Help
A few points here:
The vast majority of juniors will never be able to make the US national junior team. This would be true under any reasonable selection process. Under the current process there is not even an opportunity to "get lucky" in a trials. So for most people, I doubt the idea that "I could play on the US junior team" is a big motivational factor for them to play bridge. By "automatically" sending the same team every year (and sending the same people to various other international events) there's certainly a perception that it's hard to "break in" to the set of international junior representatives. There are several eligible individuals widely viewed as better players than some who made the team (prefer not to name names, but this is very far from being just my own opinion); obviously one can argue that a team of people who know each other, get along, etc. might be "a better team" but the fact remains that certain folks didn't get much of a chance to be on the team and that nothing they could do (bridge-wise) effected this.
I never indicated that people were doing anything illegal under the laws of the host country. The point was that traveling in order to bypass US law (for example going to Thailand in order to solicit prostitutes, or the Netherlands in order to smoke marijuana, or many places in Europe in order to drink when under 21) is legally and ethically somewhat questionable. Regardless of whether this sort of extracurricular activity "took priority over the bridge" (seems unlikely) articles and complaints about this kind of stuff going on does reflect poorly on bridge. Similarly it reflects badly on bridge when a coach at junior bridge camp tells the female campers that they will never be good players and that their purpose is to "sleep with the male players before IMP sessions (but not before MP sessions)" or when the adult in charge of caddies at a tournament gets all excited about "getting 14-year olds drunk."
The fact is that ACBL (and all bridge organizations) should be interested in promoting bridge to young players. Of course, there's a limited budget for this (although maybe if Bill Gates gets more involved the budget will be less limited...) I think it's a reasonable question whether the current structure, where a lot of money is spent sending a small number of elite players (the national teams) to play in the junior competition, and a lot of money is spent on the junior camps, is necessarily the right approach. The junior competitions cater exclusively to the best of the juniors (all of whom spend plenty of time playing already), how does this help junior bridge? It seems likely that having a losing national team would encourage more people to play to try to reverse the country's fortunes, rather than having a national team that virtually always wins and is almost impossible to join? Assuming we want to have a winning national team, it might be better to have an open trials, even though the quality of the team sent wouldn't necessarily improve, because the trials first eliminate from contention people who don't think being on the team is important enough to attend the trials and take them seriously, and second give all players at least the impression (maybe misimpression) that they can make the team if they play well over the week of trials. In any case it seems reasonable to ask whether eliminating the national team entirely (or letting the national team be paid for entirely by clients/sponsors and spending ACBL/USBF money elsewhere) would be a better way to encourage young players.
IBPA article
#21
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,670
- Joined: 2005-February-09
- Gender:Male
- Location:Zurich, Switzerland
Posted 2007-September-17, 18:04
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#22
- Deipnosophist
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,386
- Joined: 2005-March-22
Posted 2007-September-17, 18:25
awm, on Sep 17 2007, 04:04 PM, said:
<snip> It seems likely that having a losing national team would encourage more people to play to try to reverse the country's fortunes, rather than having a national team that virtually always wins and is almost impossible to join?<snip>
This makes no sense to me at all. If your home team is really good, isn't that what you are going to strive to want to be a part of? If I grew up in New York (and I didn't) and the Yankees were really good and all the fans loved them, wouldn't that make me want to play baseball too? Whereas if I grew up in Kansas City (and I didn't) and my team was mediocre and wasn't televised very often, would that make me want to play baseball more?
Edit: And I have a hard time believing that the statements made by the coach and the person in charge of the caddies were anything more than jokes. I obviously wasn't there, but I think you are making some pretty serious allegations.
"Half the people you know are below average." - Steven Wright
#23 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2007-September-17, 18:27
awm, on Sep 17 2007, 07:04 PM, said:
A few points here:
The vast majority of juniors will never be able to make the US national junior team. This would be true under any reasonable selection process. Under the current process there is not even an opportunity to "get lucky" in a trials. So for most people, I doubt the idea that "I could play on the US junior team" is a big motivational factor for them to play bridge. By "automatically" sending the same team every year (and sending the same people to various other international events) there's certainly a perception that it's hard to "break in" to the set of international junior representatives. There are several eligible individuals widely viewed as better players than some who made the team (prefer not to name names, but this is very far from being just my own opinion); obviously one can argue that a team of people who know each other, get along, etc. might be "a better team" but the fact remains that certain folks didn't get much of a chance to be on the team and that nothing they could do (bridge-wise) effected this.
