Canadian Bridge Federation

[jillybean]

I am being a little lazy asking this here rather than hunting down the answer myself. My ACBL renewal notice came in the mail today and I have 4 membership options:

 

ACBL dues with Canadian Bridge Federation dues $52.95

“ with Education Foundation donation $43.30

“ with both $55.30

ACBL dues only $40.95

 

My question is what benefit is there in joining the CBF other than supporting bridge in Canada, dont the ACBL run everything?

[Guest Jlall]

If you want to play internationally for canada you have to pay CBF dues I think.

[fred]

When I lived in Canada one of the benefits of being a CBF member was receiving the magazine that they publish.

 

Besides that, supporting the CBF helps to support the development of bridge in Canada, helps pay for Canada's representatives to attend the World Championships, and similar causes that I consider to be worthy.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[mikeh]

JB: the ACBL doesn't actually run everything, altho sometimes one wonders :rolleyes:

 

The CBF serves a very valuable role, at least from the perspective of any serious Canadian player.

 

The CBF represents Canadian bridge to the WBF: arguing (amongst other matters) for Canada to be treated equitably in terms of access to World events. We have one of the largest bridge populations in the world, especially given our modest overall population. Thus we have more players than Africa and South American combined, yet factions within the ACBL (and the USBF) have been trying to (effectively) eliminate our country's access to the world stage. I do not want to overstate this, since many within the US are supportive or at least sympathetic to our situation.

 

The CBF publishes a Digest that contains bridge information of interest to Canadians, and some of it is in French in recognition of the strong Quebec region.

 

The CBF sponsors a regional tournament, the profits of which help fund international events. This is a tournament that would not exist were it not for the CBF.

 

The CBF runs national trials for selection of Open, Women's and Senior teams for international competition. While these events are of marginal relevance to the vast majority of players (as are the US Team Trials south of the border) they do form a valuable and enjoyable experience for Canadians. I have formed some good friendships through the CNTCs, with players I'd otherwise never meet and perhaps never even hear of.

 

The CBF also has a strong national Junior program: our Juniors' record on the international stage is remarkable, given the population disparity between Canada and the US.

 

I do confess to being biased: I know many of the people who have served as Directors of the CBF and have personally benefited from some of the subsidies that go to national teams.. but I think that the modest extra cost is money really well spent. I encourage you and all Canadian bridge players to pay the CBF dues.

[mycroft]

To add to MikeH:

 

Bridge Week (where the CBF trials are held) in addition to the open trials, holds a CNT flight B. This is highly relevant to the vast majority of players, because if you qualify in flight B, you go there, you get experience with trials-type conditions, and you become part of the community of high-level bridge. Not all those "good friendships" are just among the A players.

 

I haven't got anywhere near this - yet. However, many of my mentors got to where they were in ability through Junior International program, either by qualifying or the training that is given to the entire program by the CBF. And I am not the only one to learn from them, or play in the games where they direct.

 

And yes, the ACBL policy that if three teams come out of zone 2 for International events, it's USA 1, USA 2, and Canada and Mexico (and, it used to be, Bermuda) fight it out for the third; if only two teams come out, it's USA 1 and USA 2, and Canada and Mexico can freeze in the dark, is irritating. Yeah, USA 10 can probably beat Canada and Mexico, but there should at least be a chance.

 

(Note: I believe there should be an advantage to being USA 1; my recommended route is that USA 1 goes to the game; USA 2, Canada and Mexico fight it out for any remaining spots. Not that that's ever going to happen.)

 

Michael.

[jikl]

For $12 per year I would support the junior program alone, the game has no future without juniors. If the junior development doesn't happen, offline bridge will cease to exist. All the demogrpahics show that the average age is sort of getting older each year. (I say sort of, because when people die they are removed from the averages)

 

Sean

[G_R__E_G]

I also might add that your partner is only legally bound to pay off "The Beer Card" if your CBF dues are current.

[Finch]

And yes, the ACBL policy that if three teams come out of zone 2 for International events, it's USA 1, USA 2, and Canada and Mexico (and, it used to be, Bermuda) fight it out for the third; if only two teams come out, it's USA 1 and USA 2, and Canada and Mexico can freeze in the dark, is irritating. Yeah, USA 10 can probably beat Canada and Mexico, but there should at least be a chance.

Sorry to sound incredulous, but are you really saying that if zone 2 have two teams, they are, by definition, always US teams? That's completely absurd!

