IBPA article

[hrothgar]

Interesting article which raises a number of points:

http://www.ibpa.com/511bc.pdf

 

1. Difficult to understand the comments about "unacceptable" behaviour by the Juniors. Personally, I couldn't care less if USA1 wants to spend all night snorting lines and partying with whores. If a captain thinks that someone's bridge is suffering, bench the player. If they really screw up, kick them off the team. If they're breaking the law, call in the cops.

 

I believe that most of the Juniors are above 18. Treat them like adults and don't confuse your own personal morals with a sporting event.

 

2. Panos Gerontopoulos got the boot? Seems more than reasonable to me...

My impression from back in Sydney was that he was a very expensive waste of skin.

[cherdano]

1. Difficult to understand the comments about "unacceptable" behaviour by the Juniors. Personally, I couldn't care less if USA1 wants to spend all night snorting lines and partying with whores. If a captain thinks that someone's bridge is suffering, bench the player. If they really screw up, kick them off the team. If they're breaking the law, call in the cops.

This viewpoint might be difficult to communicate to the authorities in morally very conservative countries like Iran, Saudi-Arabia or USA...

[mike777]

Article on bridge in the current issue of The New Yorker, September 17, issue.

This is a mainstream USA literary magazine.

 

Typical article, bridge players are old and bridge used to be played by everyone.

[awm]

When you're on company time, there's an obligation to keep in mind that you're representing your company, not just yourself and to be on your best behavior.

 

Here, the USBF has spent a lot of money to send this team overseas to represent the United States (and the USBF/ACBL) internationally. Their behavior reflects on the organization that has selected them and funded their travels, as well as upon the country in whose name they play. I think it's reasonable to expect that these individuals will take the privilege of representing their country seriously, strive to perform as well as they can, and avoid behavior which is immoral (or at the very least behavior which is illegal by the laws of the home country).

 

I'm sure most companies would object if their employees were "snorting coke and soliciting prostitutes" on company time (I have no evidence that this actually happened, I'm just taking the examples from hrothgar's post). Many professional sports teams have penalties for off the field behavior which reflects poorly on the team and/or league (for example criminal convictions and even racist comments often provoke suspensions or fines from the league).

[hrothgar]

I'm sure most companies would object if their employees were "snorting coke and soliciting prostitutes" on company time (I have no evidence that this actually happened, I'm just taking the examples from hrothgar's post). Many professional sports teams have penalties for off the field behavior which reflects poorly on the team and/or league (for example criminal convictions and even racist comments often provoke suspensions or fines from the league).

The supposed penalties that sports teams hand out for ethical misconducts also strike me as idiotic. I don't think many people would claim that Ty Cobb was all sweetness and light, but damn the man could hit... I don't think that conflating physcial prowess with ethical role model serves anyone in good stead.

 

To use a more recent example, I think that the Falcons should go after Michael Vick because he won't be able to play ball while he is rotting in jail. I would prefer if they never built an ethics clause into his contract.

 

Moreover, according to the stories that I've heard, back in their heyday the ACBL Nationals were quite the meat market. (They might still be, but lords knows that isn't something that I want to picture). I know for a fact that I have played against any number of pairs who were bombed off their ass and I'm not just talking about Midnight KOs... (Charlie Coons breath could knock a guy down at 1o paces and he could still play the spots off the cards)

 

Seems ridiculous to condemn the Juniors for engaging in the same activities as the "adults"...

[cherdano]

What do you mean by company time awm? If someone is on a business trip and working from 8am to 8 pm, then during that time of course should behave in a respectable manner, but who would care what he does after 8pm?

[hrothgar]

I'm sure most companies would object if their employees were "snorting coke and soliciting prostitutes" on company time (I have no evidence that this actually happened, I'm just taking the examples from hrothgar's post).

I didn't see any discussion of "company time" in the article.

 

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that anyone was turning tricks between tricks or knocking down cold brewskis every time they took the last trick with the seven of Diamonds...