I never indicated that people were doing anything illegal under the laws of the host country. The point was that traveling in order to bypass US law (for example going to Thailand in order to solicit prostitutes, or the Netherlands in order to smoke marijuana, or many places in Europe in order to drink when under 21) is legally and ethically somewhat questionable. Regardless of whether this sort of extracurricular activity "took priority over the bridge" (seems unlikely) articles and complaints about this kind of stuff going on does reflect poorly on bridge. Similarly it reflects badly on bridge when a coach at junior bridge camp tells the female campers that they will never be good players and that their purpose is to "sleep with the male players before IMP sessions (but not before MP sessions)" or when the adult in charge of caddies at a tournament gets all excited about "getting 14-year olds drunk."
The fact is that ACBL (and all bridge organizations) should be interested in promoting bridge to young players. Of course, there's a limited budget for this (although maybe if Bill Gates gets more involved the budget will be less limited...) I think it's a reasonable question whether the current structure, where a lot of money is spent sending a small number of elite players (the national teams) to play in the junior competition, and a lot of money is spent on the junior camps, is necessarily the right approach. The junior competitions cater exclusively to the best of the juniors (all of whom spend plenty of time playing already), how does this help junior bridge? It seems likely that having a losing national team would encourage more people to play to try to reverse the country's fortunes, rather than having a national team that virtually always wins and is almost impossible to join? Assuming we want to have a winning national team, it might be better to have an open trials, even though the quality of the team sent wouldn't necessarily improve, because the trials first eliminate from contention people who don't think being on the team is important enough to attend the trials and take them seriously, and second give all players at least the impression (maybe misimpression) that they can make the team if they play well over the week of trials. In any case it seems reasonable to ask whether eliminating the national team entirely (or letting the national team be paid for entirely by clients/sponsors and spending ACBL/USBF money elsewhere) would be a better way to encourage young players.
The vast majority of juniors will never be able to make the US national junior team. This would be true under any reasonable selection process. Under the current process there is not even an opportunity to "get lucky" in a trials. So for most people, I doubt the idea that "I could play on the US junior team" is a big motivational factor for them to play bridge. By "automatically" sending the same team every year (and sending the same people to various other international events) there's certainly a perception that it's hard to "break in" to the set of international junior representatives. There are several eligible individuals widely viewed as better players than some who made the team (prefer not to name names, but this is very far from being just my own opinion); obviously one can argue that a team of people who know each other, get along, etc. might be "a better team" but the fact remains that certain folks didn't get much of a chance to be on the team and that nothing they could do (bridge-wise) effected this.
I never indicated that people were doing anything illegal under the laws of the host country. The point was that traveling in order to bypass US law (for example going to Thailand in order to solicit prostitutes, or the Netherlands in order to smoke marijuana, or many places in Europe in order to drink when under 21) is legally and ethically somewhat questionable. Regardless of whether this sort of extracurricular activity "took priority over the bridge" (seems unlikely) articles and complaints about this kind of stuff going on does reflect poorly on bridge. Similarly it reflects badly on bridge when a coach at junior bridge camp tells the female campers that they will never be good players and that their purpose is to "sleep with the male players before IMP sessions (but not before MP sessions)" or when the adult in charge of caddies at a tournament gets all excited about "getting 14-year olds drunk."
The fact is that ACBL (and all bridge organizations) should be interested in promoting bridge to young players. Of course, there's a limited budget for this (although maybe if Bill Gates gets more involved the budget will be less limited...) I think it's a reasonable question whether the current structure, where a lot of money is spent sending a small number of elite players (the national teams) to play in the junior competition, and a lot of money is spent on the junior camps, is necessarily the right approach. The junior competitions cater exclusively to the best of the juniors (all of whom spend plenty of time playing already), how does this help junior bridge? It seems likely that having a losing national team would encourage more people to play to try to reverse the country's fortunes, rather than having a national team that virtually always wins and is almost impossible to join? Assuming we want to have a winning national team, it might be better to have an open trials, even though the quality of the team sent wouldn't necessarily improve, because the trials first eliminate from contention people who don't think being on the team is important enough to attend the trials and take them seriously, and second give all players at least the impression (maybe misimpression) that they can make the team if they play well over the week of trials. In any case it seems reasonable to ask whether eliminating the national team entirely (or letting the national team be paid for entirely by clients/sponsors and spending ACBL/USBF money elsewhere) would be a better way to encourage young players.
The vast majority of juniors will not be good enough to play on the national team you're right. That doesn't mean that "I could play on the US junior team" is not motivation to try and get good enough to do it. Kids still dream of playing for the yankees even though most won't get that chance.
There have also always been 2 teams, and even when one of them was "picked" the other was always open, and there was always a trials for that team. There has never been a time that there was no trials, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. You can't have it both ways that you want to just get lucky and win the trials but also be on the best team.