 

Or can a Canadian team enter the US trials and have their own chance of being USA 1 or USA 2, which would nearly be fair? (they might not want to call themselves a US team...).

[blackshoe]

The ACBL is an interesting beast. When the WBF was formed, the ACBL was the biggest bridge organization in the world - the "500 pound canary", if you will. It asserted itself as "the bridge organization" for (almost) all of North America. The WBF Constitution and Bylaws say that the members of the WBF are the "national bridge organizations" for each country, and that the NBOs in the seven zones defined by the WBF should get together and form a "Zonal Conference". The ACBL became that Zonal Conference (probably by virtue of its "500 pound canary" status). IOW, the ACBL is, by its own assertion, both the NBO for the United States, and the ZC for North America. Along comes this idea to make bridge an Olympic sport. But the Olympic Charter says there can be only one NBO for each country, and no NBO can represent more than one country. So the USBF sprang, wholly formed, from the forehead of the ACBL, and became the "NBO" for the USA. More accurately, IMO, the USBF is an ACBL puppet, designed to satisfy the letter of the Olympic charter, and allow the ACBL to keep its power over North American (and particularly US) bridge.

 

Be that as it may, the power to decide who gets to go to World Championships resides in Memphis, and Memphis has decreed that Canada and Mexico get the short end of the stick. Not pretty, but there it is. The 500 pound canary sits wherever he wants. :P

[JanM]

And yes, the ACBL policy that if three teams come out of zone 2 for International events, it's USA 1, USA 2, and Canada and Mexico (and, it used to be, Bermuda) fight it out for the third; if only two teams come out, it's USA 1 and USA 2, and Canada and Mexico can freeze in the dark, is irritating.  Yeah, USA 10 can probably beat Canada and Mexico, but there should at least be a chance.

Sorry to sound incredulous, but are you really saying that if zone 2 have two teams, they are, by definition, always US teams? That's completely absurd!

 

Or can a Canadian team enter the US trials and have their own chance of being USA 1 or USA 2, which would nearly be fair? (they might not want to call themselves a US team...).

This is a complicated issue, and in order to respond I may be restating facts that many of you know, but from Frances' question, perhaps many don't. First, we are talking only about the World Championships in odd numbered years. In "Olympic" years, every country is entitled to exactly one team. Thus in those years, the US, Canada, and Mexico can each send one team to the World Championships (Bermuda also, I left it out of the list because Bermuda has chosen to join the Caribbean Zone of the WBF). In the other even numbered year (the Rosenblum year), anyone from any country can play.

 

In the odd-numbered years, Zone 2 is entitled to three teams in each event. The WBF has assigned two of those teams to the US and the other team to Canada & Mexico. This was done at the request of Canada and Mexico - they don't want to play in the US Trials, they want to be guaranteed a team in the Bermuda Bowl, Venice Cup & Senior Bowl.

 

There is only one way in which Zone 2 would not have 3 teams, and that is if a team was taken away because either the US or Canada/Mexico did not have a team finish in the top half in the Olympiad or Women's Olympiad (I don't know about the Seniors). Theoretically, if that happens, the country that did not have a top half team loses its Bermuda Bowl or Venice Cup team the following year. In practice, the only time I know that this happened (Open Olympiad in 2000), the WBF made an exception and reinstated the Canada/Mexico team for the Bermuda Bowl.

 

Finally, the requirement that even in odd-numbered years, only US players are allowed to play on two of the Zone 2 teams is one established by WBF, not by ACBL or USBF. I know that because when I was chair of the US Women's International Team Trials Committee, we wanted to allow "mixed" (US and Canadian or Mexican) teams to enter our Team Trials. We were told that we could not do that.

[hrothgar]

This is a complicated issue

I definitely agree with this comment.

 

Regretfully, selection criteria for these types of events is as much a political process as a technical one. I don't think that you'd ever be able to come up with a solution that some won't pick apart and start finding blame.

 

Case in point: A lot of people are horrified that the US is guarunteed two slots under the existing system. However, lets assume that we shifted to a system in which all three North American slots are assigned based on some kind of open competition. I'd bet dollars to donuts that the end result of this reform would be that the US would normally send three teams while Canada/Mexico sent none.