[Guest Jlall]

Can someone copy/paste this and PM it to me? My computer cannot read pdf files right now (don't ask lol), and i get the feeling I want to read this one

[hrothgar]

Can someone copy/paste this and PM it to me? My computer cannot read pdf files right now (don't ask lol), and i get the feeling I want to read this one

Editorial

The opinions expressed here are solely those of the Editor and do not

necessarily represent the opinions of the IBPA Executive or its membership.

Junior Bridge is under siege. Here are some of the firebombs lobbed at it by the

trebuchet:

a. The ACBL has cancelled the Junior Camp and World Individual Championship

which it was scheduled to host this summer.

b. The WBF is considering holding the World Youth Team Championships only

every four years, down from the current every-other-year scenario. Additionally,

there seems to be some sentiment for eliminating the Pairs.

c. Despite there being a World Youth Teams scheduled for 2008, no country has

yet come forward to host it.

d. The USA, Canada and Israel (there may be others) have all experienced

what the authorities consider to be unacceptable behaviour from some of

their juniors, causing them to, respectively, reconsider their support of Junior

Bridge, deny some members ratification to play, and refuse to send a team to

the European Junior Team Championship at all.

e. The EBL has removed Panos Gerontopoulos as its Youth Committee Chairman

and member of the EBL Executive. This effectively means he no longer serves

the WBF in the same capacities.

There are many positives, however. The recent European Youth Championships

in Jesolo, Italy were a resounding success, with more total teams entered than

ever before. The PABF and South American Zones also had successful Zonal

Championships recently. Youth bridge is booming in some countries, notably

Poland, Indonesia and the Netherlands, while Italy, France, Sweden, England

and Norway, among others, have future stars in their ranks. Some countries,

notably Italy, the Netherlands and Brazil seem able to step in at short notice to

host World and European Championships.

Let’s look at the aforementioned difficulties in order.

a. The ACBL Board of Directors seems to be taking the view that they are spending

a lot of money on Junior Bridge, and that the benefits are only realized by a few

elite players. The occasional behaviour of a very small number of these has

been questionable – alcohol abuse, drugs, and escort services are some of the

charges levelled. While some steps may need to be taken to correct the behaviour

of those few (even that is moot), it seems irrational to punish a whole programme

for their individual behaviour. The future of bridge lies in bringing more young

people into the game, not driving them away by diminishing their opportunities.

b. Our view is that there should be a World Youth Championship every year, not

once every four. Year 1: Teams; Year 2: Pairs; Year 3: Teams; Year 4: Individual.

If this must be done on a smaller scale than currently, so be it. However, one is

only a junior for so long – for most players, they would not become accomplished

enough to represent their country until they were in their twenties, at which time

they might have only one or two chances at it before becoming too old.

[Guest Jlall]

lol, thanks Richard, so much I would love to say but it is not in my best interest or the best interest of junior bridge so I won't (and yes it is really sickening to me to try and use political tact).

[hrothgar]

lol, thanks Richard, so much I would love to say but it is not in my best interest or the best interest of junior bridge so I won't (and yes it is really sickening to me to try and use political tact).

Damn...

 

I do love dirt

[han]

What do you mean by company time awm? If someone is on a business trip and working from 8am to 8 pm, then during that time of course should behave in a respectable manner, but who would care what he does after 8pm?

 

Although I don't care at all about this representing their country in a respectable manner, I do think that the coach (or sponsoring organization) should care what the players do after game time. If they do use heavy drugs then this will likely have a negative effect on their play the next day. I can't imagine that the coach cares about their sex life as long as they get enough sleep to play their best the next day.

 

So yes, I think that the "company" should expect the players to take the event seriously, also after gametime. But given that the US won the world championships twice in a row I can't imagine that they didn't.

 

As for the Canucks, my impression is that there is much more to the story. I don't know anything about the Israelian juniors.

[awm]

Generally speaking, behavior on business trips is under the same codes of ethical conduct as behavior at work... at least according to most companies' codes of ethics.

 

There's also a distinction between activities which are legal but immoral versus activities which are actually illegal. Certain drugs and soliciting prostitutes are against US law. Funding overseas travel for the purpose of partaking in these activities is of questionable legality, and certainly reflects poorly on the company or organization providing such funding. Even if legal consequences are unlikely, I think many individuals would be unwilling to donate time and money to an organization which supports such activities.