As far as some people not getting a shot, and nothing they can do bridge wise can affect that, that is BS. Win something and you will be noticed. Play well against whoever and you will be noticed. To be really honest I don't even know who you're talking about that might be considered better than anyone on the current team. It will always be debatable if person X is better than person Y, but I think you are deluded in thinking some people will not get a fair shot because they're not on the "in" crowd.
#24
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 331
- Joined: 2005-August-28
Posted 2007-September-17, 18:30
There are a number of issues:-
1. The primary role of a junior (or any) representative team is to perform for their country in the sport/activity. Hence anything which detracts from performance at the bridge table is a potential source of legitimate objection.
That is relatively uncontroversial.
2. Measuring whether particular behaviour affects performance is more controversial.
3. A separate issue is the purely representative status of the team: as ambassadors of the federation/visitors in a representative capacity etc.
It is important to recognise that something which is legal in one jurisdiction has the capacity to give offence in another (eg consumption of alcohol in certain Islamic countries to take a less controversial example).
4. Somewhat less controversially certain types of behaviour is generally regarded as unacceptable: eg trashing hotel rooms, physical violence, abuse of other nationals...how long a list do you want?
5. In Oz we have had difficulties in the past and have required players to sign codes of conduct. Oz-one code of conduct was a clearly desirable move and went further than the representative requirements of State and National teams
6. Personal concepts of morals should not enter into the equation: you are selecting a team for a particular purpose, not as Salvation Army missionaries (replace with appropriate jurisdictional phrase for geographic/religious area).
7. To the extent that Juniors are in a different category the following is relevant in OZ: by our law persons in positions of trust and who have attained their majority (ie over 18 for us) are not permitted to abuse that position eg sexual relations with those under age
Age 18 is ok to drink etc but it is up to the individual to do so responsibly.
8. By US standards I am very liberal (possibly heading towards libertine!) but when you are sponsored byan organisation you have a duty of performance (to endeavour to give your best) and a further implicit duty not to bring the sponsoring organisation into ill-repute. What constitutes each of those matters is a matter of opinion as drawn lines will always be difficult for those just beyond any perimeter. However the Oz-one code seemed like a pretty good starting point
reference: http://www.oz-one.co...deofconduct.pdf
regards
1. The primary role of a junior (or any) representative team is to perform for their country in the sport/activity. Hence anything which detracts from performance at the bridge table is a potential source of legitimate objection.
That is relatively uncontroversial.
2. Measuring whether particular behaviour affects performance is more controversial.
3. A separate issue is the purely representative status of the team: as ambassadors of the federation/visitors in a representative capacity etc.
It is important to recognise that something which is legal in one jurisdiction has the capacity to give offence in another (eg consumption of alcohol in certain Islamic countries to take a less controversial example).
4. Somewhat less controversially certain types of behaviour is generally regarded as unacceptable: eg trashing hotel rooms, physical violence, abuse of other nationals...how long a list do you want?
5. In Oz we have had difficulties in the past and have required players to sign codes of conduct. Oz-one code of conduct was a clearly desirable move and went further than the representative requirements of State and National teams
6. Personal concepts of morals should not enter into the equation: you are selecting a team for a particular purpose, not as Salvation Army missionaries (replace with appropriate jurisdictional phrase for geographic/religious area).
7. To the extent that Juniors are in a different category the following is relevant in OZ: by our law persons in positions of trust and who have attained their majority (ie over 18 for us) are not permitted to abuse that position eg sexual relations with those under age
Age 18 is ok to drink etc but it is up to the individual to do so responsibly.
8. By US standards I am very liberal (possibly heading towards libertine!) but when you are sponsored byan organisation you have a duty of performance (to endeavour to give your best) and a further implicit duty not to bring the sponsoring organisation into ill-repute. What constitutes each of those matters is a matter of opinion as drawn lines will always be difficult for those just beyond any perimeter. However the Oz-one code seemed like a pretty good starting point
reference: http://www.oz-one.co...deofconduct.pdf
regards
#25
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,817
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2007-September-17, 18:34
1) What are the age limits for juniors and in actual practice how do they get on the team? They do well in Nat open events?
2) For example I hope posters can understand if Seniors are sent to represent the ACBL and the general membership pays the expenses, can you understand if the Seniors then use their personal money, after hours in the room we are paying for, using the money you saved to pay for cocaine and hookers. Yes it is their personal money and it late at night but I hope you can understand the other side.
3) In this case I have no idea what the juniors or Bermuda bowl members or Seniors have done in the past but I hope we are not paying for food, room, airfare so they can usetheir own money on hookers and Coke.
2) For example I hope posters can understand if Seniors are sent to represent the ACBL and the general membership pays the expenses, can you understand if the Seniors then use their personal money, after hours in the room we are paying for, using the money you saved to pay for cocaine and hookers. Yes it is their personal money and it late at night but I hope you can understand the other side.
