how to spot a bridge pro, part four
I’m nearing the end of my quest to learn to be a bridge player, which is on some level fundamentally different from “just” learning to play bridge. The jury’s still out on whether I’ll be able to say I completed my endeavor successfully; even if I can go from being one of the hopeless sponsors to one who can play, that’s no guarantee I’ll also be able to, well, be successful. It takes more than superior technical card-playing ability to make a great player, and more than six great players to make a winning team.
The last couple of episodes have been concerned with back-office matters — what we hire for and why — but I’ve steered clear of what happens between the negotiations and the payday. How does it work to actually play with these people?
all i need to know about lining up i learned in kindergarten
1. Follow directions. In general, sponsors playing in North American tournaments are required to play fully half the boards at each stage of the match. I have seen several instances where the Director In Charge granted permission for playing sponsors to miss a day’s play in early and middle rounds; in those cases the sponsor has been responsible for making up the missed boards during the next match. Skipping the Round of Eight to fly home for a meeting means a sponsor’s playing all the boards in the semi-final and that isn’t a predictable advantage for most teams contesting an NABC major in the late rounds.
Playing requirements are sometimes different outside of North America; you can bet that players good enough to contest major titles in Europe, Asia and Australia are good enough to check the conditions of contest and know the rules before they sit down. It is not uncommon for the requirement to change over the course of an event: one-third in round robin, half during the knockout.
2. Play by the rules. Lining up is tricky business, and smart money knows the rules and how to play them. That one-third round robin figure is a minimum, remember, and can certainly work to the advantage of teams carrying playing sponsors. Not every match in a round robin requires the big guns, so it’s not unusual for sponsors to play an extra couple of sets during the qualifying phases to keep the troops rested and happy.
No matter how expert the playing sponsor, the balance of power at the world championships is pre-ordained. The weakest pair on the team does what they’re told, not more or less. We engage a captain and coach, we train and study and prepare, and then we keep the bench warm until they tell us they need us.
3. Take turns. At the beginning of the knockout matches there’s a moment where the captains dance, the higher ranked team either takes or passes the right to sit around the opponents during the first and fourth or second and third quarters of play. Half the time we must announce who’s playing for our side and at which table and our opponents sit around us; the other half of the time we check them out and decide who plays where.
All things otherwise equal, most sponsors play the first half — one quarter when it’s our pick, once when it’s theirs. Who picks for us? Sometimes it’s obvious: if my choices are Nickell and Freeman or Meckstroth and Rodwell, I’ll probably go sit down against Nick and Dick. Be honest with yourself when you judge me for that — can you swear you’d make a different choice?
Early on, my team’s decisions were great big family affairs: George attended every comparison, as did Ralph Katz, whose mother-in-law was my teammate. David Berkowitz and Michael Seamon could be counted upon to stop by in support of Lisa and Shannon, as well as Bob Glasson, Dick Benson, Jeff Schuett and Kerry Smith, and so on and so forth. The inlaws consulted among themselves then sent us in to play, shepherding us to the semi-final of the women’s knockout where we were promptly slaughtered by Lynn Baker.
4. Know who’s in charge. It’s almost never a newer sponsor calling the in-game shots. It might even be safe to say that the more vocal the sponsor about who plays and when, the less successful the team rates to be. Instances where sponsors play extra boards (benching an expert pair) in late stages of major events are exceedingly rare — in North America one and only one name comes to mind, said with derision.
Sometimes it’s a sponsor’s partner who’s really at the helm, other times it’s a team’s best pair. Often team decisions are made by committee, the front four deciding what’s best. In most successful team chemistries is the flexibility to shift these kinds of management and captaincy issues around, as needed. The one thing you can count on: household names have veto power.
5. Mind your manners. We don’t take the big guns out for misfiring. Everybody has a bad set, and even if a team’s sponsor is truly an expert player and an expert pair is struggling, it’s still bad manners (and bad business) to bench a professional pair. If we’re ahead by a zillion and there’s no possible way to lose? Give the sponsor her head and see what she does with it. Down so far we can’t come back? An opportunity for the sponsor to learn something, send him back in. Otherwise? Secure a table in the bar and the attention of a waitress before coming down to the final comparison.
I’m curious to know how it works on other teams — what privileges and rights do the strongest players on the team enjoy when everybody’s a volunteer?
January 16th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
I’m enjoying these series of posts and I appreciate your sharing.
January 16th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I’ve only played on all-volunteer teams.
With everyone paying their own way, fairness is important. So if you play less on one day you’ll expect to play more on the following day.
My teams have also tended to consist of friends and/or acquaintances, as enjoying life away from the bridge table is a consideration too, so we have a fair idea of how the pairs stand.
So, when you make the team, you know that the load is going to be shared and you probably know who the strongest pair is.
And if the strongest pair could not live by these principles, then they would not be on the team.
January 16th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
I find that teams vary for many reasons.
Sometimes, HOW the team gets formed makes a difference. Did your pair add on to an already existing time? Then, I find that your pair generally acquieses to the preferences of the earlier pairs. Even if you are Hot Stuff, (in which case they probably want you to play as much as possible), the other players call more of the shots.
Often, a team can be “all volunteer,” yet generally people know who the stronger and weaker pairs are (assuming that some are stronger and weaker.) I know when I’m on such a team, I really do want to do what will help us win most. Although I love to play – if you’re on a KO team, you play more – and then are done early…. kinda defeats the purpose.
Anyway – no hard & fast rules, I don’t think. Though – as Stacy has stressed throughout her series, one MIGHT hope that both common sense and common COURTESY could generally reign.
January 16th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
By the way – how come Dr. Jacobs hasn’t weighed in yet?
January 16th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
I hate to be a naysayer, especially since Stacy writes everything so well and things are so carefully thought out.
However, I do believe this is an area that despite all the intracies discussed is reasonably simple:
(1) People hire people to play with them for various reasons, especially at the lower levels – club games and local tourneys.
(2) In national and international events it is generally about achieving success.
One hires based on price, ability (results) and probably congeniality which hopefully does not interfere with the results.
The goals are simple – to place as high as possible and hopefully win. To that aim, the strongest players play the most and the weakest players play the least (with decisions based on the conditions of contest and the standing in a given match).
Typically the client calls the shots though I suspect the client may lean on the advice of someone else if they deem that person better qualified to make decisions.
———-
One very common practice has not been discussed. The client hires a partner but they play with non-professional teammates, typically pretty good players but not of the caliber one would get if they were willing to pay additional money. For many clients, this setup achieves their goal of having a good partner (and getting good advice if they are interested) and yet keeping the expenses down while fielding a decent team, though not one likely to win a national event.