[han]

Walddk, on Nov 14 2005, 04:34 PM, said:

Hannie, on Nov 14 2005, 10:10 PM, said:

Unfortunately this would almost guarantee a USA-Italy final, but what a great final it would be!

Not sure I know what you mean. Why "unfortunately", and besides, isn't that exactly how it is now anyway?

Roland

With "unfortunately" I meant not that I wouldn't like to see these two teams in the finals, but that it would be more fun if there were more teams that were close to Italy's level.

It is perhaps true that this would not be a great change, but this year the USA1-USA2 semi-final was very close and exciting. That's what I was thinking about.

[nickf]

mike777, on Nov 14 2005, 10:06 PM, said:

Please note Australia has received an anonymous gift of 1 Million$ per year for several years to develop a team of players and win at the world level. Kokish has been hired as coach. Will be interesting to see what system the players choose to learn and win with.

If you want the full poop go to The OzOne Project.

9 pairs have been selected, including a pair of brothers aged about 13 and 14. As far as I'm aware, all the players are on wage plus bonuses for winning plus expenses to travel to national and some international tourneys. Expect to see some of them at the Hawaii NABC in 2006.

All pairs are required to put in 2 full days' training per week. Kokish has been hired as a coach but I think its a virtual coaching arrangement.

Note these players still have to play the normal qualifying events successfully to even make the Australian team.

Funny story about the million bucks though, it was brought into australia in a brown paper bag from Hong Kong.

nickf
sydney

[mike777]

Jlall, on Nov 15 2005, 02:44 AM, said:

nickf, on Nov 15 2005, 01:53 AM, said:

All pairs are required to put in 2 full days' training per week. Kokish has been hired as a coach but I think its a virtual coaching arrangement.

I will train 7 days a week, sign me up lol. This would be a dream situation for me (well, depending on what the wage was I guess).

Ya I really laughed when I read these requirements. Seems Hamman, Soloway and all those players played bridge closer to 24 hours a day 7 days a week when they came up. Read how one player slept in the club and cleaned up late at night to earn enough to eat. Now you got to play 8 hours twice a week...tough very tough.

[nickf]

mike777, on Nov 15 2005, 07:49 AM, said:

Ya I really laughed when I read these requirements. Seems Hamman, Soloway and all those players played bridge closer to 24 hours a day 7 days a week when they came up.

I suspect you don't have a grasp on the bridge situation in the antipodes. There are very few bridge players who make a living solely from playing, and even then I would hardly call it making a living. The rest who play pro part-time are forced to hold down other full or near-full time jobs. Of the 18 players in the Oz-one squad:

- 2 are high school students
- 4 are bridge club owners
- 4 are full time bridge professionals
- 1 is a medical practioner
- 2 are retired from the work force
- 2 work as accountants or similar
- 1 contracts to the government full time
- 1 is a journalist/ author/ teacher
- 1 works part time in a bridge club and I think plays poker

Training 7 days a week is not an option unfortunately, well at least not on the wages I've heard Oz-one is paying them.

nickf
sydney

[mike777]

nickf, on Nov 15 2005, 04:03 PM, said:

mike777, on Nov 15 2005, 07:49 AM, said:

Ya I really laughed when I read these requirements. Seems Hamman, Soloway and all those players played bridge closer to 24 hours a day 7 days a week when they came up.

I suspect you don't have a grasp on the bridge situation in the antipodes. There are very few bridge players who make a living solely from playing, and even then I would hardly call it making a living. The rest who play pro part-time are forced to hold down other full or near-full time jobs. Of the 18 players in the Oz-one squad:

- 2 are high school students
- 4 are bridge club owners
- 4 are full time bridge professionals
- 1 is a medical practioner
- 2 are retired from the work force
- 2 work as accountants or similar
- 1 contracts to the government full time
- 1 is a journalist/ author/ teacher
- 1 works part time in a bridge club and I think plays poker

Training 7 days a week is not an option unfortunately, well at least not on the wages I've heard Oz-one is paying them.

nickf
sydney

I am sure you know more about Ausi bridge than myself but you missed the point of my post. The rest of my post was important. Some of these players sleeped on a cot in the back room and sweeped the floor for food money. That is not making a living playing bridge but total dedication or mania for bridge. These players did not waste time with school, part time jobs or full time jobs or playing Doctor, they played, slept and bleed bridge. This is not to say this is the only way to become multi time champions or to lead a healthy life but will let others tell their way to win.

