters the development of "bridge celebrities". People like Zia (not that there are many of those) are good for bridge. Why this is the case should be obvious so I won't bother to spell it out.

5) Minor tournaments and clubs are enriched by the presence of professionals. Not only do many people enjoy having a chance to play against the stars, but many pros are happy to offer tips, to mingle, to give free lectures, to help promote tournaments, etc.

6) Great players are available to give lessons to those who want (and can afford to) learn from the best.

7) I have no doubt that I could think of several more points if I set my mind to it.

I realize that there are plenty of "maybes" and "mights" in the above and that there exist some pros that are basically parasites. For sure some of these points are worthy of debate, but sorry I am not really interested (even though the debate might be interesting). I told you what I believe and now I have provided an outline for why I believe it.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[JLOGIC]

To me it is amazing, many people (especially many on this forum), want to watch the best players and awe at how well their favorite players play, and discuss the errors their less-than-favorite players make, etc etc which is all normal and fine. But they DO NOT want these people to play on professional teams, which is the reason they are so good in the first place. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

It is really obvious to me that the top bridge players would not be nearly as good as they are without the rise of professionalism. The top events would not be nearly as well played.

Richard, you ask why does this matter to anyone? I don't know, do you watch vugraph? Do you watch sports? Personally, I watch the NFL and sometimes NBA, but I do not watch the WNBA. This is because the WNBA players do not play at a very high level, so it is not very interesting for me to watch. Do you not believe there are any fans of bridge, some who love Fantunes, some who love Meckwell, some who love Zia, etc, and get a great thrill out of watching them play, mostly because of how well they play?

It is obvious to me that having stars and villains, and the game being played generally at a very high level, is overall good for the game. Maybe you don't care, and that's fine, but I believe some people do, and that these are the basic principles of a game or sport becoming more popular. If the wow factor of how well they play is not there, people care less. I don't care about some of these random BBO broadcasts with weak players, but I always watch the bermuda bowl and europeans (when I'm awake), and US team trials.

If you don't think professionalism is BAD for anyone, then what is the problem? Personally, I think it's just people thinking they are entitled to see top level bridge/their personal favorites for free, without understanding how the bridge economy works, or why Meckwell are able to play year round for the past x number of years and end up being so good.

[mgoetze]

fred, on 2010-December-16, 14:59, said:

2) The science of the game advances more rapidly. Many of the best new ideas in recent years have come from professional players who might not have otherwise made or shared their discoveries if they were unable to work on bridge full time.

It is strange how you claim here that rapid advancement of the "science of the game" is a good thing, and on the other hand continually defend the ACBL (Competition and) Conventions committee, the actions of which indicate that it thinks very differently.

[mfa1010]

Bring 'em on

[Phil]

Professionalism is a necessary evil.

You could legislate a lot of the professionalism out of the game by making team events require four instead of six but why would you do that? Until bridge becomes a serious spectator sport with corporate sponsorship or owned 'teams', the only way that the Meckwells of the world are going to be able to play full time are either to come into a lot of inheritance or get paid to play by Nickell. Don't hold your breath.

There is likely a crossover at some point if corporate sponsorship / team ownership was a reality. If the New York "Endplays" were owned by Mrs Lynch, the fans of the Endplays would likely get annoyed at her having a starting spot on the squad.

[fred]

mgoetze, on 2010-December-16, 15:14, said:

It is strange how you claim here that rapid advancement of the "science of the game" is a good thing, and on the other hand continually defend the ACBL (Competition and) Conventions committee, the actions of which indicate that it thinks very differently.

It would not seem so strange if you consider and understand:

- that the issues the C+C Committee deals with are a very small part of what I was referring to when I said "the science of the game"
- I am quite sure I disagree with you about what is indicated by the actions of this committee
- most of my posts defending this committee have concerned themselves with either defending the mandate of this committee or defending the members of this committee against what I consider to be unwarrented personal attacks. If I recall correctly, I tend not to get too involved in discussing the specific actions of this committee (some of which I certainly disagree with).
- that there are more aspects to bridge than those that this committee has jurisdiction over

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mikeh]

fred, on 2010-December-16, 13:20, said:

Of course since it is qualification to play in WBF tournaments that we are talking about here.

