[Fluffy]

NickRW, on 2010-December-19, 10:28, said:

If Marcos Senna could have and probably would have played for Spain on the basis of achieved citizenship and not on coutry of birth, what is the difference between him and some Norwegians etc having citizenship in Monaco?

In soccer once you play for one country in the "open" national team (not a youth one). You can no longer represent any other country ever.

As far as I've been told, if you ever played for another country some bridge NBO such as Brazilian won't ever let you play for them.

[Cyberyeti]

NickRW, on 2010-December-19, 10:28, said:

Haven't you destroyed your own argument? If Marcos Senna could have and probably would have played for Spain on the basis of achieved citizenship and not on coutry of birth, what is the difference between him and some Norwegians etc having citizenship in Monaco?

Is Bridge inherently different to Football in this respect? Of course not. Is it money? Well maybe. Have they whored themselves to some Mr Got Bucks originally from Switzerland who has also taken to basing himself in Monaco? One can say so. But what was Marcos Senna's motive in moving to Spain - altruism? Ha!

Is it because no other teams have sponsors and the game is really totally an amateur game? Obviously not.

I think some of you would be arguing a whole lot differently if your name was Helgemo or Nunes and you'd been offered this deal! A lot of you might be arguing differently if you live in Monaco yourselves.

Is it really because a whole bunch of people from the US and Italy and Norway fear a strong competitor that they want to make illegal? Sounds more like it to me. I suggest some people on this forum are simply afraid and got a case of sour grapes.

Nick

I explained in my post why Senna moved. It made life a lot easier for his club, meaning they could play another South American, and he had not previously played for Brazil. It also took him 4 years to make the switch. Playing for Spain was a side effect, not the purpose of the move (I don't think people thought he was that good at the start of the process).

I'm a Brit, and I found the whole Zola Budd thing really distasteful (when she moved from being South African to British in no time flat, and when she retired rapidly became South African again), however I have nothing but respect for people like Graeme Hick who spent 7 years living here becoming British qualified.

People will always move around, but I feel moving around PURELY to represent another country that is not your own for money is distasteful.

If you have represented your country of birth at a sport, call me old fashioned, but that is your country, and barring really strange circumstances (political upheaval leaving you exiled for example) you should not be able to represent another.

[hrothgar]

NickRW, on 2010-December-19, 10:28, said:

I think some of you would be arguing a whole lot differently if your name was Helgemo or Nunes and you'd been offered this deal! A lot of you might be arguing differently if you live in Monaco yourselves.

Is it really because a whole bunch of people from the US and Italy and Norway fear a strong competitor that they want to make illegal? Sounds more like it to me. I suggest some people on this forum are simply afraid and got a case of sour grapes.

I can't speak for anyone else, however, in my case my only "issue" is how ridiculous the entire situation is.

If you want to divorce this competition from geography, do so.

Eliminate the direct linkage between representing a nation and entering the event.
Eliminate the requirement that people establish residency requirements in Monaco, Andorra, the Jersey Islands, the Isle of Man, what-have-you.

Why bother to maintain the farce? What value does it serve forcing folks to jump through hoops?

If, on the other hand, there is some value to "geography", if people actually see some value in having a "Polish" team compete against a French team then it would seem perfect reasonable to expect that those teams are made up of Polish and French citizens.

[Cyberyeti]

Fluffy, on 2010-December-19, 11:17, said:

In soccer once you play for one country in the "open" national team (not a youth one). You can no longer represent any other country ever.

This is pretty much correct, but I believe it's the first competitive game (Euro champs or world cup in Europe, finals or qualifiers) that locks you out, non tournament internationals don't count.

[gnasher]

NickRW, on 2010-December-19, 10:28, said:

Is Bridge inherently different to Football in this respect? Of course not. Is it money? Well maybe. Have they whored themselves to some Mr Got Bucks originally from Switzerland who has also taken to basing himself in Monaco? One can say so.

I don't think anyone here has said so, have they? It's possible to respect the players' decision whilst disapproving of the rules that allow them to do it.

Quote

A lot of you might be arguing differently if you live in Monaco yourselves.

If I lived in Monaco, I suspect I'd be arguing very strongly against it.

Quote

Is it really because a whole bunch of people from the US and Italy and Norway fear a strong competitor that they want to make illegal? Sounds more like it to me. I suggest some people on this forum are simply afraid and got a case of sour grapes.