 

ACBL/USBF definitely has reasonable concerns; I think the article tends to trivialize them in it's editorial response. Keep in mind that currently the USA1 team is not selected via an open selection process, instead being comprised of whoever remains eligible from the last USA1 team plus whoever they select to augment the team. This emphasizes a combination of skill level and being part of the "junior crowd" in order to get selected. The people on this team are very frequently full time professional bridge players, and also very frequently the children of very serious bridge players. It becomes difficult to argue that continuing the provide money to these individuals actually furthers the cause of "getting more young people involved in bridge" unless the team members are acting as role models and mentors for other young players. If, instead, they are taking advantage of the USBF's investment of time and money to engage in questionable activities (leading to articles about how the junior team partied overseas, and thereby discouraging parents from even allowing their kids to participate in junior bridge activities) this certainly doesn't help the cause of getting more young players involved.

 

I agree that the older bridge players are often very bad examples, and in particular several of the "coaches" providing adult supervision at the junior camps are known to spend their time encouraging under-age players to get drunk and hitting on young female players a quarter of their age. Certainly this is potentially an even more serious problem than "kids being kids" although I am not sure I would categorize some of the (alleged) activities going on as "just kids being kids."

[han]

Funding overseas travel for the purpose of partaking in these activities is of questionable legality....

For the purpose?????

[ralph23]

Funding overseas travel for the purpose of partaking in these activities is of questionable legality....

For the purpose?????

Bridge is apparently a lot more fun now than when I was a teenager. But maybe most things are.

[david_c]

Richard only quoted the first page of the editorial. It goes on:

 

c. Many countries feel that the conditions imposed by

the WBF for hosting a World Championship are too

onerous, which is perhaps why no suitable candidate

has stepped forward for next year’s World Youth Teams.

Our view is that the WBF must try to make it more

financially viable for countries outside Europe and North

America to host such events. So far, we have had one

each in Indonesia, Brazil, Australia and Thailand, and

the other seven in Europe and North America. Japan,

China, South Africa, Egypt, Argentina and Chile are all

potential hosts with active bridge communities.

 

d. As for individual behaviour, it is one’s demeanour at

the table and behaviour toward partner, opponents, NPC

and teammates which is important, not a few youthful

highjinks. We seniors sometimes forget how we acted

in our youth. Besides, what one does in the privacy of

one’s own home (or hotel room, by extension) is no one

else’s business, as long as it does not adversely affect

others, or the player’s performance at the table.

 

e. The EBL and WBF must step in quickly to find a

replacement for Panos Gerontopoulos. Gianarrigo Rona

(Italy), Andrea Pagani (Italy) and Stefan Back (Germany)

are the most-often mentioned possibilities. It does seem

that the Chairman of the WBF Youth Committee must

come from Europe, at least until the other Zones catch

up to Europe in Junior Bridge activity, numbers and

sophistication.

 

One further point: a successful youth programme must

have both a grass-roots component (of which the Junior

Camps are a part) and an elite component. We must

bring large numbers of young people into the game,

while at the same time providing competition for the most

talented of these. If we do not, bridge will die out

everywhere but Poland, the Netherlands and Indonesia.

[han]

Thanks for posting David, I completely agree with d.

[Guest Jlall]

Just for SOME clarification since most people who are commenting really have no clue:

 

1) We didn't engage in any illegal activities in Thailand. Prostitution is legal in Thailand, nobody on the team (I am by far the youngest) was underage to drink and nobody did drugs in Thailand. For the record, nobody drank during the days we played except maybe 1 beer after the last session for some people. There was definitely a lot of drinking after the event was over and we won, I guess this is alcohol abuse lol.

 

2) To say or imply that our goal was to party and engage in extraneous activities is really insulting. Our team has won 3 of the last 4 years (the one loss being by half an imp in the semi finals). I am not saying this to brag, I'm saying this as a counterproof to this theory. There is very strong competition in the juniors, and though there are maybe only 4 or 5 teams with the skill level to win each year, of those the winner is the one who brings their A game and performs. We bring our A games because we are focused on the goal of winning, not on the goal of getting laid or drunk or high. I can personally say that Thailand was the best bridge I've ever played and I am extremely proud of my performance. I can also say that John and Joe rose to the level they needed to to anchor our team, and that our "third pair" Josh and Jason gave us a lot of blitzes in the round robin and were the pair that basically sealed the deal for us in the finals. My partner Ari also played really well. It is an insult to these guys to imply that they were not focused on winning.

