Professional Bridge

[barmar]

ACBL has a group health plan that members can join. I expect that most bridge pros in the US would be members of the ACBL, so they wouldn't need another association. And if they're over 50, as most bridge players are, there's also the AARP.

 

It seems like the ACBL could also provide advertising space, although I expect they would charge for it.

 

What benefits do professional sports organizations provide to their members? 99% of PGA members are not the players you see on the pro golf tours, they're just the pros who man the shops and teach lessons at golf courses and country clubs. They don't get much prize money or sponsorship deals.

[Echognome]

I think it is akin to the discussions we had on having BBF supporting pro bridge. It only makes sense if the organization is a market maker. It would be in the interest of the pros if the organization could assist in finding new clients, assisting with the administration of the clients (scheduling, securing fees, etc.), and marketing. It would be in the interest of the clients if the organization could assist them in finding quality instructors or players or both to suit their needs both in terms of the pro's qualifications, but also geographic needs. I can think of a client who might want a local pro to assist with their development and play in the club and perhaps to arrange for a different pro for some tournaments that may have a stronger ability when it comes to playing ability. It would be even better if the organization could assist with the communication between these two professionals.

 

I think these would be the strongest reasons to have an organization and perhaps an organization like the ACBL could create a subdivision if it desired, but I don't know if they have any interest in it. I think it would be very important to make the organization a voluntary one and be careful not to have a conflict of interest (such as requiring pros to register or adding on any additional fees for pros to play). I doubt it will ever happen, but I certainly could see a use for such an organization.

[peachy]

I've read the comments here. My question: Why would we ["we" = non-pros and non-clients] be interested in getting the pros organized? If the pros wanted to get organized and saw some benefits in that for them or the clients/sponsors, they would have established an organization long ago.

[blackshoe]

So we can control and exploit them, of course! :)

[Phil]

I think it is akin to the discussions we had on having BBF supporting pro bridge. It only makes sense if the organization is a market maker. It would be in the interest of the pros if the organization could assist in finding new clients, assisting with the administration of the clients (scheduling, securing fees, etc.), and marketing. It would be in the interest of the clients if the organization could assist them in finding quality instructors or players or both to suit their needs both in terms of the pro's qualifications, but also geographic needs. I can think of a client who might want a local pro to assist with their development and play in the club and perhaps to arrange for a different pro for some tournaments that may have a stronger ability when it comes to playing ability. It would be even better if the organization could assist with the communication between these two professionals.

 

I think these would be the strongest reasons to have an organization and perhaps an organization like the ACBL could create a subdivision if it desired, but I don't know if they have any interest in it. I think it would be very important to make the organization a voluntary one and be careful not to have a conflict of interest (such as requiring pros to register or adding on any additional fees for pros to play). I doubt it will ever happen, but I certainly could see a use for such an organization.

I totally agree with an organization (like BBO) being a market maker for teaching. There is a real disconnect between new players who want to pay to learn and teachers that need students.

 

Pro play is more on a word of mouth basis and regulating it seems wrong, but I'm sure there's exceptions.

 

That being said, if pro play comes out of a teaching organization, then that's a different beast.

[whereagles]

Maybe it's from starting to play so young and being so sick of "it's so nice to see young people playing bridge!" about fifty thousand times a day. Also the "you would be so nice for my granddaughter!" comments, notwithstanding that the granddaughter could have been anywhere from 6 to 38 years old.

Now what if grandaughter were a stunning blonde nymphomaniac with big knockers, whose father owned a pub?

Someone you know, Ron? :) :) :)

[barmar]

I've read the comments here. My question: Why would we ["we" = non-pros and non-clients] be interested in getting the pros organized? If the pros wanted to get organized and saw some benefits in that for them or the clients/sponsors, they would have established an organization long ago.

If there's some form of accreditation done by the organization, potential clients and students are protected from unqualified pros.

 

Also, if the organization provides marketing services, it makes it easier to find a pro when you want one. But I guess if the pros were having trouble getting found, they would see this as a benefit to themselves and formed the organization, as you say.