Which people? The Americans and Norwegians who might actually find themselves playing against the Monaco team don't seem unhappy. So far as I can tell, no contenders for the Italian open team have expressed an opinion here.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on 2010-December-19, 11:26, said:

I can't speak for anyone else, however, in my case my only "issue" is how ridiculous the entire situation is.

If you want to divorce this competition from geography, do so.

Eliminate the direct linkage between representing a nation and entering the event.
Eliminate the requirement that people establish residency requirements in Monaco, Andorra, the Jersey Islands, the Isle of Man, what-have-you.

Why bother to maintain the farce? What value does it serve forcing folks to jump through hoops?

If, on the other hand, there is some value to "geography", if people actually see some value in having a "Polish" team compete against a French team then it would seem perfect reasonable to expect that those teams are made up of Polish and French citizens.

I gave you and upvote, figured it was probably your first one. Imagine my surprise to find I was the 13th!

I wonder whether bridge players really take great pride in representing their countries. Is a Bermuda Bowl victory sweeter than a Rosenblum because the Bermuda Bowl victory was for country while the Rosenblum was not? It might be harder to win a Bermuda Bowl, in part because of the national qualifying, but assuming they were equal bridge achievements, would a Bermuda Bowl victory be worth more to the participants because of the country representation? I've never had the opportunity to represent the US and never will, so perhaps I cannot say for sure, but I don't think country representation would increase the value for me.

I do not take pride in the US because the US has had a string of Bermuda Bowl champions. This is not limited to bridge, I don't take pride in the US because they win gold medals in basketball or win more medals than other countries in an Olympics. I do not think less of the US because the US Soccer team has never won anything.

I realize that I am to a great extent going against popular sentiment. I guess I wonder to how great an extent.

[Fluffy]

I feel proud to represent my country, and I feel proud when my country does something very good. But some players who have represented Spain didn't give a ***** about their country, they though they were achieving things for themselves.

On te other hand when Spain came second in European championship due to B-L I didn't feel proud at all. More like dissgusted and ashamed.

[fred]

TimG, on 2010-December-19, 12:05, said:

I wonder whether bridge players really take great pride in representing their countries.

My (clear) sense is that almost all do.

But I also get the sense that most bridge players (and probably most non-bridge players) who move to a new country genuinely think "this is now my country".

That doesn't mean that such people feel no ties to their former countries. Using myself as an example, I always cheer for the USA to win events like the Olympiad, but I would also be very happy to see Canada do well. This has nothing to do with which players happen to be representing the USA or Canada in the event in question.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hotShot]

A lot of top athletes** with big income prefer to live in <fill in your favorite no/low tax country> because they save a lot in taxes as long as they live there.
Officially they start for their country, but they don't feel an obligation to support it with their taxes.

I would prefer if they started for the country they live in.

** Oviously these are not bridge players .....

[awm]

I'd think the following questions might be reasonable to ask:

(1) Do the players involved have any prior connection to Monaco? Seemingly not.
(2) Do we expect them to take a full-time non-bridge job in Monaco? No, I'd expect them to remain full-time bridge players.
(3) Do we expect them to spend most of their year in Monaco? No, bridge pro-ing entails a lot of travel. I'd expect to see them in the US a lot, traveling around Europe, etc.
(4) Do we expect them to make a large percentage of their income in Monaco? No, as far as I know Monaco doesn't have a very intense bridge calendar.
(5) Are they moving to Monaco for reasons of political asylum? No, they're hardly persecuted in their home countries.
(6) Have they held a long-standing desire to emigrate to Monaco, or lived there for a long time? Seems unlikely, and definitely not.
(7) Would we be surprised if, after retiring from top-class bridge in say 30 years, they relocated back to their original country? Not at all.

In summary, this looks like a pretty transparent attempt to circumvent the rules about qualification for the European Championships and eventually the Bermuda Bowl.

The issue with requiring only citizenship is that this requirement is very different in different countries. For example, getting a USA citizenship is pretty difficult (even getting a visa can be difficult if you don't have a full-time employer or are from the "wrong" country). Congrats to Fred on obtaining his, but notice that he has already been in the USA for quite some time before getting it. On the other hand, as a Jew I can obtain an Israeli citizenship pretty easily, without ever having lived there and without relinquishing my USA citizenship. In a lot of countries (Monaco seemingly one of them) large sums of money can "grease the wheels" as it were and make citizenship a lot easier to obtain.