 

3) It is unfair to say that we do not conduct ourselves in a respectable manner at the world championships. There was not a SINGLE incident with the US players about ANYTHING regarding our behavior at the table or away from the table. There was a complaint about our "profiles" and that of several other teams. I still submit that there was nothing wrong in the US profiles and only one person had even a questionable one. Also, most of our team did not even WRITE or get to review our own profiles. If you compare ours to others they will seem very mild.

 

If you want to say that we should ALWAYS conduct ourselves in a respectable manner because we represent our country, that is a fair point. All I can say is that we are a team of humans. It is no secret that I have been in trouble with the league before and that I am a hot head. Hopefully most of that is behind me, but I know that I will always have a struggle with my temper. As a bridge pro and a representative of my country I do understand I will be held to a higher standard. Maybe I'm not a great role model, but there are people like Ari and Josh who are. If you want a team of boy scouts as well as great bridge players then you're in a tough business.

 

If you never want underage drinking to go on or marijuana to be smoked, you are living in a fantasy world.

 

4) I know for a fact that everyone on the team takes great pride in representing USA.

 

5) Is it our fault that we get selected? The league has clearly decided that they want USA 1 to be the best possible team, and have the best possible chance to win. That is why they do the selection. I'm sorry if people don't like this but it's not our fault, we don't choose how we are selected. I find it completely unbelievable that we get flak for this, and also how much flak we get after we continually do what they want us to do: Win. Providing us with money to go to a world championship and win serves the obvious purpose of giving the US a good team. If you are an american kid and you read about the run of junior success that the junior bridge team has, you may want to one day be a part of that legacy. I know I did. It should be pretty obvious what the advantages of having a good team are, and how that may improve the junior bridge situation in your country.

 

Also it is complete nonsense that you need to be on the "in crowd" like we are some sort of clique. If you are one of the best 6 juniors in the country you will get a chance, because, well, we want to have the best possible team not just a team of our friends. In fact I was selected to play in Australia when I did not know anyone on the team very well over a player who was very good friends with all of the regulars and on the "in crowd" because they thought I was better than him.

 

The next year Josh was selected not because he was on the "in crowd," he was actually selected over the brother of one of the "in crowd" because we thought he was a better player. It seems like people who are not very good like to use the excuse that they are not our friends and thus are not selected for that reason. Well, sorry, it's because you are not good enough yet.

[Guest Jlall]

Oh and I always get a laugh when they complain that the money spent on teams to go to the world championships goes to an elite few. Yeah sorry that we do well, they could structure it so that the worst team gets to go and then it's not an elite few. Or maybe have a random lottery to select the team so that the maximum amount of people get to enjoy the money. What kind of argument is this?

[Guest Jlall]

I think many individuals would be unwilling to donate time and money to an organization which supports such activities.

You do realize that most of the money that was donated from private donors (ie not the 50k the ACBL gives the USBF for this) were from our clients right? They donated in large part because we were on the team.

[awm]

A few points here:

 

The vast majority of juniors will never be able to make the US national junior team. This would be true under any reasonable selection process. Under the current process there is not even an opportunity to "get lucky" in a trials. So for most people, I doubt the idea that "I could play on the US junior team" is a big motivational factor for them to play bridge. By "automatically" sending the same team every year (and sending the same people to various other international events) there's certainly a perception that it's hard to "break in" to the set of international junior representatives. There are several eligible individuals widely viewed as better players than some who made the team (prefer not to name names, but this is very far from being just my own opinion); obviously one can argue that a team of people who know each other, get along, etc. might be "a better team" but the fact remains that certain folks didn't get much of a chance to be on the team and that nothing they could do (bridge-wise) effected this.