 

As Jan notes, political realities at the WBF level further complicate matters. Personally, I'd love to see the following type of system put in place:

 

Zone 2 sends three teams to the World Championship. Members of Zone Two can join whatever team they see fit. If a couple Mexicans want to team up with an American Pair and a Canadian pair, so be it. If three Canadian pairs want to form a team, so be it. Leave it up to the team to decide whether they are representing the US, Canada, or Mexico.

 

I believe that this type of system would allow Zone Two to field stronger teams, create more opportunities for top players in Canada and Mexico, and produce better competition. I'd be happy if other Zones were to follow suit.

 

I want to see good bridge. I don't really care very much about the glory of Lichtenstein or the drama when Iceland somehow managed to win a World Championship.

[Gerben42]

I want to see good bridge. I don't really care very much about the glory of Lichtenstein or the drama when Iceland somehow managed to win a World Championship.

 

Iceland did play good bridge in 1991 and they are still a strong team! Please do not underestimate the strength of "small" European countries.

 

The Bermuda Bowl is like the football world cup: only national teams are allowed. If you allow mixing I am sure Europe could "improve" some teams. BTW the USA chooses to have a team qualification so that a preset team of 3 pairs can become USA1 / USA2. Other countries have other methods.

 

If you want to say mixed-country teams, try the transnationals or the Rosenblum. But not the Bermuda Bowl.

 

About Canada / Mexico not getting a BB spot I think that is fair, they must QUALIFY. European teams have to qualify. US teams have to qualify. Canada and Mexico can qualify in the Olympiad, which IMHO is much easier than either the USA trials or the Euro championships.

[david_c]

Case in point:  A lot of people are horrified that the US is guarunteed two slots under the existing system.

Indeed - they should be restricted to at most one.

[hrothgar]

The Bermuda Bowl is like the football world cup: only national teams are allowed. If you allow mixing I am sure Europe could "improve" some teams.

To me, thats the crux of the discussion

 

I don't see the value in restricting the Bermuda Bowl to only include teams that represent a given nation. The format seems badly biased in favor of countries that have a very large population (or at least a large population of professional bridge players). I readily admit, on rare occasions Cinderella teams are able to win. However, most years the event gets won one of a small number of countries.

 

Personally I'd like to see a system that would permit a bit more variety. I'd love to see Helgemo - Helness team up with a couple of the top Polish pairs. Alternatively, what would happen if you could mix and match different teams from Ireland and Britain...

[pclayton]

I want to see good bridge. I don't really care very much about the glory of Lichtenstein or the drama when Iceland somehow managed to win a World Championship.

 

Iceland did play good bridge in 1991 and they are still a strong team! Please do not underestimate the strength of "small" European countries.

 

The Bermuda Bowl is like the football world cup: only national teams are allowed. If you allow mixing I am sure Europe could "improve" some teams. BTW the USA chooses to have a team qualification so that a preset team of 3 pairs can become USA1 / USA2. Other countries have other methods.

 

If you want to say mixed-country teams, try the transnationals or the Rosenblum. But not the Bermuda Bowl.

 

About Canada / Mexico not getting a BB spot I think that is fair, they must QUALIFY. European teams have to qualify. US teams have to qualify. Canada and Mexico can qualify in the Olympiad, which IMHO is much easier than either the USA trials or the Euro championships.

I agree with this. The Rosenblum is the venue for 'mixing and matching'. My understanding is the Transnationals is a second tier event since it runs parallel to another major (Olympiad?).

 

Bridge is better served by keeping teams 'national', although there are occasional crossovers.

 

Canada / Mexico? Tough one. If someone could educate me on how the different zones send teams, along with the relative bridge populations of the countries involved, I'd feel like I could better judge this matter.

 

Anyone care to comment?

[Walddk]

Personally I'd like to see a system that would permit a bit more variety.  I'd love to see Helgemo - Helness team up with a couple of the top Polish pairs.  Alternatively, what would happen if you could mix and match different teams from Ireland and Britain...

You would weaken the Irish team. England are falling way behind; just look at the Camrose Trophy results. Ireland have won it three years in a row, by a margin even.

 

Regarding Norway, there is no reason to team Helgenes up with Polish pairs. Brogeland-Sælensminde and Grøtheim-Tundal are world class.

 

Finally, I find it offensive when you write ".... when Iceland somehow managed to win a World Championship." They won because they played the better bridge. Why is that so strange? Is good bridge restricted to USA and Italy?

