whose team is it, anyway?
During the qualifying phase of the Bermuda Bowl, teams were required to have a recorder at their home tables, entering not only the bidding, final contract and opening lead into the Bridgemate computers, but every card played as well. Student volunteers from a local college were on hand and many teams hired their recorder from the pool of Chinese students.
George and I were walking in the convention center shortly before the end of play in the round robin when Jan came and asked George for $360 to pay the recorder. I got testy about it although it was not my place to do so because I’d heard it said to George more than once, in the context of playing specific matches, “it isn’t the Jacobs team, it’s USA1.” I’m sure I actually said something bitchy like “Oh, so when you want money it is the Jacobs team?” After shushing me, George handed Jan the money and was happy to do it. He understood completely that the team was both — his and not his. I later apologized to Jan and do so again. I had no dog in that fight.
It was an insignificant moment in and of itself. The $20 per session that our recorder earned felt like, just like the check at a team dinner, the responsibility of a good host. It wasn’t the money that aggravated me, it was the feeling that there is a nasty little double standard. Guys like Ray Lee and the ill-mannered opponent we discussed way back with customers come to mind. My response to that, by the way: ignorant.
Then there are the ladies of USA1. Nick asked my opinion about this and I’ve been thinking about it since I came upon angry clusters of people during the closing ceremonies in Shanghai. The whole business was ill-advised and in poor taste. I feel a little bit like they made a mockery of the event and their accomplishment — are gold medals so easy to come by that we don’t mind tarnishing this one? Somebody in that group ought to have realized that stirring up a ruckus like this is just a nullo play. And potentially bad for business.
Did they have the right to display the sign? Tough question. Nobody got arrested, so it wasn’t an illegal action. But was it the right thing to do? I don’t think so. Does the action of one team affect any others? It seems like a good time for the USBF to establish some guidelines — whose team is it? Are they the Hansa Narasimhan team, cheerfully exercising their freedom of speech? Or one of two officially-sanctioned teams playing for the Venice Cup, charged with the rights and responsibilities of representing American women on the world stage?
October 16th, 2007 at 6:43 am
Stacy, I must have missed something. What did the women do? Display what sign? Tarnish their medals by doing what?
As far as the team being George’s, he was the captain to my knowledge and the sponsor as well as a player. In these sorts of competitions they do use the term USA sort of interchangably with his name I guess, sort of like in the Olympics.
I don’t really understand the finances, who pays for what in terms of the trip. I assume there is some sort of significant subsidy from the US federation or whatever it is called and then they either pay various expenses or give your team money to use to pay them.
Am I wrong?
Please clear up my confusion.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:57 am
Ah. Check out the photos of the closing ceremonies on swangames. Scroll down until you see the photos of USA1 on the stage after receiving their medals.
As far as the finances are concerned, there was some per-diem expense money given to the players by the USBF.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Ok, now I have seen it and you may not like what I have to say.
On the one hand it does seem like an inapprorpiate time for a political statement but on the other:
Many Americans (myself included) are reviled by our government which is a total disgrace - everything from the ill-conceived war begun with dishonesty to global warming to our policies of torture and lawlessness. Many are totally appalled by our activities which for many make us the bane of the world.
As a child in the 50’s and early 60’s I remember that the “bad guys” were the Russians and later on the Chinese and those were pretty widely held views among western nations.
Now we are the bad guys and in many circles proud of it since we are the USA and we are the very best at everything and should consult nobody and all should bow down at our feet.
I firmly believe that many in our government starting with the top are war criminals no better than Sadam or Hitler and should receive whatever punishment was deemed appropriate for them.
If you would like me to go on then I can but I will stop here for now.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:50 am
I get your point.
Mine is, quite simply, that first hand you gave: “it does seem like an inappropriate time for a political statement.” Whether we agree with the sentiments expressed in the sign or not, that wasn’t the time or place to be taking a political stand.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:37 am
I quite agree with you, Stacy. There is a very basic point to be made: if the “Rosenberg” (or anyone else for that matter) team had just won the Wagar Trophy and came to the ensuing (imaginary) prizegiving sporting placards with “Hillary for President” or similar, then I would have no problem at all. Not because I share their opinions but because they are there as individuals and as such they are free to taint their win with a political message if they so wish. However when you are invested with the privilege of representing your country, it is upon you to behave in a responsible manner especially if you have achieved a great victory and are thus on a stage which will inevitably amplify any “unorthodox” action you might choose to make. It may have seemed funny at the time, I am sure the players themselves may well regret their ill-judged decision to “hijack” the prize-giving with that hastily hand-written page.
October 16th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I think the question here is really: Are the World Bridge Championships a proper place for a political statement? My own opinion is “probably not” … but that said, when US runners Tommie Smith and John Carlos held up their black gloves when accepting their medals at the 1968 Mexican Olympics, people thought it was inappropriate until after the fact. Later, it was deemed a very effective way to get their message across to the public. They were representing the USA, but they didn’t believe everything the US stood for was right. That doesn’t seem unreasonable.
In this case, I think the girls were just trying to say, “Hey, we’re not the ‘ugly Americans’ … We, ourselves, didn’t empower this government … don’t hold it against us that our President has made mistakes.”
I think we should keep things in perspective here. My opinion is that Debbie could have made a nicer looking sign… but that is the graphics in me talking! View it with a sense of humor.
p.s. If you feel strongly, we can be team Jacobs in Lake Geneva!
Glad you guys are home! We missed you.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
I do have strong feelings that it was not the proper time nor place for such a sign. Whether the sign was anti-administration, or anti-Democrat, or anything else of the sort; just not the right venue.
These teams are representing their nation. As such, they are emissaries of bridge players who have very divergent political and social views.
While the women surely are free to express those opinions almost any time … when they are on the world stage, accepting an honor for their efforts and their nation simply is not the proper time.
And - for those who think our current government is so horrific… how many people from how many nations could express such views, and have utterly no harm come to them?
I have no desire to turn Stacy’s blog into a soap box. But - I think that some people lose perspective. Those who think out government is in a similar class to those of Saddam or Hitler should visit the mass graves filled with hundreds of thousands… or talk to some of the people I know with numbers tattooed on their arms.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
I absolutely believe in the right to free speach and in that context would defend the right of the individuals to express their views.
However, that being said (written) one must be aware of the timing and use of such rights.
What may be said and done within the US is not always the right thing to do in a foreign country. The right to voice an opinion may be protected by our constitution but not all countries condone or appreciate such action.
Was it illegal (don’t know) maybe it was but no action was taken. Might it have been an insult to the host country. Maybe - maybe not.
Certainly, IMHO, the action was ill advised.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:53 am
IMHO, this is not a “free speech” issue. It’s an issue of courtesy and manners.
Just because you can legally do something doesn’t mean that you should do it.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:53 am
Not sure why my name’s being taken in vain here — could it be that I suggested that GJ isn’t a world-class bridge player?