[jallerton]

NickRW, on 2010-December-14, 09:36, said:

In football - most players play for a club that nominally exists in and represents a particular town or city - yet at the top, a great many are not from that area or from the same country or even the same race.

Football is a good analogy. As long as the player and club agree (and any league ruled are adhered to), anyone can join a football club. Similarly, as long as the club agrees, anyone can join a bridge club.

Representing one's country at football is rather different. As I understand it, you can only represent a country if you were born there, or if one of your parents was born there. It is not possible to 'flip' between countries almost as frequently as UK members of parliament manage to 'flip' their main homes.

If football were to adopt the WBF/EBL "bona fide residence" rule, then the England football team would suddenly become one of the best teams in the world.

[awm]

It's interesting that there doesn't seem to be much of this situation in sports. Take international football (soccer for americans). There's plenty of professionalism, and the best players are very highly paid. In many cases, top players (particularly those from South America) have moved to other countries (most often Europe) to play on the elite teams there. This gives them the opportunity to make a lot more money, and also to play against better opposition. There are certainly professional leagues, championships, etc.

However, we still have the World Cup every four years. And when the World Cup comes around, all these players who are living and working overseas to make the big bucks play for their native country. You don't see Brazilian stars emigrating en masse to Spain to play for the Spanish team (even though many of them surely play professionally in Spain). You don't see a group of all the top players who didn't quite make the cut for their native country deciding to represent Monaco. And while there are plenty of wealthy individuals who own major football teams and are huge fans of the game, when it comes time to select the national team it's based on who an expert coach (or coaches) think are the best players and not on who's the highest bidder (or which professional teams the players work for most of the time).

In the bridge world, sure professionalism is fine. There are plenty of events for professional teams. But it'd be nice if there could be one event (say the Bermuda Bowl) where the teams were truly representative of the country they're from, and where (although the players certainly could/should still be paid) it was more important to form the best possible team to legitimately represent the nation than to maximize the enjoyment of some wealthy individual (albeit a wealthy individual who's probably given back a lot to the game over the years). It's a patriotism thing, and it increases fan interest, and it makes the Bermuda Bowl different from the Spingold and the Vanderbilt and the Rosenblum and all the other prestigious IMP team events out there.

[Hanoi5]

jallerton, on 2010-December-16, 17:03, said:

If football were to adopt the WBF/EBL "bona fide residence" rule, then the England football team would suddenly become one of the best teams in the world.

Better than the team Spain could come up with? I don't think so...

Professionalism in sports is a direct consequence of the society we live in. As they say in my country (or probably in the country of my country) 'those who have more saliva, swallow more flour'. Hahaha.

During the Cold War the two existing blocks spent a lot of resources in their sport figures and Olympiads turned into battlefields of communists vs capitalists. Today's Olympiads are not much different. Why should it be peace and amateurism in bridge?

Another important point is, have you ever stopped to think how much money is spent in making a bridge tournament these days? If an Amateur Bermuda Bowl was made, do you think the results would be as reliable or as nice to play in as the ones obtained in the expensive version we now have? And I don't know much about the organization of those tournaments and its accounts but I've seen many tourneys round here in the third world and they always end up in red...

Of course this doesn't mean that NBO's or the WBF should give in and allow anyone to play any tournament as long as they pay their fare. There have to be rules and if a team, pair or player were to represent a country they should, IMO, at least live in that country (or have been born in that country) and of course, they shouldn't have represented another country in the last x numbers of years (i.e. the current system is fine with me).

So, either play better and get hired or get a lot of money and hire the best out there for your team, and if you don't do any of these just don't be envious.

[NickRW]

Regarding the 'sponsorship is evil' thing, I think there is a belief, right or wrong, that sponsors effectively buy their way into a good team. If sponsors were to be a] corporations, b] (ye gods) the actual NBO itself or c] a non playing individual, obviously this perception would go away as the actual team would then (at least in principle) consist solely of people there on merit.

Not saying that I agree with this idea - but it must be a nagging doubt in a lot of peoples' minds. But whether it is a doubt or not, we live in the real world - don't we - we don't generally see corporations sponsoring teams (though it has happened).

Nick

[Hanoi5]

NickRW, on 2010-December-16, 19:10, said:

If sponsors were to be (...) a non playing individual, obviously this perception would go away as the actual team would then (at least in principle) consist solely of people there on merit.

Who is (or at least was) the sponsor of the Italian team?

[TimG]

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

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

I don't think I have something against professionals or clients. It is true that I am neither good enough to be a professional nor wealthy enough to be a client. That does not mean I have something against those that have the ability or the money.

I do believe that professionalism in bridge is good for a number of reasons. You covered most of the reasons, but modestly omitted one that we all enjoy: BBO. It is my guess that without professional bridge you would not have been able (or inclined) to build BBO.

