[JoAnneM]

Advantages to having a pro organization:

1. I would know where to go if I wanted to hire one.

2. I would know who to contact if I wanted to set up speakers for a tournament I was managing.

3. I could look at the credentials of various pros available for hire, the tournaments they were planning on attending, and their negotiable rate schedule (see #1). Of course pros with booked clients probably wouldn't be on that list.

4. New pros could find jobs!

5. A rating program by clients would provide feedback, especially for the newer pros, and would help build their clientele.

I don't see why there would have to be any rigorous testing or qualifications - just a hefty annual fee. With a resume required the chaff would quickly fall by the wayside.

Disadvantages to a pro organization:

1. Established pros would probably resent it, at least for a while.

2. "Fake" or "wannabe" pros would soon be exposed - bad for them.

Disclaimer - I am not a wannabe pro, nor am I looking to hire a pro. However I have dealt behind the scenes at Regionals with lining up pros to speak. They have always been a charming and generous group.

[CSGibson]

Actually, speaking to the points in Joanne's post above, there probably is a niche available for an organisation like that, or even for a private person who wants to design a service for pros to help attract clients (advertising), arrange lectures and lessons, etc. Sort of like an agent, taking a percentage of referrals for the work involved in keeping bridge pros working.

[jdonn]

I really don't think you have named any reason at all that established pros would want to start or join such an organization. And without them there is no credible organization.

[Phil]

(Note: Original quote reordered)

Quote

Advantages to having a pro organization:

1.  I would know where to go if I wanted to hire one. and 3.  I could look at the credentials of various pros available for hire, the tournaments they were planning on attending, and their negotiable rate schedule (see #1).  Of course pros with booked clients probably wouldn't be on that list. and 4.  New pros could find jobs!

Possible for some lower level gigs but I bet this would be negligible. The high profile assignments wouldn't change at all.

Quote

2.  I would know who to contact if I wanted to set up speakers for a tournament I was managing.

Good reason, although in reality I'm pretty sure there are existing relationships between tournament managers and pro players that wouldn't need a registry.

Quote

5.  A rating program by clients would provide feedback, especially for the newer pros, and would help build their clientele.

Eh, word of mouth would suffice I think.

Quote

I don't see why there would have to be any rigorous testing or qualifications - just a hefty annual fee.

Hefty annual fee for what?

Quote

With a resume required the chaff would quickly fall by the wayside. and 2.  "Fake" or "wannabe" pros would soon be exposed - bad for them

I would suggest the chaff doesn't get hired much. You seem to be trying to address a non-existent problem.

Quote

Disadvantages to a pro organization:

1.  Established pros would probably resent it, at least for a while.

Longer than 'awhile' I'm afraid.

[CSGibson]

jdonn, on Mar 17 2009, 11:31 PM, said:

I really don't think you have named any reason at all that established pros would want to start or join such an organization. And without them there is no credible organization.

I can think of some reasons:

Group benefits for members (negotiating health care, disability, etc that the "fee" goes towards)

Advertising (give each a private page with a calendar, acting as a go-between for pros and area clubs/tournaments)

Basically, pros would have an added safety net, and would be able to farm out some of the responsibility for selling themselves, which is not necessarily something that comes easily to all bridge pros.

A lot of Joanne's reasons seem to be reasons that someone would come to a service as a client, rather than a pro, but any organization would have to meet needs for both.

[barmar]

ACBL has a group health plan that members can join. I expect that most bridge pros in the US would be members of the ACBL, so they wouldn't need another association. And if they're over 50, as most bridge players are, there's also the AARP.

It seems like the ACBL could also provide advertising space, although I expect they would charge for it.

What benefits do professional sports organizations provide to their members? 99% of PGA members are not the players you see on the pro golf tours, they're just the pros who man the shops and teach lessons at golf courses and country clubs. They don't get much prize money or sponsorship deals.

