responding
Do you read The Good, The Bad and The Ugly? I do, all the time. I’m glad Jon decided to weigh in on the bridge pro conversation! I’m quoting his post and responding to it below.
1. There’s nothing inherently wrong with hiring a bunch of pros in an effort to win major events or masterpoints but let’s be frank that it’s almost exclusively motivated by selfish interest (the desire to win) and not by some philanthropic desire to ‘give back to the game.’ There are lots of ways to give back to the game, but this ain’t one of them.
Let’s define some terms before we go any further: I’m talking about bridge at the top. The very top. And I guarantee that the sponsors and pros at the very top of the game — the “selfish” people you’re judging above — give back to the game in ways most people can’t even imagine. At the very least, the current generation of sponsors are the ones who have (singlehandedly) created the very industry we’re sitting here discussing. Have you heard about the parties for juniors? Ever talked to someone who’s been to junior camp? Perhaps you don’t know about the lecture George gave in Nyack, on the heels of that Spingold semifinal where Nickell staged an 80-imp comeback in the 4th quarter…
2. Big money has a tendency to corrupt any competitive endeavor, whether it’s the Tour de France (blood doping) or baseball (steroids) or bridge. That’s not to say that removing money would eliminate all unsavory activity, but money creates a lot of bad incentives.
I contend that it is the nature of some competitors to cheat. At Monopoly, Miniature Golf or Life.
3. If a wealthy person is motivated to become the best bridge player he/she can be, I would recommend that they hire the best partner that they can find/afford and play pairs events. Failing that, if you must play teams, play 4-handed. Victory will be tougher, but it will also be sweeter. If all you’re doing is playing the first half of team events on a 6 bagger and then retiring to the peanut gallery, you’re missing out on what bridge is all about and you do leave yourself open for a certain amount of justified skepticism of the character of your ‘victories’. (I don’t know why the ACBL doesn’t have more ‘4-bagger only’ events, but they should, including national events.)
What about an ambitious beggar? What do you recommend for him? Yes, experience is important. I’d be a better bridge player if I played as many hands as, say, Paul Soloway. (I hope.) But I’m not exactly a member of the class we’re discussing.
This is exactly the attitude that kicked off this conversation: a Flight A-/B+ nitwit made an ignorant and disrespectful comment about my husband. And his 11 North American titles. And his two US Team Trials wins. His third in the World Championships. Oh, wait. How about the highest scoring matchpoint game in the history of bridge? Or the national pair game he and Ralph won? One of the things I really wanted to say to that guy: he’s better than you. I mean no disrespect. Really I don’t. But I’ll take any odds that the sponsor-pro pair on each of the top 10 seeded teams is better than any random “good player” foolish enough to make this sort of point.
4. George Steinbrenner is a good businessman. But if he ever suits up for the Yankees in right field … And yes, lots of people (myself included) cheer against the Yankees (I don’t give a hoot about baseball, but I loathe the boys in pinstripes) because whatever success they have doesn’t come from heart, or guts, or shrewd management, or a great farm system, it comes from having a virtually unlimited salary budget and buying up the highest price (most talented) free agents every off-season. I couldn’t be happier that they have been in a prolonged post-season slump and hope it continues.
Let’s put him on the mound, Jon. In fact, let’s gather up all the owners and make them pitch every other inning. Now we’ll get to see who the real superstars are… the ones who have to find the offense to overcome ERAs in the mid-thirties. Now you start to see the value of a sponsor who can play.
5. All that being said, people who resent having to play against pros are misguided sissies. They’re sissies because getting to play against the best in the world is one of the things that makes bridge so great. (Playing against Fred Gitelman and Brad Moss for 3 quarters in St Louis was fantastic (and would have been even moreso if I’d been playing with a partner whose game I respected.)) They’re misguided because if that pro wasn’t playing pro, he might be marginally less talented, but he’d be playing with an equally talented player and it’s easier to beat a world class player playing with an average player than to beat two expert players. Besides, with the A/X flight, GNT Superflight, events like the mini-Spingold, and stratification in general, the ACBL does a great job of protecting talented amateurs by giving them a readily attainable prize to strive for.
You don’t get to play against Fred and Brad in the limited games. Some talented amateurs are sissies, right? For avoiding the big guns (being “protected” in the limited games)? Or is it just the amateurs who actively resent playing superstars who are sissies?
May 7th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
I find this debate far more fascinating than the GOP.