My one problem with professional bridge is the opportunity provided to buy one's way onto a national team. Not an opportunity in all countries, but it is here in the US. I also realize that money alone does not buy one's way through the USBF Trials, clients have to play well in order to win. I have no complaint about pro/client teams entering open team championships (such as you won in Philadelphia).

I suspect that if wealthy individuals started hiring teams of US basketball players and those hired professionals refused to play on the US National Team unless their client was included on the team there would be some objection. What if a wealthy individual hired the best golfers in the US to refuse to play on the Ryder Cup team unless the wealthy individual also was part of the team? Sports analogies often do not work for bridge, but I think these are very close.

[TimG]

cherdano, on 2010-December-16, 15:48, said:

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.

I was rooting for Boise State this year, doesn't mean I think Oregon and Auburn are bad for college football.

[TimG]

duplicate...wish I could just delete it.

[Cyberyeti]

Professionalism is good for bridge in most places. In the US, there are enough good players that a sponsor is going to have to be a pretty good player to get through the national trials. In smaller countries it's much more of a problem. Say there are only maybe 12-15 really top world class players in the country and they're split between 3 sponsor led teams. Now the sponsor really doesn't have to be very good to get through the trials as he'll only play 1/3 of the boards and his team mates will be significantly better than the people they're playing in the unsponsored teams. Then the team is significantly handicapped by the sponsor at the international event that follows.

Certainly in Football, and I thought in bridge, your nationality can be the nationality of any of yours, your parents or your grandparents. When I was a junior, I was asked by my partner (a junior Irish international) whether I had any Irish ancestry, I didn't so I didn't play any junior international bridge as the England team were extremely strong at the time. There are plenty of instances in football and rugby of people playing for a country and it being subsequently proved they were not qualified to do so, Tony Cascarino is probably the best known. It's quite common for British footballers of Afro Caribbean descent to try to get into the England team, and when they fail, to play for the relevant Caribbean nation. Once you play a major international game for one country however, you can never play for another.

I'm a traditionalist and take the opinion that other then in extreme circumstances (political asylum etc) once you've represented one country, you shouldn't be able to represent another. I also find the endless stream of Kenyan distance runners who've emigrated to the gulf states to win medals for the money distasteful, and believe you should have had to live there for quite some time, (it was 7 years in cricket at one point) and not just be able to represent your new country as soon as citizenship or residency is established.

[wank]

i have no problem with people who make real life moves to other countries being allowed to represent their new country. russia with b+z, this monaco switch, etc have nothing to do with real life though. it needs to be stopped.

what's a realistic cutoff to judge what's legitimate and what's not? citizenship imo

[paulg]

If you can read Norwegian, or use Chrome or another browser that can translate it for you, there are some quotes from Helness on the Norwegian BIN site.

[skjaeran]

paulg, on 2010-December-17, 03:24, said:

If you can read Norwegian, or use Chrome or another browser that can translate it for you, there are some quotes from Helness on the Norwegian BIN site.

You can also read it here: http://bridgetopics....mmigrate-monaco

[skjaeran]

wank, on 2010-December-16, 23:18, said:

i have no problem with people who make real life moves to other countries being allowed to represent their new country. russia with b+z, this monaco switch, etc have nothing to do with real life though. it needs to be stopped.

what's a realistic cutoff to judge what's legitimate and what's not? citizenship imo

Helgemo and Helness are full time bridge players. They are moving to Monaco. They've already applied for citizenship, which it seems they will get from 2010. This is a requirement for them to be able to represent Monaco in 2012 (Monaco rule). In addition, the first three years they can't stay in Norway for more than a short time (I'm not sure how much, 60 or 75 days per year I think) to avoid paying tax to Norway.

As a Norwegian, I think it's a pity they've decided to leave Norway and represent Monaco in the future. But it's their own decision, and a decision I respect. With the amount of money involved, I doubt many (if anyone) would have decided otherwise in their position.

[qwery_hi]

awm, on 2010-December-16, 17:07, said:

It's interesting that there doesn't seem to be much of this situation in sports. Take international football (soccer for americans). There's plenty of professionalism, and the best players are very highly paid. In many cases, top players (particularly those from South America) have moved to other countries (most often Europe) to play on the elite teams there. This gives them the opportunity to make a lot more money, and also to play against better opposition. There are certainly professional leagues, championships, etc.

However, we still have the World Cup every four years. And when the World Cup comes around, all these players who are living and working overseas to make the big bucks play for their native country. You don't see Brazilian stars emigrating en masse to Spain to play for the Spanish team (even though many of them surely play professionally in Spain). You don't see a group of all the top players who didn't quite make the cut for their native country deciding to represent Monaco. And while there are plenty of wealthy individuals who own major football teams and are huge fans of the game, when it comes time to select the national team it's based on who an expert coach (or coaches) think are the best players and not on who's the highest bidder (or which professional teams the players work for most of the time).

