Posted 2007-September-20, 10:44
Jan:
First: Thank you for all the work you do for bridge. Administration and making things look easy is a thankless task, especially for someone who would rather "be there" herself (and face it, who is in bridge to not play bridge?) I'd like to thank you for all the work you do specifically for the USBF, but I have to admit that I can't. Something about not being USAnian...
Second: one of the things you do for bridge is participate in silly low-level discussions with regular bridge players and TDs. And unlike some world-class experts I have discussed with, you listen, think about the reply and address it. This makes a nice change from "stay on message" politics.
Third: I appreciate your civility, given that we seem to be on opposite ends of every discussion :-).
To the point: I agree with everything you have said. And were we talking about the International Fund, I would be right behind you. And I realize that International Bridge is expensive, but so are international band tours (for something in my experience). If the Junior Fund is to be the Junior International Fund, fine; label it that way and let the punters drop their dosh should they wish. But if it's just the "Junior Fund", and 90% of it is used for subsidising International play, then the criticism is accurate - it goes to the elite 20 or so.
Maybe that is what we want for the junior fund - but many would, I believe, want 100 more 30-year-old club players in 5 years than one or two more 30-year-old pros at close-to-BB level. And for that, the Junior Fund should be spent in a totally different way. Does that mean that the Internationalists will need to find another source of the money to do the work? Yes. Is that worse for bridge than the fact that I am regularly the near-youngest player in any tournament I attend (at nearly 40)? I don't know. Is it possible to change that, even if we threw money at it? Well, what we've tried so far has been brilliant; maybe paying the international funds is the best thing we can do for junior bridge after all.
As far as conduct goes, I think that, frankly, boys will be boys (and girls will be girls). Anybody remember Broadway Billy Eisenberg? Or stories about the traditional celebration of the winners of the ACBL Mixed Pairs - back when a lot of bridge players were my age? Or what the "third session" was before we instituted Midnight knock-outs? And maybe it's just my curling heritage (anyone who even thought about putting up a curling rink without a bar attached would have been, and would be, certifiable), but what do we do after the game as it is? Go out to the bar. When I was "a junior" (grad studies, I was actually about 27, but all my colleagues were real juniors), after the game we went to the bar and played bridge for a couple of hours over a jug or two (Please note: legal age in Ontario is 19 - nobody broke the law). In fact, the final game of our University club every term was *held* in a bar - and 5 tables ran up a pretty good tab over 3.5 hours.
The problem that the CBF had with its conduct code (for juniors in the international program) was primarily over the "no shared rooms with mixed genders". How do you become International-calibre? You play. A lot. In tournaments with great players. You get recognized by the experts, and they start playing with you and arranging games for you with better players. This all costs money - and a large part of it is accomodation. So what do you do? What people - even non-juniors - have done since 193x; room up - sometimes more to a room than there is bedspace. That works fine, if you're male. There's always a whole team or 6 of you to share room costs. But there are few junior females. And fewer still want to do the expert thing. And if it costs an extra $50 a night over your male competitor, because you're two-to-a-room instead of 5 or 6, you don't go to as many tournaments. So you aren't as good, and you aren't percieved as being as good even as you are, either. So much for encouraging high-level Women's bridge.
Never mind that in one case I know of, according to the CoConduct, a pair would have had to have separate rooms on the road - even though they were living in the same house, at university, the rest of the year!
Don't get me started on the (thankfully, aborted) proposed ACBL regulation that would put a member on disciplinary probation if they either drank while under 21 at a bridge tournament or offered a drink to someone under 21. Remember, legal age where I am is 18, and I had my first drink, with my parents' permission and supervision, when I was 7. Propriety, schmopriety - this is puritanism, and "protect the children", and I'm sick of it.
I'd say the same thing to the Junior team that I am now saying to you and Chip:
Have a wonderful trip. Bridge first, of course, let nothing interfere with that; and play well; but have a good time in Shanghai, not just at the table, behind the screen.
Michael (oh, and don't beat up on the Canadians too badly, eh?)
Long live the Republic-k. -- Major General J. Golding Frederick (tSCoSI)
Help
Funny, that looks like some Italy matches during their EC. They have what it take to play 100% for the whole session.