[Echognome]

I think it is akin to the discussions we had on having BBF supporting pro bridge. It only makes sense if the organization is a market maker. It would be in the interest of the pros if the organization could assist in finding new clients, assisting with the administration of the clients (scheduling, securing fees, etc.), and marketing. It would be in the interest of the clients if the organization could assist them in finding quality instructors or players or both to suit their needs both in terms of the pro's qualifications, but also geographic needs. I can think of a client who might want a local pro to assist with their development and play in the club and perhaps to arrange for a different pro for some tournaments that may have a stronger ability when it comes to playing ability. It would be even better if the organization could assist with the communication between these two professionals.

I think these would be the strongest reasons to have an organization and perhaps an organization like the ACBL could create a subdivision if it desired, but I don't know if they have any interest in it. I think it would be very important to make the organization a voluntary one and be careful not to have a conflict of interest (such as requiring pros to register or adding on any additional fees for pros to play). I doubt it will ever happen, but I certainly could see a use for such an organization.

[peachy]

I've read the comments here. My question: Why would we ["we" = non-pros and non-clients] be interested in getting the pros organized? If the pros wanted to get organized and saw some benefits in that for them or the clients/sponsors, they would have established an organization long ago.

[blackshoe]

So we can control and exploit them, of course!

[Phil]

Echognome, on Mar 18 2009, 06:57 PM, said:

I think it is akin to the discussions we had on having BBF supporting pro bridge. It only makes sense if the organization is a market maker. It would be in the interest of the pros if the organization could assist in finding new clients, assisting with the administration of the clients (scheduling, securing fees, etc.), and marketing. It would be in the interest of the clients if the organization could assist them in finding quality instructors or players or both to suit their needs both in terms of the pro's qualifications, but also geographic needs. I can think of a client who might want a local pro to assist with their development and play in the club and perhaps to arrange for a different pro for some tournaments that may have a stronger ability when it comes to playing ability. It would be even better if the organization could assist with the communication between these two professionals.

I think these would be the strongest reasons to have an organization and perhaps an organization like the ACBL could create a subdivision if it desired, but I don't know if they have any interest in it. I think it would be very important to make the organization a voluntary one and be careful not to have a conflict of interest (such as requiring pros to register or adding on any additional fees for pros to play). I doubt it will ever happen, but I certainly could see a use for such an organization.

I totally agree with an organization (like BBO) being a market maker for teaching. There is a real disconnect between new players who want to pay to learn and teachers that need students.

Pro play is more on a word of mouth basis and regulating it seems wrong, but I'm sure there's exceptions.

That being said, if pro play comes out of a teaching organization, then that's a different beast.

[whereagles]

The_Hog, on Mar 18 2009, 01:03 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 18 2009, 12:26 AM, said:

Maybe it's from starting to play so young and being so sick of "it's so nice to see young people playing bridge!" about fifty thousand times a day. Also the "you would be so nice for my granddaughter!" comments, notwithstanding that the granddaughter could have been anywhere from 6 to 38 years old.

Now what if grandaughter were a stunning blonde nymphomaniac with big knockers, whose father owned a pub?

Someone you know, Ron?

[barmar]

peachy, on Mar 19 2009, 12:40 AM, said:

I've read the comments here. My question: Why would we ["we" = non-pros and non-clients] be interested in getting the pros organized? If the pros wanted to get organized and saw some benefits in that for them or the clients/sponsors, they would have established an organization long ago.

If there's some form of accreditation done by the organization, potential clients and students are protected from unqualified pros.

Also, if the organization provides marketing services, it makes it easier to find a pro when you want one. But I guess if the pros were having trouble getting found, they would see this as a benefit to themselves and formed the organization, as you say.

[JLOL]

As a pro I would not want to join one of these organizations

[jdonn]

I continue to believe, confirmed by several recent posts, pros have no motivation to join an organization like this. It sounds great for clients, terrible for pros.

[the hog]

whereagles, on Mar 20 2009, 12:08 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Mar 18 2009, 01:03 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 18 2009, 12:26 AM, said:

Maybe it's from starting to play so young and being so sick of "it's so nice to see young people playing bridge!" about fifty thousand times a day. Also the "you would be so nice for my granddaughter!" comments, notwithstanding that the granddaughter could have been anywhere from 6 to 38 years old.

