Loading ...how to spot a bridge pro, part two
It’s not uncommon for (primarily) amateur players to decry the pollution of major team events by the proliferation of playing sponsors. People have asked time and again why there can’t be more guys like Ira Corn, a Dallas businessman who paid The Aces but didn’t play. I’m not wading back into that discussion, rather I’m turning the topic around a bit and taking a look at those unfortunate sponsor-saddled workhorses. (That’s the client being sarcastic, ok Paul? 
)
solving for x
If one were to subtitle this moment in my life it’d be “Balancing Equations.” I’m kibitzing a lot of sixth grade math where it’s all balancing, all the time. The business of bridge professional and sponsor, too. The extent to which professional bridge relationships are considered successful is directly attributable to how effectively each party to them is able to solve this equation:
S (X) = P (Y)
The algebra of bridge looks deceptively easy. S = the simple sentence, implied at trick one: “I agree to pay you.” The Ray and Linda Lees of the world seem to believe that (X) is an ordinary number, easy to guess but obviously impossible to fathom. The truth is that (X) has a number component, but it’s hardly ordinary. Some of the factors to consider:
1. Cash is King. For the most part, good professional players know exactly what they’re worth and are very up front about what they want. Benjamin Franklins, of course, the more the merrier. Some rates are negotiable, others not at all. Some players demand cash, others refuse it. Some sponsors put it all in writing, others write nothing but checks.
Prices, by the way, are rising fast. Does it surprise you to learn that while the global economy tanks, sponsors are paying more than ever before to field good teams? I’ve heard hilarious stories of the parties people threw in old days, when instead of cash a sponsor paid the players’ hotel bills in their entirety, no matter how large; nowadays reasonable expenses are occasionally part of the deal. Bonuses for winning are pretty standard, sometimes they’re discretionary, sometimes built in up front.
A top American star now commands six figures a year for the three Nationals and the Team Trial. … When one factors in the incentive of bonuses, the conclusion is that anyone who is anyone is getting paid handsomely at our national championships.
Larry Cohen, “Las Wages,” The Bridge World, January 2009
Determining the base number (X) seems to work one way at the front of the NABC Open pack, and a different way for everybody else. At the very top of the Open game the conversations can be short — are you available, what’s it going to cost me — most household names talk in nice round numbers and for years at a time. The rest of us tend to operate per-day and per-event — one rate for national events, a different (usually smaller) rate for regionals, sectionals, club games and so on down the line. It’s my sense that most people forget discuss cancellation terms, which can be a costly oversight.
A common practice which surprised George when he started making arrangements for people to play with me was the minimum guarantee. At first he balked and at least once he walked; nobody’d ever asked him for a guarantee and he wasn’t going to start paying one now. That he’d never heard of a minimum guarantee is testament to the calibre of player he is and the record he’s amassed. At the highest levels of competition, the cream of the crop is making enough money that they don’t need a guarantee. In guys like Nick Nickell and George Jacobs we trust, all others pay cash guarantee.
There are inferences to be read if you’re in the know: the trust between sponsor and player is high (or low) and the Franklins tend to be many (or few) when household names aren’t sure which events they’re playing or when the sponsor is due to arrive. Some sponsors like to play the pre-tournament charity game, quite a few leave town as soon as they’re out of the main event. In some situations, making other dates is a firing offense, meanwhile other players are free to double-dip. In all of this, your milage may vary.
2. Devil’s in the Details. On the right side of the equation, pun probably intended, P = the dependent clause “You agree to play,” and (Y) is whatever it is we’re agreeing to play. It’s the scope of the project, the crux of the matter. The basics are pretty constant — for (X) number of Benjamin Franklins, plus or minus whatever else he could get, the Hideous Hog in all his glory was yours for the Open majors: the Spingold, Vanderbilt, Reisinger, Open BAM, Team Trials and the World Championships. Determining (Y) can get tricky when those initial conversations are excessively brief, but the household names rarely make mistakes here.
Sometimes the Franklins are sufficient to cover everything a sponsor might want to play, including morning knockouts, midnight zips and in-room practices; other times it’s the majors only — pairs events can be a separate revenue stream and some players protect them as such.
3. What have you done for me lately? Top players command top dollar (often non-negotiable) and receive multiple offers so for them sponsor-shopping begins with the premise that all things really are equal. With more than one offer, great players can usually be counted upon to team up with the best available sponsor — he or she with the best recent record. Certainly there are ties of history and friendship and away-from-the-table factors to evaluate, but all things being equal, nobody’s considered a top player unless they have a fairly consistent winning record, the more recent the better. In general, weaker sponsors tend to pay more for top talent than expert sponsors because, let’s face it: in-game lessons are costly and cycles in what can be perceived as bridge-purgatory can be tedious. In this way, money makes up for titles.
There seems to be a common misperception that sponsors are out to buy championship titles or that there exists an amount of money for which fat cats can ride thoroughbred horses to victory. The reality is much more complicated than that: money is necessary, but not sufficient. In more than a few cases at the very top of the game, players do the picking, choosing sponsors with whom they think they can win.
For good or ill, the operator in the equation is fulfillment. The success or failure of a professional bridge relationship is measured by results; sometimes that means championships, sometimes not. On any given day at an NABC there are hundreds of people playing bridge for money and yet only one team or pair will win the big event. The vast majority of teams (with sponsors and without) didn’t win last time and won’t win next time. So why do we bother? That’s where I’m headed next.
January 9th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Lady, you read my mind..as I am coming to
the end of your post, “so why do we bother?” My thot was “what is the purpose of this tremendous amount of work?” I know of course, we (all players) are simply addicted to this fantastic game and want to do the very best we can, winning is secondary with most, probably. In the highest levels winning is maybe a lot like the lowest level, a lot of luck. It is so great tho that players can make a good living doing what they love. Pros are like salespeople I suppose. High self esteem and outstanding people skills. Still, it can’t be easy, always having to win. Now I have confused myself, lol
January 13th, 2009 at 10:26 am
I think that besides the thrill to compete with the best, one of the components that motivates a lot of sponsors fielding teams which do not include players from the Gotha of bridge, is surely the belief that one day, with the sun shining from the right angle and all the right finesses working, they might also claim a spot on the stage of fame by edging out Meckwell by one imp. Looking in depth at those “surprise” results, we almost always find that they are achieved by teams which are made of players who go out of their way to be supportive and to make everyone play at their best, since that is essentially their only chance of success against a stronger team. This is one huge difference in the make up of our game: talent is not a guarantee of success but only an insurance on its frequency. Meckwell & Co playing at 60% can be beaten in a long match by a good solid team playing at their best. This brings up another crucial component which is sometimes underrated especially when selecting the right pro player to match with the sponsor: not just how good they are but more importantly how much better does the sponsor play when he/she is paired with him/her? I know of many great players, gifted with enormous talent, who under-performed when placed in a partnership with the sponsor and, what is worse, their table antics made the sponsor play at 1/10 of his/her skill level. Similarly with pairs: quite a few pairs are disruptive and cause the team to play at below their average potential. A sponsor with a minimum of savvy would do well in my view to get informal references on a pro player’s behavioral style from earlier clients/partners, before seriously considering moving on to the hiring phase.