 

Roland

[hrothgar]

Personally I'd like to see a system that would permit a bit more variety.  I'd love to see Helgemo - Helness team up with a couple of the top Polish pairs.  Alternatively, what would happen if you could mix and match different teams from Ireland and Britain...

You would weaken the Irish team. England are falling way behind; just look at the Camrose Trophy results. Ireland have won it three years in a row, by a margin even.

 

Regarding Norway, there is no reason to team Helgenes up with Polish pairs. Brogeland-Sælensminde and Grøtheim-Tundal are world class.

 

Finally, I find it offensive when you write ".... when Iceland somehow managed to win a World Championship." They won because they played the better bridge. Why is that so strange? Is good bridge restricted to USA and Italy?

 

Roland

I can't help but believe that matching the Hackett twins with Tom Hanlon & Hugh McGann would produce a stronger team than Ireland or Britain in isolation.

 

In a similar fashion, I agree that Brogeland-Sælensminde and Grøtheim-Tundal (whatever happened to Terje Aa?) are very strong pairs. However, I'm not sure whether Grøtheim-Tundal are quite as good as the cream of the Polish roster.

 

I'm certainly not claiming that I could necessarily pick the best team of European or North American superstars. However, I am claiming that a set of 16 teams, each of which is restricted to a single nationality will be weaker than a set of sixteen teams without any such restriction. Moreover, I would expect that the best of those teams would be much better.

[Walddk]

(whatever happened to Terje Aa?)

Nothing really. Aa-Grøtheim were partners for ages, then they both took a break and now they are back with new partners. Tundal is an old partner of Grøtheim's actually, European Champions even.

 

Terje Aa plays with Jon-Egil Furunes. The joke in Norway is that the Norwegian open team can't afford to have Aa-Grøtheim as a pair. Too many penalties because of time violation. :P

 

Roland

[MickyB]

Personally I'd like to see a system that would permit a bit more variety.  I'd love to see Helgemo - Helness team up with a couple of the top Polish pairs.  Alternatively, what would happen if you could mix and match different teams from Ireland and Britain...

You would weaken the Irish team. England are falling way behind; just look at the Camrose Trophy results. Ireland have won it three years in a row, by a margin even.

You may well be right, but I don't think the Camrose is sufficient evidence - after all, England had six pairs playing (and not their best six either - Sanqvist-Malinowski had a poor butler in the trials, but qualified due to the Hacketts' impressive performance), so one very good pair could easily have been lost amongst weaker teammates.

 

Besides, maybe the prospect of Hanlon-McGann as teammates, or possibly a partner from elsewhere in the UK, would get Andrew Robson making a serious effort at the Bermuda Bowl.

[hrothgar]

Finally, I find it offensive when you write ".... when Iceland somehow managed to win a World Championship." They won because they played the better bridge. Why is that so strange? Is good bridge restricted to USA and Italy?

 

Roland

 

As for the Icelandic team... I certainly didn't mean to slight their performance in Yokohama, however, when one thinks of traditional bridge powerhouses, Iceland really doesn't top the list.

 

I just quickly scanned the last 30 years worth of Olympiads and Bermuda Bowls.

 

Iceland appeared in a grand total of one Bermuda Bowl. Iceland appears in a lot of World Team Olympiads, however, they've never won a medal. They had two fourth place showings and shared a 4-way tie for 8th place on another occasion.

 

I certainly don't claim that good bridge is restricted to the US or Italy. At the same time, its ridiculous to pretend that a small number of countries don't dominate the standings. I compiled a list a the winners of the Bermuda Bowl going back to 1970 combined with the (men's) Olympids since 1972

 

US 15

Italy 7

France 4

Brazil 2

Poland 1

Netherlands 1

Iceland 1

 

I don't have a clue who will be playing in the Bermuda Bowl in 2013...

 

However, I'd give you even odds that the the winner would be either the United State or Italy. You can have the entire rest of the field.

[hrothgar]

(whatever happened to Terje Aa?)

Nothing really. Aa-Grøtheim were partners for ages, then they both took a break and now they are back with new partners. Tundal is an old partner of Grøtheim's actually, European Champions even.

 

Terje Aa plays with Jon-Egil Furunes. The joke in Norway is that the Norwegian open team can't afford to have Aa-Grøtheim as a pair. Too many penalties because of time violation. :P

 

Roland

Either of the pairs using Viking Club?

 

I always enjoyed watching it in "action". There was always lots of time to look up the meaning of the auctions...