Now what if grandaughter were a stunning blonde nymphomaniac with big knockers, whose father owned a pub?

Someone you know, Ron?

I wish.

[H_KARLUK]

About professionalism I found such interesting things when i used google. Thanks to (SLM) online training module coordinated by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, USA.

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/tutorials/pr...alism/prof.html

Details :
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/tutorials/pr...m/criteria.html
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/tutorials/pr...sibilities.html
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/tutorials/pr...cteristics.html

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/tutorials/pr...sibilities.html
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/tutorials/pr...mpetencies.html
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/tutorials/pr.../education.html

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/tutorials/pr...sm/support.html
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/tutorials/pr...ism/issues.html

I liked those :
"Professionals have a high degree of self-control of their behavior and are governed by a code of ethics. "
"Professionals are expected to establish a special relationship with clients or patrons."
"Professionals are expected to have a lack of self-interest."

"They can work independently and charge fees or they can be part of an organization."

So I think World Bridge Professionals Organisation is not an utopia. Garry Kasparov - Soviet Chess Superstar in past guided and afterwards they established a pro organisation apart from World Chess Federation.

[PeterGill]

QUOTE (jdonn @ Mar 18 2009, 12:26 AM)
Maybe it's from starting to play so young and being so sick of "it's so nice to see young people playing bridge!" about fifty thousand times a day. Also the "you would be so nice for my granddaughter!" comments, notwithstanding that the granddaughter could have been anywhere from 6 to 38 years old.

or could be .....

Back in the 1980s I was playing against Mrs Kidman and her partner
in Sydney. Her partner said: "Wouldn't these two nice
young men be ideal for your daughters Nicole and Antonia?"
We failed to follow that up. This was before Nicole moved to Hollywood.

Peter Gill
Sydney

[dicklont]

H_KARLUK, on Mar 20 2009, 06:44 AM, said:

Garry Kasparov - Soviet Chess Superstar in past guided and afterwards they established a pro organisation apart from World Chess Federation.

And the chess world has not yet recovered from that.

When there were two world championship titles many lost interest in either.

[kenrexford]

If there were an organization of bridge pros, this could be interesting.

On the one hand, they could be called a "bridge pro union." That might get them special treatment in word but nothing in practice from the government. Of course, they would be really liked a lot in speeches.

On the other hand, if the organization is seen as more of a white collar thing, focusing on the client base, then the "bridge pro goup" might get bailout money. The downside would be that the bridge czar might second-guess bridge decisions too much, and Congress might seize the masterpoints won, especially considering the high payout in Flight A compared with Flight C games.

I think, actually, that focusing on the high presence of foreign nationals in the U.S. would be the best idea. Nancy Pelosi would then probably petition the ACBL successfully for some great benefits to hiring bridge professionals. I would imagine, for instance, that a pair with at least one pro would be exempt from strict enforcement of any of the rules, such that your bridge pro partner could take full advantage of your hesitations and could lead out of turn when you have no idea what to lead. In fact, if you want to play in a lower bracket with a pro, you just give him a fake ACBL number, and the ACBL does not check it for verification, even if the same person is sitting at table 5 North and at table 7 West.

[H_KARLUK]

dicklont, on Mar 20 2009, 10:20 AM, said:

H_KARLUK, on Mar 20 2009, 06:44 AM, said:

Garry Kasparov - Soviet Chess Superstar in past guided and afterwards they established a pro organisation apart from World Chess Federation.

And the chess world has not yet recovered from that.

When there were two world championship titles many lost interest in either.

Sorry, we disagree. To me "competition and alternatives" are two must "to improve". It's under fair standards. No matter win or lose. Moreover I am pretty sure Chess rankings mathematically firm than Bridge rankings. Sad to say that they've more players, kibbers, rewards with most powerful online servers and softwares.

I amateurly like and fully respect to both nice games as mind sports, anyways it's a truth that at least for now "Chess" has a superiority when I compare with Bridge.