3) In this case I have no idea what the juniors or Bermuda bowl members or Seniors have done in the past but I hope we are not paying for food, room, airfare so they can usetheir own money on hookers and Coke.
#26
- Under bidder
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,797
- Joined: 2004-July-25
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Posted 2007-September-17, 18:36
Quote
The vast majority of juniors will never be able to make the US national junior team. This would be true under any reasonable selection process. Under the current process there is not even an opportunity to "get lucky" in a trials.
That's a good thing right, that the luck factor is not an issue?
Quote
So for most people, I doubt the idea that "I could play on the US junior team" is a big motivational factor for them to play bridge.
True, most bridge players are not ambitious. There is nothing you can do about that. They might still enjoy reading exciting stories about Grue and others.
Quote
The point was that traveling in order to bypass US law (for example going to Thailand in order to solicit prostitutes, or the Netherlands in order to smoke marijuana, or many places in Europe in order to drink when under 21) is legally and ethically somewhat questionable.
I am pretty sure that they were travelling in order to play in the world championships, not in order to bypass US laws.
Quote
Regardless of whether this sort of extracurricular activity "took priority over the bridge" (seems unlikely) articles and complaints about this kind of stuff going on does reflect poorly on bridge.
I doubt that smoking a joint in the Netherlands after winning an intense 10-day tournament reflects poorly on bridge.
Quote
Similarly it reflects badly on bridge when a coach at junior bridge camp tells the female campers that they will never be good players and that their purpose is to "sleep with the male players before IMP sessions (but not before MP sessions)"...
This is a slightly different topic but I completely agree with you. And that it reflects poorly on bridge is not the least of my worries.
Quote
The junior competitions cater exclusively to the best of the juniors (all of whom spend plenty of time playing already), how does this help junior bridge?
In all self-respecting sports the elite receives a lot of attention. I think the attention athletes like Agassi and Woods receive has a positive impact on the number of people who play the sport. I know watching the top juniors play bridge on Vugraph increased my interest in the game when I was a junior.
Quote
It seems likely that having a losing national team would encourage more people to play to try to reverse the country's fortunes, rather than having a national team that virtually always wins and is almost impossible to join?
Of all the things that you wrote and I disagree with, this is the statement I disagree most with. Do you really believe that having a losing national team will make people more excited to play on the team? Wow.
While it is clear that junior bridge in the US is having a difficult time, eliminating funding for high level bridge doesn't seem like the answer to me.
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.
- hrothgar
- hrothgar
#27
- 5555
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,520
- Joined: 2003-September-04
- Gender:Male
Posted 2007-September-17, 18:39
Adam, of all your points there is just a single one I agree with: if you take on a role where you are responsible for minors, then you should be held in a higher standard with regards to your behavior towards these minors (because otherwise you are abusing a position of trust). However, when something inappropriate happens, you of course fire the responsible coach/caddie coordinator/whatever. I am not sure why you keep bringing this up when the question is about canceling junior camps etc.
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
#28
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,817
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2007-September-17, 18:41
It appears that technically prostituion is illegal, but only seems enforced in very rare cases. Sad and horrible as it is, it seems sex even with young girls and boys is basically ok in Thailand from what I am told by people who live there. Ron(hog) says this less so but others tell me it is as bad as ever.
"The exact extent of child prostitution, sex trafficking, and sex slavery in Thailand is not known today. Efforts are made by the Thai authorities to eradicate child prostitution in the portion of the sex trade catering to foreigners; the status of prostitutes in brothels catering principally to native Thai men is somewhat less clear. Thai law specifies that the age of consent for sex work is 18.
Some sex workers in Thailand, adult and child, and for that matter in several other parts of the world, are tricked, sold, or coerced into the work. [8]
Recent International Labor Organization research suggests a speculative figure of 12,000 children per year being trafficked for sexual exploitation in South East Asia, mostly to Thailand. Thai non-governmental organisations and the Thai government estimate that 30,000 to 40,000 prostitutes are under 18. A proportion of prostitutes over the age of 18, including foreign nationals from Asia and Europe, are also in a state of forced sexual servitude and slavery. [9]
It is common that Thai women are lured to Japan and sold to Yakuza-controlled brothels where they are forced to work off their price.[2] In a landmark case in 2006, one such woman filed a civil suit in Thailand against the Thai perpetrators, who had previously been convicted in criminal court. The woman had managed to escape from the Yakuza-controlled prostitution ring by killing the female Thai mama-san and had spent five years in a Japanese prison.[10]"
http://en.wikipedia....ion_in_Thailand
"The exact extent of child prostitution, sex trafficking, and sex slavery in Thailand is not known today. Efforts are made by the Thai authorities to eradicate child prostitution in the portion of the sex trade catering to foreigners; the status of prostitutes in brothels catering principally to native Thai men is somewhat less clear. Thai law specifies that the age of consent for sex work is 18.