I'd go with some set of rules like: (1) Must have citizenship in the country you play for and (2) Must not have played for any other country for a period of eight years (i.e a long time). Note that two years is really pretty short -- someone can fail once to make their nation's international squad and then relocate before the next cycle.

[Siegmund]

Trying a slightly different approach than cyberyeti

Quote

If you have represented your country of birth at a sport, call me old fashioned, but that is your country, and barring really strange circumstances (political upheaval leaving you exiled for example) you should not be able to represent another.

or awm

Quote

I'd go with some set of rules like: (1) Must have citizenship in the country you play for and (2) Must not have played for any other country for a period of eight years (i.e a long time). Note that two years is really pretty short -- someone can fail once to make their nation's international squad and then relocate before the next cycle.

I too would like to see players only represent "the country they really care about," not let them hop around a lot, and not move somewhere temporarily with the intention of moving back afterward.

Perhaps the requirement could even be that you resign citizenship in the country you have left, or demonstrate in some other less-dramatic fashion that it is a one-way trip (though I cant think of exactly what that should be.)

As to the more general question of national pride and pro teams ... perhaps part of the recent problem is that they are still comparative rarities -- seeing one or two pro teams out of a hundred at a regional (and often seeing them not win), but seeing certain names over and over at the top. For most of the 90s I was seeing Nickell this Nickell that like clockwork in my Bulletin. I was saying to myself "now wait a minute... how is it that 20 or 30 years ago we had dozens of world-class players in the US, all of them top-notch with a fair shot at winning a trophy at the nationals, and now we've only got these six guys who win everything in sight?" I was as eager to see a team good enough to unseat Nickell emerge as Ira Corn was in the 60s to see a team good enough to unseat the Italians. As it turns out, that has happened -- partly due to Poland coming out from behind the iron curtain, partly due to sharp new players in Norway, Italy and a few other places, and, for better or worse, partly because Nickell is now one of several people hiring pro teams who compete on something like equal footing.

[Aberlour10]

awm, on 2010-December-19, 13:19, said:

I'd think the following questions might be reasonable to ask:

(1) Do the players involved have any prior connection to Monaco? Seemingly not.
(2) Do we expect them to take a full-time non-bridge job in Monaco? No, I'd expect them to remain full-time bridge players.
(3) Do we expect them to spend most of their year in Monaco? No, bridge pro-ing entails a lot of travel. I'd expect to see them in the US a lot, traveling around Europe, etc.
(4) Do we expect them to make a large percentage of their income in Monaco? No, as far as I know Monaco doesn't have a very intense bridge calendar.
(5) Are they moving to Monaco for reasons of political asylum? No, they're hardly persecuted in their home countries.
(6) Have they held a long-standing desire to emigrate to Monaco, or lived there for a long time? Seems unlikely, and definitely not.
(7) Would we be surprised if, after retiring from top-class bridge in say 30 years, they relocated back to their original country? Not at all.

In summary, this looks like a pretty transparent attempt to circumvent the rules about qualification for the European Championships and eventually the Bermuda Bowl.

The issue with requiring only citizenship is that this requirement is very different in different countries. For example, getting a USA citizenship is pretty difficult (even getting a visa can be difficult if you don't have a full-time employer or are from the "wrong" country). Congrats to Fred on obtaining his, but notice that he has already been in the USA for quite some time before getting it. On the other hand, as a Jew I can obtain an Israeli citizenship pretty easily, without ever having lived there and without relinquishing my USA citizenship. In a lot of countries (Monaco seemingly one of them) large sums of money can "grease the wheels" as it were and make citizenship a lot easier to obtain.

I'd go with some set of rules like: (1) Must have citizenship in the country you play for and (2) Must not have played for any other country for a period of eight years (i.e a long time). Note that two years is really pretty short -- someone can fail once to make their nation's international squad and then relocate before the next cycle.

IMO a part of your questions go definitevly too far in the very private sphere of these people and some answers you posted are (imo) not correct..

Question2 >>>> Why anybody should expect them to take full non-bridge job in Monaco??? sorry I really dont understand..

Question3 >>>> They stated, any of them will become own apartment in Monaco for living there between the foreign jobs.