[JLOL]

As a pro I would not want to join one of these organizations

[jdonn]

I continue to believe, confirmed by several recent posts, pros have no motivation to join an organization like this. It sounds great for clients, terrible for pros.

[the hog]

Maybe it's from starting to play so young and being so sick of "it's so nice to see young people playing bridge!" about fifty thousand times a day. Also the "you would be so nice for my granddaughter!" comments, notwithstanding that the granddaughter could have been anywhere from 6 to 38 years old.

Now what if grandaughter were a stunning blonde nymphomaniac with big knockers, whose father owned a pub?

Someone you know, Ron? :) :) :)

I wish.

[H_KARLUK]

About professionalism I found such interesting things when i used google. Thanks to (SLM) online training module coordinated by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, USA.

 

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/tutorials/pr...alism/prof.html

 

Details :

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/tutorials/pr...m/criteria.html

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/tutorials/pr...sibilities.html

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/tutorials/pr...cteristics.html

 

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/tutorials/pr...sibilities.html

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/tutorials/pr...mpetencies.html

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/tutorials/pr.../education.html

 

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/tutorials/pr...sm/support.html

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/tutorials/pr...ism/issues.html

 

I liked those :

"Professionals have a high degree of self-control of their behavior and are governed by a code of ethics. "

"Professionals are expected to establish a special relationship with clients or patrons."

"Professionals are expected to have a lack of self-interest."

 

"They can work independently and charge fees or they can be part of an organization."

 

So I think World Bridge Professionals Organisation is not an utopia. Garry Kasparov - Soviet Chess Superstar in past guided and afterwards they established a pro organisation apart from World Chess Federation.

[PeterGill]

QUOTE (jdonn @ Mar 18 2009, 12:26 AM)

Maybe it's from starting to play so young and being so sick of "it's so nice to see young people playing bridge!" about fifty thousand times a day. Also the "you would be so nice for my granddaughter!" comments, notwithstanding that the granddaughter could have been anywhere from 6 to 38 years old.

 

or could be .....

 

Back in the 1980s I was playing against Mrs Kidman and her partner

in Sydney. Her partner said: "Wouldn't these two nice

young men be ideal for your daughters Nicole and Antonia?"

We failed to follow that up. This was before Nicole moved to Hollywood.

 

Peter Gill

Sydney

[dicklont]

Garry Kasparov - Soviet Chess Superstar in past guided and afterwards they established a pro organisation apart from World Chess Federation.

And the chess world has not yet recovered from that.

 

When there were two world championship titles many lost interest in either.

[kenrexford]

If there were an organization of bridge pros, this could be interesting.

 

On the one hand, they could be called a "bridge pro union." That might get them special treatment in word but nothing in practice from the government. Of course, they would be really liked a lot in speeches.

 

On the other hand, if the organization is seen as more of a white collar thing, focusing on the client base, then the "bridge pro goup" might get bailout money. The downside would be that the bridge czar might second-guess bridge decisions too much, and Congress might seize the masterpoints won, especially considering the high payout in Flight A compared with Flight C games.

 

I think, actually, that focusing on the high presence of foreign nationals in the U.S. would be the best idea. Nancy Pelosi would then probably petition the ACBL successfully for some great benefits to hiring bridge professionals. I would imagine, for instance, that a pair with at least one pro would be exempt from strict enforcement of any of the rules, such that your bridge pro partner could take full advantage of your hesitations and could lead out of turn when you have no idea what to lead. In fact, if you want to play in a lower bracket with a pro, you just give him a fake ACBL number, and the ACBL does not check it for verification, even if the same person is sitting at table 5 North and at table 7 West.

[H_KARLUK]

Garry Kasparov - Soviet Chess Superstar in past guided and afterwards they established a pro organisation apart from World Chess Federation.

And the chess world has not yet recovered from that.

 

When there were two world championship titles many lost interest in either.