Some sex workers in Thailand, adult and child, and for that matter in several other parts of the world, are tricked, sold, or coerced into the work. [8]
Recent International Labor Organization research suggests a speculative figure of 12,000 children per year being trafficked for sexual exploitation in South East Asia, mostly to Thailand. Thai non-governmental organisations and the Thai government estimate that 30,000 to 40,000 prostitutes are under 18. A proportion of prostitutes over the age of 18, including foreign nationals from Asia and Europe, are also in a state of forced sexual servitude and slavery. [9]
It is common that Thai women are lured to Japan and sold to Yakuza-controlled brothels where they are forced to work off their price.[2] In a landmark case in 2006, one such woman filed a civil suit in Thailand against the Thai perpetrators, who had previously been convicted in criminal court. The woman had managed to escape from the Yakuza-controlled prostitution ring by killing the female Thai mama-san and had spent five years in a Japanese prison.[10]"
http://en.wikipedia....ion_in_Thailand
#29
- Under bidder
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,797
- Joined: 2004-July-25
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Posted 2007-September-17, 18:47
This is the bridge part of the forum, the watercooler is here:
http://forums.bridge...hp?showforum=26
http://forums.bridge...hp?showforum=26
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.
- hrothgar
- hrothgar
#30
- - - T98765432 AQT8
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,085
- Joined: 2005-June-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, NV
Posted 2007-September-17, 19:57
Adam, there is so much I want to respond to, as much of what you said is either...
wrong:
- that the team is chosen and thus people have no chance to qualify on their own. One or both teams has always had to play in the trials to qualify - both as recently as the 2003 championship.
- that anyone is traveling IN ORDER to bypass any laws. You think there is a single person that has ever played on the team who views this primarily as a free trip to grab hookers? They sure must be lucky to be half an imp from winning the last four championships in that case.
irrelevant:
- something inappropriate that was said or done by one (or some finite number) counselor at a junior camp. So you kill the whole junior program? And I presume that if a janitor who works for IBM sexually harasses a female employee that the entire IBM corporation should be shut down instead of just dealing with the one guilty party?
completely ridiculous:
- having a worse team will encourage less-experienced players to participate. Oh come on.
Anyway responses to most of that stuff have been pretty well covered by others so that's all I intend to say about your posts. But I think it may be valuable for you to hear my general perspective on the issue and how I got onto the team, because it completely contradicts your notion of how hard it is for people who aren't friends with the players to be on the team.
When I was added onto the team they had 4 returning players, Joe John Justin and Ari. I had played one morning pair game session with Ari a few years earlier, and otherwise never played a single hand of live bridge with any of them, nor with the other person added who became my partner (Jason). I had spent no substantial time hanging out with any of the other players before, either at a bridge tournament or otherwise. I got along well (mostly from talking online) with Ari and Justin, but had barely even talked to Joe, John, or Jason before. Even to this day, I have played no live hands of bridge (besides that one session with Ari) with anyone on the team but my partner Jason (yes Justin and I have played many online), and have never hung out with a single person on the team except at bridge tournaments. I get along with all of them but that's about it. They chose Jason and me because in their minds we were the best players available. And because we were INTERESTED.
And what had made me interested to begin with? It was largely going to the camps and sort of seeing the whole atmosphere up close. But I can guarantee you that in 2001 when I saw the picture of our junior team on the cover of the Bridge Bulletin, that excited me and made me want to try out. The excitement about our team winning got me so interested, and I started playing in every junior trials after that. So to claim that there exists some atmosphere of elitism where most people feel they don't have a chance to even try out is just so untrue. People might feel they don't have a chance to be on the team because they aren't good enough, but that's a different issue and they shouldn't be on the team anyway. Seeing those six strangers (at the time) and all the excitement they were generating got me a lot more interested in going to bridge tournaments and trying to be on the teams.
You will note, I didn't care even a little bit (and still don't) what any of them do in their private time. It shows a lot of nerve to even discuss that issue in the context of decision being made for the program IMO. If you ask me the main reason more young people aren't interested in bridge, it is because of the perception of it being a boring game for old people. Hurting the junior program in any way instead of giving to it is about the stupidest thing the ACBL could do. THAT is what would discourage young players, not a rumor of a player they don't know on the country's junior team getting a hooker in Thailand. If there is any atmosphere of elitism at all that makes inexperienced junior players feel excluded from even attempting to participate, it is one of the power-hungry bourgeoisie of the ruling bridge bodies trying to kill everything that was created for young players.