Question4 >>> They will be not paid on tournaments in the USA, Italy or elswhere...but exclusively by Mr Zimmermann as his full-time employees, probably in Monaco.

I think the questions 5-7 are superfluous, it goes too far in the privacy.

Last notice.. 8 years period of restriction would make the move for the professionals impossible, to resign of playing in the main international championships for so long time could partialy damage their image and carieers.

[TimG]

Aberlour10, on 2010-December-19, 15:16, said:

Last notice.. 8 years period of restriction would make the move for the professionals impossible, to resign of playing in the main international championships for so long time could partialy damage their image and carieers.

Some will be of the opinion that this move to Monaco is damaging to their images.

[paulg]

awm, on 2010-December-19, 13:19, said:

I'd think the following questions might be reasonable to ask:

(1) Do the players involved have any prior connection to Monaco? Seemingly not.
(2) Do we expect them to take a full-time non-bridge job in Monaco? No, I'd expect them to remain full-time bridge players.
(3) Do we expect them to spend most of their year in Monaco? No, bridge pro-ing entails a lot of travel. I'd expect to see them in the US a lot, traveling around Europe, etc.
(4) Do we expect them to make a large percentage of their income in Monaco? No, as far as I know Monaco doesn't have a very intense bridge calendar.
(5) Are they moving to Monaco for reasons of political asylum? No, they're hardly persecuted in their home countries.
(6) Have they held a long-standing desire to emigrate to Monaco, or lived there for a long time? Seems unlikely, and definitely not.
(7) Would we be surprised if, after retiring from top-class bridge in say 30 years, they relocated back to their original country? Not at all.

In summary, this looks like a pretty transparent attempt to circumvent the rules about qualification for the European Championships and eventually the Bermuda Bowl.

The only reasonable question to ask, at this time, is, "For the last two years, have you been a bona fide resident of the country you wish to represent?"

I don't think that they are circumventing the rules although I'd be surprised if the EBL and WBF are delighted at how they are being used. If this becomes more prevalent then we may see changes, perhaps to the IOC model (three-year residency, must hold nationality of your adopted country) or FIFA model (can only play for one international team).

The only thing I'm certain of is that nothing is going to change quickly.

[nige1]

paulg, on 2010-December-19, 15:58, said:

The only reasonable question to ask, at this time, is, "For the last two years, have you been a bona fide resident of the country you wish to represent?"
I don't think that they are circumventing the rules although I'd be surprised if the EBL and WBF are delighted at how they are being used. If this becomes more prevalent then we may see changes, perhaps to the IOC model (three-year residency, must hold nationality of your adopted country) or FIFA model (can only play for one international team).
The only thing I'm certain of is that nothing is going to change quickly.

Agree with Paul. Players deserve sympathy when they are among best in the world but may have fallen out with selectors in their own country. It is only fair that such star players get to play in zonal and world championships. It is good for Bridge.

[jallerton]

awm, on 2010-December-19, 13:19, said:

I'd think the following questions might be reasonable to ask:

(1) Do the players involved have any prior connection to Monaco? Seemingly not.
(2) Do we expect them to take a full-time non-bridge job in Monaco? No, I'd expect them to remain full-time bridge players.
(3) Do we expect them to spend most of their year in Monaco? No, bridge pro-ing entails a lot of travel. I'd expect to see them in the US a lot, traveling around Europe, etc.
(4) Do we expect them to make a large percentage of their income in Monaco? No, as far as I know Monaco doesn't have a very intense bridge calendar.
(5) Are they moving to Monaco for reasons of political asylum? No, they're hardly persecuted in their home countries.
(6) Have they held a long-standing desire to emigrate to Monaco, or lived there for a long time? Seems unlikely, and definitely not.
(7) Would we be surprised if, after retiring from top-class bridge in say 30 years, they relocated back to their original country? Not at all.

In summary, this looks like a pretty transparent attempt to circumvent the rules about qualification for the European Championships and eventually the Bermuda Bowl.

The issue with requiring only citizenship is that this requirement is very different in different countries. For example, getting a USA citizenship is pretty difficult (even getting a visa can be difficult if you don't have a full-time employer or are from the "wrong" country). Congrats to Fred on obtaining his, but notice that he has already been in the USA for quite some time before getting it. On the other hand, as a Jew I can obtain an Israeli citizenship pretty easily, without ever having lived there and without relinquishing my USA citizenship. In a lot of countries (Monaco seemingly one of them) large sums of money can "grease the wheels" as it were and make citizenship a lot easier to obtain.