 

I never indicated that people were doing anything illegal under the laws of the host country. The point was that traveling in order to bypass US law (for example going to Thailand in order to solicit prostitutes, or the Netherlands in order to smoke marijuana, or many places in Europe in order to drink when under 21) is legally and ethically somewhat questionable. Regardless of whether this sort of extracurricular activity "took priority over the bridge" (seems unlikely) articles and complaints about this kind of stuff going on does reflect poorly on bridge. Similarly it reflects badly on bridge when a coach at junior bridge camp tells the female campers that they will never be good players and that their purpose is to "sleep with the male players before IMP sessions (but not before MP sessions)" or when the adult in charge of caddies at a tournament gets all excited about "getting 14-year olds drunk."

 

The fact is that ACBL (and all bridge organizations) should be interested in promoting bridge to young players. Of course, there's a limited budget for this (although maybe if Bill Gates gets more involved the budget will be less limited...) I think it's a reasonable question whether the current structure, where a lot of money is spent sending a small number of elite players (the national teams) to play in the junior competition, and a lot of money is spent on the junior camps, is necessarily the right approach. The junior competitions cater exclusively to the best of the juniors (all of whom spend plenty of time playing already), how does this help junior bridge? It seems likely that having a losing national team would encourage more people to play to try to reverse the country's fortunes, rather than having a national team that virtually always wins and is almost impossible to join? Assuming we want to have a winning national team, it might be better to have an open trials, even though the quality of the team sent wouldn't necessarily improve, because the trials first eliminate from contention people who don't think being on the team is important enough to attend the trials and take them seriously, and second give all players at least the impression (maybe misimpression) that they can make the team if they play well over the week of trials. In any case it seems reasonable to ask whether eliminating the national team entirely (or letting the national team be paid for entirely by clients/sponsors and spending ACBL/USBF money elsewhere) would be a better way to encourage young players.

[Echognome]

<snip> It seems likely that having a losing national team would encourage more people to play to try to reverse the country's fortunes, rather than having a national team that virtually always wins and is almost impossible to join?<snip>

This makes no sense to me at all. If your home team is really good, isn't that what you are going to strive to want to be a part of? If I grew up in New York (and I didn't) and the Yankees were really good and all the fans loved them, wouldn't that make me want to play baseball too? Whereas if I grew up in Kansas City (and I didn't) and my team was mediocre and wasn't televised very often, would that make me want to play baseball more?

 

Edit: And I have a hard time believing that the statements made by the coach and the person in charge of the caddies were anything more than jokes. I obviously wasn't there, but I think you are making some pretty serious allegations.

[Guest Jlall]

A few points here:

 

The vast majority of juniors will never be able to make the US national junior team. This would be true under any reasonable selection process. Under the current process there is not even an opportunity to "get lucky" in a trials. So for most people, I doubt the idea that "I could play on the US junior team" is a big motivational factor for them to play bridge. By "automatically" sending the same team every year (and sending the same people to various other international events) there's certainly a perception that it's hard to "break in" to the set of international junior representatives. There are several eligible individuals widely viewed as better players than some who made the team (prefer not to name names, but this is very far from being just my own opinion); obviously one can argue that a team of people who know each other, get along, etc. might be "a better team" but the fact remains that certain folks didn't get much of a chance to be on the team and that nothing they could do (bridge-wise) effected this.

 

I never indicated that people were doing anything illegal under the laws of the host country. The point was that traveling in order to bypass US law (for example going to Thailand in order to solicit prostitutes, or the Netherlands in order to smoke marijuana, or many places in Europe in order to drink when under 21) is legally and ethically somewhat questionable. Regardless of whether this sort of extracurricular activity "took priority over the bridge" (seems unlikely) articles and complaints about this kind of stuff going on does reflect poorly on bridge. Similarly it reflects badly on bridge when a coach at junior bridge camp tells the female campers that they will never be good players and that their purpose is to "sleep with the male players before IMP sessions (but not before MP sessions)" or when the adult in charge of caddies at a tournament gets all excited about "getting 14-year olds drunk."