They are destroying the future of their own game, one young player at a time. No amount of weed smoking has anything to do with it.
wrong:
- that the team is chosen and thus people have no chance to qualify on their own. One or both teams has always had to play in the trials to qualify - both as recently as the 2003 championship.
- that anyone is traveling IN ORDER to bypass any laws. You think there is a single person that has ever played on the team who views this primarily as a free trip to grab hookers? They sure must be lucky to be half an imp from winning the last four championships in that case.
irrelevant:
- something inappropriate that was said or done by one (or some finite number) counselor at a junior camp. So you kill the whole junior program? And I presume that if a janitor who works for IBM sexually harasses a female employee that the entire IBM corporation should be shut down instead of just dealing with the one guilty party?
completely ridiculous:
- having a worse team will encourage less-experienced players to participate. Oh come on.
Anyway responses to most of that stuff have been pretty well covered by others so that's all I intend to say about your posts. But I think it may be valuable for you to hear my general perspective on the issue and how I got onto the team, because it completely contradicts your notion of how hard it is for people who aren't friends with the players to be on the team.
When I was added onto the team they had 4 returning players, Joe John Justin and Ari. I had played one morning pair game session with Ari a few years earlier, and otherwise never played a single hand of live bridge with any of them, nor with the other person added who became my partner (Jason). I had spent no substantial time hanging out with any of the other players before, either at a bridge tournament or otherwise. I got along well (mostly from talking online) with Ari and Justin, but had barely even talked to Joe, John, or Jason before. Even to this day, I have played no live hands of bridge (besides that one session with Ari) with anyone on the team but my partner Jason (yes Justin and I have played many online), and have never hung out with a single person on the team except at bridge tournaments. I get along with all of them but that's about it. They chose Jason and me because in their minds we were the best players available. And because we were INTERESTED.
And what had made me interested to begin with? It was largely going to the camps and sort of seeing the whole atmosphere up close. But I can guarantee you that in 2001 when I saw the picture of our junior team on the cover of the Bridge Bulletin, that excited me and made me want to try out. The excitement about our team winning got me so interested, and I started playing in every junior trials after that. So to claim that there exists some atmosphere of elitism where most people feel they don't have a chance to even try out is just so untrue. People might feel they don't have a chance to be on the team because they aren't good enough, but that's a different issue and they shouldn't be on the team anyway. Seeing those six strangers (at the time) and all the excitement they were generating got me a lot more interested in going to bridge tournaments and trying to be on the teams.
You will note, I didn't care even a little bit (and still don't) what any of them do in their private time. It shows a lot of nerve to even discuss that issue in the context of decision being made for the program IMO. If you ask me the main reason more young people aren't interested in bridge, it is because of the perception of it being a boring game for old people. Hurting the junior program in any way instead of giving to it is about the stupidest thing the ACBL could do. THAT is what would discourage young players, not a rumor of a player they don't know on the country's junior team getting a hooker in Thailand. If there is any atmosphere of elitism at all that makes inexperienced junior players feel excluded from even attempting to participate, it is one of the power-hungry bourgeoisie of the ruling bridge bodies trying to kill everything that was created for young players.
They are destroying the future of their own game, one young player at a time. No amount of weed smoking has anything to do with it.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
#31
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 18,025
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2007-September-17, 20:28
I stopped reading several posts back. One comment: Players get selected to represent the US at a World Championship. A lot of people and groups contribute money to send them. The game is in a country where prostitution is legal. And now folks are talking about "going to Thailand for the purpose of soliciting prostitution". What the Hell are you people smoking? They went to Thailand play bridge! If they happen to take advantage of the - entirely legal - situation there wrt prostitution, it's nobody's damn business but theirs!
Damn fool busybodies. Hmph!
Damn fool busybodies. Hmph!
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#32
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,817
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2007-September-17, 20:45
1) It would be nice if we, the dues paying membership were told why our leaders have made the decision to stop junior bridge in the USA.
2) I think this whole discussion about posters thinking what players do in their spare time at these world events does not matter is naive at the extremes.
3) Since we seem to have almost no facts here, I can only assume we are not talking about someone having one beer at midnight or one 20 year old boy flirting with a 20 year old girl.
4) I just wonder is this all about that daily bulletin postings that the juniors gave goofy answers to? Does anyone remember this incident?
2) I think this whole discussion about posters thinking what players do in their spare time at these world events does not matter is naive at the extremes.
3) Since we seem to have almost no facts here, I can only assume we are not talking about someone having one beer at midnight or one 20 year old boy flirting with a 20 year old girl.
4) I just wonder is this all about that daily bulletin postings that the juniors gave goofy answers to? Does anyone remember this incident?
