[mrdct]

There are at least four countries (as recognised by the UN) in addition to the USA that are allowed to send multiple teams to the Bermuda Bowl. These are:

United Kingdom (England, Scotland and Wales);
Denmark (Denmark and Faroe Islands);
China (China, Hong Kong, Macao and one other debatable one); and
France (France, Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guyana, New Caledonia, French Polynesia and Reunion).

In practice I thing that it's only China and France out of these four that have managed to get multiple teams to a BB, VC or SB through their Zonal qualifier (in France's case four separate Zones are involved).

Of course the key difference here vis-a-vis the USA situation is that the sub-entities of these countries have some international profile in their own right and some degree of political autonomy.

I think there are plenty of countries with sufficient depth to be able to field a 2nd, 3rd or 4th team with realistic chances of making the quarter-finals. One only has to look at how close the national trials were in some of the contending countries to evidence this. But I don't think that is a reasonable justification for one country getting to send more than one team. With places like the Netherlands, France and China being quite likely to overtake the USA in terms of active membership in the near future, I think now is the time to revert to a "one country one team" structure rather than having to entertain claims for multiple teams from other countries in the future.

However, I'm happy to preserve the WBF recognition of "psuedo" countries like the ones noted above on a similar basis to how FIFA do it.

Another issue raised in this thread is the relative easy path that Australia has to the Berumda Bowl (essential only needing to finish top 2 out of Australia, New Zealand, New Caledonia and French Polynesia). I couldn't agree more and strongly believe that Zone 7 (South Pacific) ought to be disbanded and merged with Zone 6 (Pacific-Asia) with the top 3 or 4 teams from the PABF Championships getting the Bermuda Bowl berths. If you were going to rationalise things further, you could also look at breaking up BFAME (West Asia and Middle East) sending the Middle East teams to the African Zone and the West Asian teams to the Pacific-Asia Zone. There may also be some merit in moving Mexico to the Central America 7 Carribean Zone to at least give them some hope of qualifying; but this would probably leave Canada with too easy a path so I'm not sure how to get around that one, unless you get Canada to have a play-off against the CAC winner; a bit like FIFA organise the football world cup.

So the Bermuda Bowl Field could be something like:

Zone 1 (Europe): 6 teams
Zone 2 (Nth Am): 1.5 teams (USA to play-off vs Canada and loser of that plays-off against the winner of CAC)
Zone 3 (Sth Am): 2 teams
Zone 4 (CAC): 0.5 teams
Zone 5 (BFAME): disbanded
Zone 6 (PABF): 4 teams (expanded field including Pacific and West Asian teams)
Zone 7 (Pacific): disbanded
Zone 8 (Africa & Mid-East): 2 teams

Total: 16 teams.

This possibly a bit harsh on the expanded PABF which would go from 7 teams (this year not counting the host country the BB had Japan, Indonesia, Chinese Taipei, India, Pakistan, Australia and New Zealand). But I think a condensed more elite field will be better for the event. Remember the Olympiad is still open all countries and Zonal Championships are still significant and prestigious events, with the PABF Championships likely to be significantly enhanced.

[JanM]

Well, in Shanghai, Zone 1 had 18 teams (6 in each event); Zone 2 had 9 teams (3 in each event). Of the teams from Zone 1, 10 (56%) made the Quarterfinals, 4 (22%) made the Semifinals, 2 (11%) made the finals and one (6%) won. Of the teams from Zone 2, 8 (89%) made the Quarterfinals, 4 (44%) made the Semifinals, 3 (33%) made the Finals and 2 (22%) won. And you think that Zone 2 should have fewer teams in these events?
Granted, Zone 2 didn't do quite so well in the Bermuda Bowl, which is referenced in the title to this thread. But even there, 1 (33%) of the Zone 2 teams made each of the KO stages. Of the Zone 1 BB teams, 4 (66%) made the Quarterfinals, 2 (33%) made the Semifinals and one (17%) made the final. And if you want to limit the discussion to US teams, the percentages are even higher.

[matmat]

i don't really see a problem with the US sending two teams... send one that voted for bush and one that didn't... only way to represent the whole country, isn't it?

[mrdct]

JanM, on Oct 16 2007, 01:25 AM, said:

Well, in Shanghai, Zone 1 had 18 teams (6 in each event); Zone 2 had 9 teams (3 in each event). Of the teams from Zone 1, 10 (56%) made the Quarterfinals, 4 (22%) made the Semifinals, 2 (11%) made the finals and one (6%) won. Of the teams from Zone 2, 8 (89%) made the Quarterfinals, 4 (44%) made the Semifinals, 3 (33%) made the Finals and 2 (22%) won. And you think that Zone 2 should have fewer teams in these events?
Granted, Zone 2 didn't do quite so well in the Bermuda Bowl, which is referenced in the title to this thread. But even there, 1 (33%) of the Zone 2 teams made each of the KO stages. Of the Zone 1 BB teams, 4 (66%) made the Quarterfinals, 2 (33%) made the Semifinals and one (17%) made the final. And if you want to limit the discussion to US teams, the percentages are even higher.

For much the same reasons that Brazil doesn't get to send two teams to the FIFA World Cup, USA shouldn't get to field two teams in the Bermuda Bowl. Whilst the USA clearly has superior depth at its elite level, there are several other countries which could field Bermuda Bowl teams of quarter-final reaching quality too.

The fact that USA2 didn't make the quarter-finals this year has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my views on this matter.

With exception of sub-political entities such as England, Hong Kong, Guadeloupe, etc. that have traditionally competed in a variety of sports in their own right, I'm a firm believer in one team per country irrespective of the playing strength and depth of bridge talent in those countries.

I also think that where possible no country should have an easy ride into the Bermuda Bowl; hence my belief that my own country's qualification path should be more challenging and even if we don't manage to join Asia (which Australia has done for football qualification purposes) one team from Zone 7 is more than enough..

As for my suggested Bermuda Bowl field composition and Zone rationalisation, if Mexico were to compete as part of Central America & Carribean, that would only leave USA and Canada in Zone 2 so any more than two teams would obviously not be possible if countries are limited to one team each. The reason I've suggested 1.5 teams is that Canada should not have an automatic Bermuda Bowl berth.

Perhaps a better plan for the Americas would be to split it into two zones of roughly equal size and run two separate zonal championships to pick two teams from each and the respective third place teams can have a separate playoff to give five teams for the combined Americas. Some more analysis of bridge populations, resources and talent would need to be done, but if a few (or all) Carribean countries fell into North America, Miami would be pretty logical place to hold a zonal championship or perhaps a resort in the West Indies somwhere.

The Bermuda Bowl should have balanced representation of bridge populations from all over the world and every bridge playing country should have a reasonable but challenging qualification path; or at least be able to play in a meaningful qualification event that includes some "giants" of the game so they can see what they are up against.