 

The fact is that ACBL (and all bridge organizations) should be interested in promoting bridge to young players. Of course, there's a limited budget for this (although maybe if Bill Gates gets more involved the budget will be less limited...) I think it's a reasonable question whether the current structure, where a lot of money is spent sending a small number of elite players (the national teams) to play in the junior competition, and a lot of money is spent on the junior camps, is necessarily the right approach. The junior competitions cater exclusively to the best of the juniors (all of whom spend plenty of time playing already), how does this help junior bridge? It seems likely that having a losing national team would encourage more people to play to try to reverse the country's fortunes, rather than having a national team that virtually always wins and is almost impossible to join? Assuming we want to have a winning national team, it might be better to have an open trials, even though the quality of the team sent wouldn't necessarily improve, because the trials first eliminate from contention people who don't think being on the team is important enough to attend the trials and take them seriously, and second give all players at least the impression (maybe misimpression) that they can make the team if they play well over the week of trials. In any case it seems reasonable to ask whether eliminating the national team entirely (or letting the national team be paid for entirely by clients/sponsors and spending ACBL/USBF money elsewhere) would be a better way to encourage young players.

The vast majority of juniors will not be good enough to play on the national team you're right. That doesn't mean that "I could play on the US junior team" is not motivation to try and get good enough to do it. Kids still dream of playing for the yankees even though most won't get that chance.

 

There have also always been 2 teams, and even when one of them was "picked" the other was always open, and there was always a trials for that team. There has never been a time that there was no trials, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. You can't have it both ways that you want to just get lucky and win the trials but also be on the best team.

 

As far as some people not getting a shot, and nothing they can do bridge wise can affect that, that is BS. Win something and you will be noticed. Play well against whoever and you will be noticed. To be really honest I don't even know who you're talking about that might be considered better than anyone on the current team. It will always be debatable if person X is better than person Y, but I think you are deluded in thinking some people will not get a fair shot because they're not on the "in" crowd.

[Impact]

There are a number of issues:-

 

1. The primary role of a junior (or any) representative team is to perform for their country in the sport/activity. Hence anything which detracts from performance at the bridge table is a potential source of legitimate objection.

That is relatively uncontroversial.

 

2. Measuring whether particular behaviour affects performance is more controversial.

 

3. A separate issue is the purely representative status of the team: as ambassadors of the federation/visitors in a representative capacity etc.

It is important to recognise that something which is legal in one jurisdiction has the capacity to give offence in another (eg consumption of alcohol in certain Islamic countries to take a less controversial example).

 

4. Somewhat less controversially certain types of behaviour is generally regarded as unacceptable: eg trashing hotel rooms, physical violence, abuse of other nationals...how long a list do you want?

 

5. In Oz we have had difficulties in the past and have required players to sign codes of conduct. Oz-one code of conduct was a clearly desirable move and went further than the representative requirements of State and National teams

 

6. Personal concepts of morals should not enter into the equation: you are selecting a team for a particular purpose, not as Salvation Army missionaries (replace with appropriate jurisdictional phrase for geographic/religious area).

 

7. To the extent that Juniors are in a different category the following is relevant in OZ: by our law persons in positions of trust and who have attained their majority (ie over 18 for us) are not permitted to abuse that position eg sexual relations with those under age

Age 18 is ok to drink etc but it is up to the individual to do so responsibly.

 

8. By US standards I am very liberal (possibly heading towards libertine!) but when you are sponsored byan organisation you have a duty of performance (to endeavour to give your best) and a further implicit duty not to bring the sponsoring organisation into ill-repute. What constitutes each of those matters is a matter of opinion as drawn lines will always be difficult for those just beyond any perimeter. However the Oz-one code seemed like a pretty good starting point

reference: http://www.oz-one.com.au/codeofconduct.pdf

 

regards

[mike777]

1) What are the age limits for juniors and in actual practice how do they get on the team? They do well in Nat open events?

2) For example I hope posters can understand if Seniors are sent to represent the ACBL and the general membership pays the expenses, can you understand if the Seniors then use their personal money, after hours in the room we are paying for, using the money you saved to pay for cocaine and hookers. Yes it is their personal money and it late at night but I hope you can understand the other side.

3) In this case I have no idea what the juniors or Bermuda bowl members or Seniors have done in the past but I hope we are not paying for food, room, airfare so they can usetheir own money on hookers and Coke. ;)