#33
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,817
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2007-September-17, 21:01
#34
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,437
- Joined: 2004-August-29
- Gender:Female
- Location:Switzerland
Posted 2007-September-17, 21:15
My bet (and I have no personal knowledge of anything official whatsoever) is that this idea to cancel some US-based junior activities has been promoted mainly by those who aren't highly involved/connected in the junior bridge world, but are numerous, rather than by a few who are very involved, and vocal.
I would blame:
1) the older people at the club who do not have anything whatsoever to do with national teams, probably don't read the bridge bulletin, and definitely don't read about tournament results. These are the people that protest having a STaC at the local club, because they don't want to pay an extra dollar. These are the people that get upset if their club has anything to do with NAPs. They are much more numerous than us. (And yes, I know them personally, I direct at clubs)
2) Parents/grandparents who try to get their kids to play bridge or at least caddy, hear all the reports about what goes on with the "other caddies", or hear about things that happen at junior camp. They get less interested in sending kids to events that are supervised by ACBL, and let ACBL know.
I think that #2 is sad, but I wouldn't know what to do about it. Most of the people at junior camp are college age, or near college age, and are more than used to partying in the dorms, so why shouldn't they be allowed to do it at camp? The others who aren't of that age are usually much more circumspect, but they are in the minority.
I wouldn't blame any of the campers (the supervisors are more to blame if anyone), but if you were a parent, and you heard (even "cleaned up") stories of what went on there, and then saw other things that may go to support your perceptions, would you send your kids to camp? I know several parents who have said that they wouldn't.
And so there are more parents that see (or think) that money for junior bridge is not going towards the goal of helping keep their child interested in bridge, so they complain to their unit board members (who are their friends) who complain to the district reps, etc.
Anyway, I think that this whole thing is sad. I had good time at junior camp, despite some behavior I witnessed there, or things I was told there. I just know, that when some parent of some 16 year old asks if they should send their kid to junior camp, and will they learn bridge there and make friends, I have to say no. And I find that sad. And I find it sad that I may have contributed to #2, but I have to be truthful to these people.
I would blame:
1) the older people at the club who do not have anything whatsoever to do with national teams, probably don't read the bridge bulletin, and definitely don't read about tournament results. These are the people that protest having a STaC at the local club, because they don't want to pay an extra dollar. These are the people that get upset if their club has anything to do with NAPs. They are much more numerous than us. (And yes, I know them personally, I direct at clubs)
2) Parents/grandparents who try to get their kids to play bridge or at least caddy, hear all the reports about what goes on with the "other caddies", or hear about things that happen at junior camp. They get less interested in sending kids to events that are supervised by ACBL, and let ACBL know.
I think that #2 is sad, but I wouldn't know what to do about it. Most of the people at junior camp are college age, or near college age, and are more than used to partying in the dorms, so why shouldn't they be allowed to do it at camp? The others who aren't of that age are usually much more circumspect, but they are in the minority.
I wouldn't blame any of the campers (the supervisors are more to blame if anyone), but if you were a parent, and you heard (even "cleaned up") stories of what went on there, and then saw other things that may go to support your perceptions, would you send your kids to camp? I know several parents who have said that they wouldn't.
And so there are more parents that see (or think) that money for junior bridge is not going towards the goal of helping keep their child interested in bridge, so they complain to their unit board members (who are their friends) who complain to the district reps, etc.
Anyway, I think that this whole thing is sad. I had good time at junior camp, despite some behavior I witnessed there, or things I was told there. I just know, that when some parent of some 16 year old asks if they should send their kid to junior camp, and will they learn bridge there and make friends, I have to say no. And I find that sad. And I find it sad that I may have contributed to #2, but I have to be truthful to these people.
My addiction to Mario Bros #3 has come back!
#35
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,437
- Joined: 2004-August-29
- Gender:Female
- Location:Switzerland
Posted 2007-September-17, 21:16
To make a shorter post:
I have (finally?) found a post of yours, Mike, that I agree with.
mike777 said:
1) It would be nice if we, the dues paying membership were told why our leaders have made the decision to stop junior bridge in the USA.
2) I think this whole discussion about posters thinking what players do in their spare time at these world events does not matter is naive at the extremes.
3) Since we seem to have almost no facts here, I can only assume we are not talking about someone having one beer at midnight or one 20 year old boy flirting with a 20 year old girl.
4) I just wonder is this all about that daily bulletin postings that the juniors gave goofy answers to? Does anyone remember this incident?
2) I think this whole discussion about posters thinking what players do in their spare time at these world events does not matter is naive at the extremes.
3) Since we seem to have almost no facts here, I can only assume we are not talking about someone having one beer at midnight or one 20 year old boy flirting with a 20 year old girl.