Sorry, we disagree. To me "competition and alternatives" are two must "to improve". It's under fair standards. No matter win or lose. Moreover I am pretty sure Chess rankings mathematically firm than Bridge rankings. Sad to say that they've more players, kibbers, rewards with most powerful online servers and softwares.

 

I amateurly like and fully respect to both nice games as mind sports, anyways it's a truth that at least for now "Chess" has a superiority when I compare with Bridge.

[whereagles]

When I used to play chess (20 years ago), there was quarreling already. It's endemic with humans: we just can't get along.

[xcurt]

Garry Kasparov - Soviet Chess Superstar in past guided and afterwards they established a pro organisation apart from World Chess Federation.

And the chess world has not yet recovered from that.

 

When there were two world championship titles many lost interest in either.

It hasn't recovered from Kasparov losing to Deep Blue.

[Lobowolf]

I amateurly like and fully respect to both nice games as mind sports, anyways it's a truth that at least for now "Chess" has a superiority when I compare with Bridge.

I've worked for both the ACBL and what was at one time the largest full-time chess facility in the country, and known many people who are good (say, 95th percentile or so) at both games. To a person, they prefer bridge. Most notably probably Woman's Grandmaster Irina Levitina.

 

In the United States at least, serious bridge is far more popular than serious chess. The American Contract Bridge League has about twice the membership of the United States Chess Federation, more club games, and bigger tournaments. One year, I was the 8th most active member of the United States Chess Federation. Chess is a great game, and I still play some (mostly online). Bridge is better.

[H_KARLUK]

I amateurly like and fully respect to both nice games as mind sports, anyways it's a truth that at least for now "Chess" has a superiority when I compare with Bridge.

I've worked for both the ACBL and what was at one time the largest full-time chess facility in the country, and known many people who are good (say, 95th percentile or so) at both games. To a person, they prefer bridge. Most notably probably Woman's Grandmaster Irina Levitina.

 

In the United States at least, serious bridge is far more popular than serious chess. The American Contract Bridge League has about twice the membership of the United States Chess Federation, more club games, and bigger tournaments. One year, I was the 8th most active member of the United States Chess Federation. Chess is a great game, and I still play some (mostly online). Bridge is better.

 

 

May,3rd 1997 , New York, US.

Deep Blue Supercomputer played a fascinating match versus reigning World Chess Champion, Superstar Garry Kasparov.

A dramatic victory occurred in 6th game; software won.

 

Kasparov vs. Deep Blue (The Rematch) was one of the most popular live events ever staged on the Internet.

 

The web site received more than 74 million hits representing more than 4 million user visits from 106 countries during the 9-day event.

 

If you say any online Bridge event can also get same hit sorry I've no words! :blink:

 

Th idea - to me - yes, a bridge pro union/org is quite possible like done in chess and like in many fields of life.

 

I wonder what's th barrier and or pressure that bridge people do not attempt. Real Professionalizm brings benefits to th World. When Bridge Professionals care to a code of ethics and establish special relationship with clients or patrons I know there will be a speedy and firmly rising market.

 

So far unfortunately prospects are a little bit bleak and a more careful scrutiny needed :(

[qwery_hi]

I amateurly like and fully respect to both nice games as mind sports, anyways it's a truth that at least for now "Chess" has a superiority when I compare with Bridge.

I've worked for both the ACBL and what was at one time the largest full-time chess facility in the country, and known many people who are good (say, 95th percentile or so) at both games. To a person, they prefer bridge. Most notably probably Woman's Grandmaster Irina Levitina.

 

In the United States at least, serious bridge is far more popular than serious chess. The American Contract Bridge League has about twice the membership of the United States Chess Federation, more club games, and bigger tournaments. One year, I was the 8th most active member of the United States Chess Federation. Chess is a great game, and I still play some (mostly online). Bridge is better.

And poker is the best.

[Lobowolf]

And poker is the best.