If the WBF's requirements were too lenient (I don't think they are) or if they were not enforced (I have no reason to believe they are not) then I could understand people being upset about this.


Well maybe I shouldn't have used the word "evil", but clearly you have something against professional bridge (or at least sponsors).

In my experience, most of the people who complain about professionalism in bridge are either not wealthy enough to sponsor teams or do not have what it takes to be successful professionals themselves (or, most likely, both). For whatever it's worth, I feel that professional bridge has been a very good thing for our game. It has definitely been a major factor in the international success that countries like the USA and Italy have enjoyed in recent decades - without sponsors this almost certainly would not have happened to anywhere near the same degree.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I'd add that I think that professionalism has been great for many amateur players as well.

Players like me don't travel to Nationals very often....I think I've been to parts of 4 Nationals in 15 years...but we do play some Regionals, watch some vugraph, and do some reading. Pros have helped in many ways including, as far as I am concerned:

1) we generally see one or two decent pro teams at our regionals...Grant Baze was a frequent attendee and Mike Passell still often comes, sometimes with players like Wold. We'd never get a chance to play against or sometimes with these guys if they weren't getting paid and one can learn a lot not only by playing with and against them but also simply by talking about the game (by which I mean mostly listening)

2) new treatments, new ideas.....I think professionals generate most of the new and effective ideas...they're the ones with the time, and the incentive to think about these things and the sheer amount of bridge they play to refine them.


I do sometimes wish that the presence of big money wasn't so pervasive at the international level, since its effects are to make it impossible for a team of amateurs to ever win a major open event. But on the other hand, it also makes possible some fantastic vugraph matches....it's akin to what happened to the Olympics. For Canadians, imagine what Hockey would be like of no professionals played, or for soccer fans, imagine a World Cup where no professionals were allowed.

And of course the real reason the amateurs won't win is that they aren't good enough. I don't care how smart one may be...there are going to be pros who are at least as smart and they have the time and the motive to work at the game harder than any amateur, working for a living doing non-bridge, can afford to do. More power to them! I get a lot of enjoyment out of watching and, once in a while, playing against pros.

As for the specifics of the Monaco situation, I can't comment because I don't know the requirements to represent a country. If they really are a sham, then that is regrettable, but I don't see that as a reason to knock professionalism per se.

Nor do I see professionalism as an evil, necessary or otherwise...I think it is of significant net benefit, even though it sometimes gives rise to farcical situations.

[cherdano]

I don't think anyone said professionalism is bad for the game.

Ok, TimG has said he prefers to root for non-pro teams instead of for pro-teams. I think Team Nickell USA will be able to live with that.

[karlson]

I don't think people are really saying professional bridge is an evil. Certainly I didn't mean my comment that way. But I do like the idea of there existing one international event where the teams are really defined by the players' country of origin, and it's reasonable to suppose that it's the best team from that country. I'm willing to accept that this is impossible with the US bridge economy, but it was still somewhat true for most other countries.

I have no problem with the fact that I can't keep track of who's on whose team in the Spingold even though I enjoy watching it immensely. But I am not looking forward to the day when I can't remember if Fred is playing for Vietnam or Paraguay in the BB. It just doesn't fit my desires for an international tournament. But if that's the necessary consequence of a lack of money for pro bridge players, then so it goes I guess (though I wish we were pursuing some other ways to increase popularity, but that's a topic for another day).

[paulg]

My personal view is that the current European regulations are fair and reasonable and, if observed, then I have absolutely no problem with people moving countries. The professional aspect of it is irrelevant. Perhaps unsurprising as a non-pro who has played in both English and Scottish trials!