4) I just wonder is this all about that daily bulletin postings that the juniors gave goofy answers to? Does anyone remember this incident?
I have (finally?) found a post of yours, Mike, that I agree with.
My addiction to Mario Bros #3 has come back!
#36
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,817
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2007-September-17, 23:44
Elianna, you attended bridge camp and tell parents , at this point to not send their kids ? That is quite an indictment.
That sounds like an excellent reason to start defunding junior bridge in its present form.
As for you other point sounds like a good reason for me to post less, if my posts are not helping, me, let alone others.
That sounds like an excellent reason to start defunding junior bridge in its present form.
As for you other point sounds like a good reason for me to post less, if my posts are not helping, me, let alone others.
#37
- - - T98765432 AQT8
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,085
- Joined: 2005-June-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, NV
Posted 2007-September-18, 00:24
mike777, on Sep 18 2007, 12:44 AM, said:
Elianna, you attended bridge camp and tell parents , at this point to not send their kids ? That is quite an indictment.
That sounds like an excellent reason to start defunding junior bridge in its present form.
As for you other point sounds like a good reason for me to post less, if my posts are not helping, me, let alone others.
That sounds like an excellent reason to start defunding junior bridge in its present form.
As for you other point sounds like a good reason for me to post less, if my posts are not helping, me, let alone others.
And I presume if I went to a college I didn't like and recommend against it to any other parents who ask, they should be shut down? And how about a church? A bowling league? What if I don't enjoy myself on BBO, is that the end for Fred? I swear I don't know where you get this stuff.
I found it trivially easy to avoid any "bad stuff" that happens there, it almost exclusively happens in peoples' rooms so you just don't go in those rooms. I had a great time all three years I went, and didn't have so much as a beer at any of them. I don't mean to belittle Elianna's bad experience but what happened to one person one year at one camp is not automatically representative of the entire junior bridge program.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
#38
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,437
- Joined: 2004-August-29
- Gender:Female
- Location:Switzerland
Posted 2007-September-18, 00:42
I actually had a good time and liked Junior Camp. The reason I recommended against it is that the children of those who asked me about it were for the most part both under 18 and only knew the basics about playing bridge.
Neither of those categories fit me, but there were (VERY FEW) players at camp who fit into this category, and for the most part, they seemed to be left out of most activities, and while they weren't ostracized formally, they didn't feel part of the group. They ended up eating lunch/dinner either together, or with a few others who weren't part of any established cliques.
Completely agree with the sentiments here. I would not recommend a certain college I attended to any of the teenagers I know, but it was a great college, for certain students.
My point wasn't that Junior Camp SHOULD be shut down, my point was that there were reasons why people WHO HAD NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN JUNIOR PROGRAMS might feel that these were not worth supporting. Personally, I think that Junior Camp is great and would actually have been willing to recommend it to these parents if there were a change of (only some) personel there.
Neither of those categories fit me, but there were (VERY FEW) players at camp who fit into this category, and for the most part, they seemed to be left out of most activities, and while they weren't ostracized formally, they didn't feel part of the group. They ended up eating lunch/dinner either together, or with a few others who weren't part of any established cliques.
josh said:
And I presume if I went to a college I didn't like and recommend against it to any other parents who ask, they should be shut down?
Completely agree with the sentiments here. I would not recommend a certain college I attended to any of the teenagers I know, but it was a great college, for certain students.
My point wasn't that Junior Camp SHOULD be shut down, my point was that there were reasons why people WHO HAD NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN JUNIOR PROGRAMS might feel that these were not worth supporting. Personally, I think that Junior Camp is great and would actually have been willing to recommend it to these parents if there were a change of (only some) personel there.
My addiction to Mario Bros #3 has come back!
#39
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,437
- Joined: 2004-August-29
- Gender:Female
- Location:Switzerland
Posted 2007-September-18, 00:46
jdonn, on Sep 17 2007, 10:24 PM, said:
I don't mean to belittle Elianna's bad experience but what happened to one person one year at one camp is not automatically representative of the entire junior bridge program.
As I said, I actually enjoyed camp, met some nice people. Not being able to enter my room during the day, and later getting shuffled to another room was amusing, but I'm betting that other people might not find it so.
I also would bet that a certain person rushing a certain field and other people refusing to get on a bus probably have a lot more to do with Junior Camp losing support than my opinions.
My addiction to Mario Bros #3 has come back!
#40
- - - T98765432 AQT8
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,085
- Joined: 2005-June-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, NV
Posted 2007-September-18, 00:54
I know you didn't suggest the camp be shut down. But Mike seemed to interpret what you said to mean the entire program should not exist, so I was replying to that. I assume that the first time a 65 year old bridge player gets arrested at a bridge tournament, that will be the end of all senior events according to him.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.