I'd go with some set of rules like: (1) Must have citizenship in the country you play for and (2) Must not have played for any other country for a period of eight years (i.e a long time). Note that two years is really pretty short -- someone can fail once to make their nation's international squad and then relocate before the next cycle.

You raise some good points about what the rule perhaps ought to be. However, as the rules stand, the potential Monaco players are not attempting to circumvent the rules, they are merely taking advantage of them. There no point in attaching any blame to these particular players, as plenty of other players have already taken advantage of the same rules.

[jallerton]

fred, on 2010-December-19, 12:26, said:

My (clear) sense is that almost all do.

But I also get the sense that most bridge players (and probably most non-bridge players) who move to a new country genuinely think "this is now my country".

I think it depends. If someone comes from country A, but moves to country B to work or study for a fixed period only (which could be several years), then that person still regards country A as "their" country; country B is just where they happen to live for the time being.

On the other hand, if someone decides to leave country A forever and does not intend to ever return there (other than for holidays and business trips) then they will probably no longer regard country A as their own country.

Quote

That doesn't mean that such people feel no ties to their former countries. Using myself as an example, I always cheer for the USA to win events like the Olympiad, but I would also be very happy to see Canada do well. This has nothing to do with which players happen to be representing the USA or Canada in the event in question.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

So if the next Bermuda Bown final is Canada vs USA (and you are not involved), you would support USA. As a matter of interest, what about other sports? When Canada played against USA at Ice Hockey in the Winter Olympics earlier this year, which team did you support?

[NickRW]

awm, on 2010-December-19, 13:19, said:

In summary, this looks like a pretty transparent attempt to circumvent the rules about qualification for the European Championships and eventually the Bermuda Bowl.

Well this is where I part company with some of the posters here. I see it as a transparent attempt to follow the rules. OK the rules and the possible implications may be distasteful to some - and perhaps the rules should change for the future - but I don't see where they've done anything wrong as things stand.

Nick

[NickRW]

gnasher, on 2010-December-19, 11:34, said:

I don't think anyone here has said so, have they? It's possible to respect the players' decision whilst disapproving of the rules that allow them to do it.

I disagree. I think it has been pretty strongly implied. Look back at the previous posts.

Quote

If I lived in Monaco, I suspect I'd be arguing very strongly against it.

Well, as I understand it, quite a lot of the people living in Monaco live there precisely because it is a tax haven. Certainly quite a few Grand Prix drivers, for example, chose to live there (and not actually be in the country for a lot of the time). I guess the true Monacoan (if that is the word, and if indeed there are many such people given the country's small size) is quite used to seeing a succession of 'foreigners' as residents of their country.

Quote

Which people? The Americans and Norwegians who might actually find themselves playing against the Monaco team don't seem unhappy. So far as I can tell, no contenders for the Italian open team have expressed an opinion here.

OK, so there are not, as far as I can see, any Italians posting here. There does seem to be a flavour of indignance in writings elsewhere though from Italians - or an expectation that the people reading what is written will/should feel that way.

Anyway, the thing that narks me big time about this is that the US is only too happy for people like Fred and Zia to be playing for them - nobody is moaning about that - yet we get posts moaning about a Norwegian not being coshe in Monaco. That smacks of a two faced attitude.

Or perhaps I should be saying to the Scot, the German, the Swede and the half Irish/half Lithuanian people that play in my club that they can't represent our club in team matches because they are not English enough?!? Perhaps I should not play for the club either because I've only lived in this town for 10 years??? I find that ridiculous - and so do you I would guess.

People should discuss changing the rules if they don't like it - not retrospectively either - or put up with it because it is within the rules - hard luck that you don't like it.

Nick

[TimG]

NickRW, on 2010-December-19, 19:01, said:

I disagree. I think it has been pretty strongly implied. Look back at the previous posts.

I, for one, have no problem with any of the players, client or professional, who are moving to Monaco for an opportunity to play in the Bermuda Bowl. I do think that if the WBF is going to hold championships with country representation, the rules ought to be more strict. I don't see those as contradictory viewpoints.