If you have other priorities in life, such as a family, job, community service or career great. If you want bridge to be a hobby or a way to feed your children great. But these are not the same priorities as winning the world championship.

[pclayton]

mike777, on Nov 12 2005, 01:11 PM, said:

Nickell and Freeman are more than qualified, in fact they earned their spot and place in history. To suggest anything else is in very poor taste.


Freeman youngest Life Master 1952 and member of Hall of Fame. Edited Roth Stone system and Bridge is a Partnership Game back in the 1950's and 60's.
Both have won Blue Ribbon Pairs.
Numerous Spingolds, Vanderbilts, Reisingers, Team Trials, Cavendish, BAM, Master Mixed Teams, and GNOT.

Oh ya and a bunch of World Championships if those count at all?

I guess when 2 guys close to 70 lose the World Championships in the last few boards people think they deserve disrespect.

Italy deserved and earned their great win, N/F deserve and earned respect.

Well, with all due respect to N/F....

Lets ask ourselves a few questions:

1. Who do we want on our national team? Obviously you want 3 of the best pairs, although it probably shouldn't be the three BEST pairs, since you want three compatible pairs.

2. If a poll was taken on who the top 5 pairs are in the country, where would N/F fall? Would they even make the top 5? I doubt it. The top 10? OK, probably.

3. If a poll was taken to determine the top 100 players in the country, where would R/M, H/S and N/F fall respectively?

If Nickell wants to put together the best 5 players around him and earns the right (by qualifying) to represent his country, then thats great. Another team will have to beat these great players to earn the right. My only question is what's best for American bridge. Maybe THIS is the best practical situation, since corporate sponsorship of teams in the US is non-existent.

But it certainly isn't ideal.

[mike777]

pclayton, on Nov 15 2005, 05:22 PM, said:

My only question is what's best for American bridge. Maybe THIS is the best practical situation, since corporate sponsorship of teams in the US is non-existent.

But it certainly isn't ideal.

Great question, what is best for American bridge?

As is usual with this kind of question perhaps defining and coming to some agreement what the word BEST means will make finding an answer easier.

Best does not have to be defined as winning bridge, it does not even have to be defined as good bridge. It might just be defined as allowing the opportunity to compete but in any event good question to try and understand...

[fred]

pclayton, on Nov 15 2005, 10:22 PM, said:

If Nickell wants to put together the best 5 players around him and earns the right (by qualifying) to represent his country, then thats great. Another team will have to beat these great players to earn the right. My only question is what's best for American bridge. Maybe THIS is the best practical situation, since corporate sponsorship of teams in the US is non-existent.

But it certainly isn't ideal.

Agree with this.

One of the reasons that America can compete at the top levels of international bridge is because our very best players and partnerships are in the same league as those from other leading bridge countries.

If it were not for sponsors like Nickell, this would probably not be the case. Sponsorship has made it possible for the most talented American players to make a good living out of bridge. It has also given these players reason to play more, to work harder on their partnerships, to have additional motivation for playing well (and winning), and to conduct themselves "professionally". All of these things are conducive to success.

Sure it would be better if the money came from a corporation, but when the playing sponsor has Nickell's skills and character, that is pretty close to ideal situation both for his professional players and for American bridge.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[ArcLight]

Just my 2 cents but ...

As an American, I want the USA team to win, but I don't really care too much, since bridge at that level is so far above me. It seems a bit "unfair" to have a playing sponsor, but I'd far rather a wealthy (and highly talented) player spend their money on bridge than on something else. It's "unfair" to some of the other strong pairs who don't get to compete because they haven't been hired by the right team. Lets say 10 pairs have missed out of getting a chance. Thats unfortunate for them, but not horrible for bridge in the USA.

I don't even see how having the USA win the gold really helps bridge in the USA. Most players below Grand Master level aren't going to use those complex bidding structures.


I'd rather see some competitions with fairly simple bidding systems that are almost convention free. Simple enough that intermediates and above couldenjoy watching and guess what to bid. (Not that I think this will happen)

[ArcLight]

>More press = more visibility = more new members = good for bridge in USA.

Fair enough. But I still wonder how much that really helps bring in new players and retain current ones. I wonder how much the "press coverage" of a USA team winning an international even makes it outside of non-bridge circles.

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Nov 16 2005, 01:22 AM, said:

Lets ask ourselves a few questions:

1. Who do we want on our national team? Obviously you want 3 of the best pairs, although it probably shouldn't be the three BEST pairs, since you want three compatible pairs.

2. If a poll was taken on who the top 5 pairs are in the country, where would N/F fall? Would they even make the top 5? I doubt it. The top 10? OK, probably.