Poker's a great game, too, but not as good as bridge, by a longshot (at least not inherently). Poker "needs" the gambling element to make it interesting; bridge thrives without the lure of prize money. Poker has a couple of inherent advantages -- it's easier to learn (and easier to follow along on TV), and you can see "regular guys" winning lots of money playing a game that you know how to play. People generally ascribe their wins to skill and their losses to bad luck, and the game blew up since they started televising it and marketing it aggressively. Yes, Virginia, people used to play games other than hold 'em.

 

But without the lure of winning money, how many people would care enough about poker just as a game to spent any amount of time playing it? Would it support multiple clubs all over the same metropolitan area, they way bridge does? Would people compete in week-long tournaments for no prize money at all? Of course not.

 

Yes, internet poker sites do offer "play money" tables and tournaments, but those are mostly populated by people trying to learn enough to make money at the real thing.

[qwery_hi]

What makes a game inherently better than another game? Poker has just the right amount of "complexity" to make it appealing to a large number of people. If we're looking for rich complexity, surely Go beats all other games hands down. But it is this extreme complexity which makes it less popular. Furthermore, poker admits many styles of playing : intuitive, mathematical or the whole spectrum in between.

 

The ideal game would be one as simple as possible and no simpler. Poker achieves this balance quite well. And you can't remove money from poker - that would be like holding only individual tournaments in the ACBL. How many pro's do you think would be playing bridge then?

[ArtK78]

And poker is the best.

Poker's a great game, too, but not as good as bridge, by a longshot (at least not inherently). Poker "needs" the gambling element to make it interesting; bridge thrives without the lure of prize money. Poker has a couple of inherent advantages -- it's easier to learn (and easier to follow along on TV), and you can see "regular guys" winning lots of money playing a game that you know how to play. People generally ascribe their wins to skill and their losses to bad luck, and the game blew up since they started televising it and marketing it aggressively. Yes, Virginia, people used to play games other than hold 'em.

 

But without the lure of winning money, how many people would care enough about poker just as a game to spent any amount of time playing it? Would it support multiple clubs all over the same metropolitan area, they way bridge does? Would people compete in week-long tournaments for no prize money at all? Of course not.

 

Yes, internet poker sites do offer "play money" tables and tournaments, but those are mostly populated by people trying to learn enough to make money at the real thing.

I play in a poker league where there is absolutely no gambling - The World Tavern Poker League. Players play for points which result in rankings at the tavern, regional and national level for each season (each season is approximately 15 weeks long - the Winter season is just now ending). There are prizes - each tavern offers prizes for the winners of each tournament, and, at the end of the season, the players compete in several season ending tournaments, the top prizes being seats at the World Series of Poker. But, given that there are thousands of players in the league, the fact that there are a handful of seats at the World Series of Poker available cannot explain how popular the league is.

 

So, while one cannot refute the fact that gambling is a major factor in the popularity of poker, it is possible to play poker without gambling.

 

Check out www.worldtavernpoker.com.

[pigpenz]

Why isn't there a professional bridge organization like the PGA for golf? Not that I am advocating it, but I can think of all kinds of advantages for there being one. On the other hand maybe the pros don't want to become organized because then they might become regulated? Just curious.

 

Also, what's the deal with people not putting their names on their convention cards?

Arent the Lyx's from the same place you are? They at one time were helping to organize money tournaments in the later 90's Early 2000's.

 

There also has to be some organzation or company that is willing to finance the rewards to the players, even right now Professional golf is having a hard time with sponsors.

[JoAnneM]

Bob Lix served as D20 District Director and was ACBL Treasurer. His wife, Sally, was active in the Western Conference and was a supporter of the now defunct Bridge Pro Tour, which was a money prize bridge game held in conjunction with some Regionals for a few years. It never really caught on - for various reasons. But it had little to do with professional players. It was designed for rank and file players with everyone playing the ACBL SAYC card. Some pro players participated, of course.

 

Bob and Sally moved to Alaska last year and are enjoying the quiet life now, and bridge in a club with three or four tables. Our club misses them a lot.