[Walddk]

As for the Icelandic team...  I certainly didn't mean to slight their performance in Yokohama, however, when one thinks of traditional bridge powerhouses, Iceland really doesn't top the list.

 

I just quickly scanned the last 30 years worth of Olympiads and Bermuda Bowls. 

 

Iceland appeared in a grand total of one Bermuda Bowl.

I don't know how others interpret "somehow managed to win ....", but for me it sounds like they got lucky because there were much better teams in Japan. It's the word "somehow" I find degrading in this context.

 

As to your "Iceland appeared in a grand total of one Bermuda Bowl" you are spot on, and let me add that Iceland is the only nation with a 100% record. Entered once and won it.

 

Regarding Canada (and that has nothing to do with you, Richard) I don't think they should have an automatic berth. Everyone else (except USA) must qualify, so why should the Canadians have a special status?

 

By the way, Fred who used to play for Canada on several occasions as you all well know shares that view.

 

Roland

[cherdano]

As for the Icelandic team...  I certainly didn't mean to slight their performance in Yokohama, however, when one thinks of traditional bridge powerhouses, Iceland really doesn't top the list.

 

I just quickly scanned the last 30 years worth of Olympiads and Bermuda Bowls. 

 

Iceland appeared in a grand total of one Bermuda Bowl.

I don't know how others interpret "somehow managed to win ....", but for me it sounds like they got lucky because there were much better teams in Japan. It's the word "somehow" I find degrading in this context.

Whoever is offended that easily might know by now not to read Richard's posts...

[mikeh]

 

Canada / Mexico? Tough one. If someone could educate me on how the different zones send teams, along with the relative bridge populations of the countries involved, I'd feel like I could better judge this matter.

 

Anyone care to comment?

I don't understand that comment... are you suggesting that Canada/Mexico don't warrant a shot at the BB on the same basis as countries in other zones?

 

Mexico has a very small bridge population, presumably having to do with the socio-economic demographics.. but Canada's is in line, per capita, with the US and, as a country, has more registered players than several entire zones! Thus we have more players than all of the South American Zone, all of the African Zone, all of the Carribean and so on.

 

It is important to remember that the BB is not about establishing which 6 players constitute the best team in the world. The BB is about nations vying for the world title... thus we do not allow mixed teams, altho that principle is honoured more in the breach than the observance. Zia, Rosenberg, Hampson, Fred.... none of these players are US by birth or education.

 

Indeed, to those who claim that Canada, if forced to compete in a US team trial, would not reach the top 10, let me suggest that if players were forced to play only for countries of origin/upbringing, Canada might not do too badly. We'd have had available to us two of the aforementioned players along with others who have done not-to-badly on the world or North American stage. I am not going to list all of those who spring to mind out of concern that I might leave some out.

 

Back to the 'best country' not best team approach: I like it. I think it not unreasonable to preserve that approach notwithstanding the pressure brought to bear by the top pros and wealthiest clients.

 

The US already gets treated differently than any other country.... in recognition of its size. If having 2 US teams seems too few (there is an argument that it is too many), the answer is not to place Canada and Mexico in the unique position of being effectively barred from every competing in the BB, but to award an extra team, or two, to the US. Compare the bridge populations of Europe to Zone 2 and adjust the US entitlement to a pro rata equivalency... don't sideline Canada or Mexico. If you are going to sideline us, give us back a chance by forcing Canadian players to play for Canada, rather than for the land they have adopted for financial reasons.

 

This is NOT, repeat, NOT a knock on Canadian bridge players who have gone to the States: they are only and quite properly doing that which many bright, successful people, in all walks of life, have been doing for generations.

 

I find myself rambling, so I will stop.

[Walddk]

As for the Icelandic team...  I certainly didn't mean to slight their performance in Yokohama, however, when one thinks of traditional bridge powerhouses, Iceland really doesn't top the list.

 

I just quickly scanned the last 30 years worth of Olympiads and Bermuda Bowls. 

 

Iceland appeared in a grand total of one Bermuda Bowl.

I don't know how others interpret "somehow managed to win ....", but for me it sounds like they got lucky because there were much better teams in Japan. It's the word "somehow" I find degrading in this context.

Whoever is offended that easily might know by now not to read Richard's posts...

Oh, but occasionally he writes something intelligent. It's hard to know if it is or not if one doesn't read it.

 

Roland