3. If a poll was taken to determine the top 100 players in the country, where would R/M, H/S and N/F fall respectively?

.........

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the top six bridge players in American were abducted by aliens, had their brains super-charged, and now played bridge at a super-human level? Wouldn't that be COOL!

In all seriousness, the America Teams trials are designed to select the strongest available team. The proof is in the pudding. Whichever teams play best in the finals go on to represent the US. Wishing that the world was different doesn't get you anywhere:

Its unclear whether this secection criteria necessarily creates the best team: It might be possible to take the top three pairs from a pairs match. Alternatively, you might have the National body select team members. Personally I suspect that any selection mechanism is likely to be flawed. Appointment based systems are top down and often end up fairly corrupt. Its unclear whether scoring well in a pairs match translates to success in teams events. It certainly doesn't guaruntee any form of team "chemistry"...

Personally, I suspect that the permitting sponsors strength bridge in the US, if for no other reason than we tend to draw in top talent from other parts of the world. (Zia, Rosenberg, Fred)... Also, from my limited perspective, the standard of play has improved significantly over the years. I suspect that professionalism has a lot to do with this.

[pclayton]

hrothgar, on Nov 16 2005, 09:06 AM, said:

[Wouldn't it be wonderful if the top six bridge players in American were abducted by aliens, had their brains super-charged, and now played bridge at a super-human level? Wouldn't that be COOL!

This actually happened!

Meckstroth and Hamman were driving back from the 1997 Albuquerque Nationals and their car was sucked into a tractor beam of a spaceship. They were both implanted with an alien brain (fitted with a prototype of a Deep Finesse chip). My understanding is that Kelso Company has a splinter division that contracts with DOD on military projects, so that may have had something to do with it.

Soloway was also in the car, but the aliens read the Bridge World and they were worried about the whole mess described in the article entitled "Paula", and if the chip would be compatible with someone that has undergone a sex-change.

Surely you get the Weekly World News up in No Cal Richard?

[EricK]

hrothgar, on Nov 16 2005, 05:06 PM, said:

In all seriousness, the America Teams trials are designed to select the strongest available team. The proof is in the pudding. Whichever teams play best in the finals go on to represent the US. Wishing that the world was different doesn't get you anywhere:

Its unclear whether this secection criteria necessarily creates the best team: It might be possible to take the top three pairs from a pairs match. Alternatively, you might have the National body select team members. Personally I suspect that any selection mechanism is likely to be flawed. Appointment based systems are top down and often end up fairly corrupt. Its unclear whether scoring well in a pairs match translates to success in teams events. It certainly doesn't guaruntee any form of team "chemistry"...

I do not pretend to understand the mathematics of Pairs movements so I don't know if this idea is feasible:

Pairs play a game according to a pairs movement but instead of MPing the results against all the other pairs, the score is IMPed against one other pair's score, but a different pair for each hand (or one pair for each set of three hands or whatever).

This way you would be ranking (or at least attempting to rank) the pairs according to how well they do in a teams match with each of the other pairs as their team mates.

That might be a way to select your 3 best pairs.

Eric

[luke warm]

good point justin... look at the pats... sure they have some great players, but they've won lately because they're a great *team*

[joker_gib]

Jlall, on Nov 16 2005, 07:21 PM, said:

3 great pairs do not make a team.

This is so true !

When you know your teammates, you can sometimes anticipate what has been done in the other room and take right decisions. This is impossible if you don't know their style !

Alain

[Chamaco]

joker_gib, on Nov 17 2005, 09:13 AM, said:

Jlall, on Nov 16 2005, 07:21 PM, said:

3 great pairs do not make a team.

This is so true !

When you know your teammates, you can sometimes anticipate what has been done in the other room and take right decisions. This is impossible if you don't know their style !

Alain

I would say that the style issue is more or less secondary for world class pairs candidate to the World Title: at that level, I would think that, say, Meckwell would not have trouble figuring out what Greco-Hampson or Gitelman-Moss or Zia-Rosenberg would bid at the other table even if they haven't been teammates before.

I would think that the main point is the "team feeling", e.g. compatibility, comradry etc etc.
Avoiding competition between pairs, supporting teammates during bad periods rather than beating on them, etc etc, all that stuff, I am sure everybody knows what I mean.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Jlall: 3 great pairs do not make a team. This is true in other sports as well.

So true. The MIT 6-man football team did not fair well, nor did the Southeast Florida A&M 6-man baseball team.