Comparing soccer and bridge is hilarious - ManU's revenue was upwards of 400 million dollars last year. When bridge starts generating even 1% of that revenue, then perhaps analogies can be drawn between bridge professionals and soccer professionals, and between soccer clubs and bridge clubs.

[PeterGill]

The background to the four famous players moving to Monaco is something like this:

Italy's sponsor for many years has been Maria Teresa Lavazza.
She has also been sole selector of the National team. That worked very well until
this year, when Fantoni - Nunes weren't happy to be dropped from the team in order to,
among other things, blood a new young talented player originally from Argentina - Madala.
Mme Lavazza pointed out that she could not fit eight great players into a team of six.

Although the new look Italy team won the 2010 European Championship without Fantunes,
relations between the eight Italian players have not been as good as usual this year.

Geir Helgemo was involved in an incident in Norway two years ago. I have read
many pages of 2009 material about this incident on Boye Brogeland's Bridge i Norge website
and on a Finnish website (you press "Translate" button at the top). My conclusion
is that the rumours in the English-speaking world of what Helgemo did are most unfair
to Helgemo. Helgemo was not impressed by the way his appeal was handled - nor am I,
from my reading of what happened - so he was not keen to play for Norway in the future.

Zimmermann and Multon won the World Transnational Teams in Sao Paulo late in 2009
with Helgemo - Helness and Balicki - Zmudzinski (who have never played for Russia,
having failed the residency requirement). Earlier in 2009, Helgemo had to sit out
events in San Remo and Washington D.C. as well as local Norwegian events, in the
aftermath of the incident he was involved in.

With B-Z back playing for Poland and this strong Monaco team, Italy will in future
have stronger opposition than usual in Europe. I imagine that Fantunes
will not sit out against Italy, and H-H will not sit out against Norway.

[Aberlour10]

Quote

“The goal is clear: the Bermuda Bowl", says Tor Helness. Yet he has not a complete overview of how the new life will be. “We will carefully adjust to all the rules, so nothing can go wrong. We must be out of Norway for at least six months for instance. In Monaco, however, there is no requirement that we should stay there permanently”. The first event Zimmermann will play is the Open European Championships in June in Poznan.

The entire article with some new details of the story >>here>>

http://www.bridgetop...mmigrate-monaco

[paulg]

awm, on 2010-December-16, 17:07, said:

It's interesting that there doesn't seem to be much of this situation in sports. Take international football (soccer for americans). There's plenty of professionalism, and the best players are very highly paid. In many cases, top players (particularly those from South America) have moved to other countries (most often Europe) to play on the elite teams there. This gives them the opportunity to make a lot more money, and also to play against better opposition. There are certainly professional leagues, championships, etc.

However, we still have the World Cup every four years. And when the World Cup comes around, all these players who are living and working overseas to make the big bucks play for their native country. You don't see Brazilian stars emigrating en masse to Spain to play for the Spanish team (even though many of them surely play professionally in Spain). You don't see a group of all the top players who didn't quite make the cut for their native country deciding to represent Monaco. And while there are plenty of wealthy individuals who own major football teams and are huge fans of the game, when it comes time to select the national team it's based on who an expert coach (or coaches) think are the best players and not on who's the highest bidder (or which professional teams the players work for most of the time).

FIFA tightened its rules because precisely this WAS happening in the mid-2000s, with five Brazilians going to Togo and three to Qatar. FIFA's current rules are very similar to bridge except that if you have already represented your country, then a switch is next to impossible.

So FIFA would not have allowed HelgeNess and Fantunes to play for Monaco, but I would have been available for a much lower sum. Or perhaps JLOGIC (more expensive I'm sure) would have considered Monaco as an alternative to Vegas?

Now back to bridge!

[mgoetze]

So anyway, is this clearance Mr. Zimmermann has obtained from Mr. Rona as valuable as the clearance Mr. Angelini obtained from some other Italian official about Helgemo/Helness/Brogeland playing in the Italian club championships?

[skjaeran]

mgoetze, on 2010-December-17, 06:28, said:

So anyway, is this clearance Mr. Zimmermann has obtained from Mr. Rona as valuable as the clearance Mr. Angelini obtained from some other Italian official about Helgemo/Helness/Brogeland playing in the Italian club championships?

They do coplay with EBL/WBF rules, so there's no problem.
The problem in the Italian Teams Championships was that someone gave Angelini's team clearance for breaking the rules.

[hrothgar]

qwery_hi, on 2010-December-17, 04:55, said:

Comparing soccer and bridge is hilarious - ManU's revenue was upwards of 400 million dollars last year. When bridge starts generating even 1% of that revenue, then perhaps analogies can be drawn between bridge professionals and soccer professionals, and between soccer clubs and bridge clubs.

Man walks up to a beautiful woman in a bar and says

"Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"

Woman thinks about it for a couple minutes and say "Yes?"

Man replies, "Great, how about for $500?"

Woman say "What do you think I am?"

Man says "I know what you are, now we're just arguing about the price"