I think Fred covered that with ample examples.

Perhaps the rules need to be amended, but that is for others and not at this time.

I think the one element lost in this discussion is a team dynamic.

Adding the “best pair” is arbitrary, violates the conditions of contest and is insulting to the Nickell team members.

Sometimes “chemistry” is at work, espcially in a game like bridge where ego reigns supreme. I have been asked by better (yes, there are a few hordes of) players to play, but for me, to play with such an individual or team mates, detracts from my pleasure of the game and the enjoyment I derive thereof.

Surely no one is better equipped to determine who would add value to their team than the team members themselves. How many baseball teams have one hot shot added who slugs a lot of home runs, but detracts from the overall?

The “best team” is a lofty goal. Sometimes that is the playerss who won, under onerous circumstances.

Viloating the rules at the eleventh hour to achieve a goal, is an affront to the players and the game.

This is one of the most fascinating and original concepts ever brought to my attention. I have a regional coming up Monday so I will have to postpone a serious answer tilll I can give it the thought it deserves. I must admit it would have a lot of local kicks but would lack in the universal glory of winning a world class event which I still consider the Stairway to Heaven.

And sometimes, the law is an ass.

I’ve also met several of the big team sponsor/players and as shocking as it seems, I’ve actually liked most of them. I’m always perfectly ready to assume a well-heeled sponsor is a horse’s patootie, but I’ve been proven wrong time after time. I resent them less than most of the folks on the outside wanting in on the riches.

And with opportunity comes ambition. And when added to power, comes self-interested finagling. I’ve seen too many youth sports teams with good prospects suddenly dump their coaching staffs so some power-grubbing beaurocrat opportunists can slide in, just in time to grab the golden ring for themselves. It’s as predictable as human greed can get. And big-time bridge has not been exempt from this in the past, as Bobby has noted. Frankly, I don’t trust just about ANY scheme that would have been created for replacing Nickell and Freeman. I’d rather dance with them that brung them to the dance, than look over the hill at who might be there. Remember, in the absence of a truly altruistic selection system (which might be impossible by definition), the team MIGHT have ended worse off for playing talent than Nickell and Freeman.

I appreciate Bobby’s internal struggle at the decline of American superiority, but we’ve seen it in other endeavours. We Canadians throw a hissy fit when we don’t win every global gold medal in hockey or curling. The USA basketball superiority was upended decades ago, reclaimed, and is once again under duress from the likes of Spain. English soccer has never recovered from the Fist of God. I could go on. It’s certainly laudable not to give into the tides of change, but to ignore the rising water everywhere is to risk perishing without trying other ways to better one’s shaky position.

The only way to weed out sponsors who are good enough to carry 2/7ths of their team’s action, is to find equally well-heeled money pools for the pros to dip into. It matters not that some of the best will play for their country’s pride and others won’t. As long as ‘the best’ includes players on the mercenary end of that divide, there can never be the equivalent of the American Dream Team.

Individual playing sponsors has become de rigeur in the pastime. It’s one of the things that’s made it difficult for the non-playing public to identify with Bridge in general. Not to disparage a good guy, but outside of the family and friends of Nick Nickell, who cares if NICKELL WINS CHAMPIONSHIP (AGAIN). The media doesn’t. I really believe the kickstart Ira Corn gave Bridge last century was fueled in large part with the team being called The Dallas Aces. If nothing else, it made their exploits newsworthy in Dallas, if nowhere else. (I might be overstating the local press the Aces got, but there were the most famous team ever … to non Bridge players)

Maybe we could generate town teams with funds achieved through advertising sales, the same way sports teams do. Or, I’d love to see a similar movement away from person-named teams to teams sponsored by organizations (I still think with my PR hat on, occasionally). The Coca-Cola Kibitzers versus the McDonald’s Macs would possibly generate enough publicity through the corporate parents to build up the money to make star-studded six-man teams, rather than fab fives plus one. That’s not to say that the Down South Doctors have to adhere to the “only the best” practice, if they so wish.

If the money can’t be raised via ‘traditional’ methods, than the playing sponsors will continue to fill the breach, rising tide or no.

”
c. Support only participants who are of Olympic and world
championship caliber and who possess the highest talent and
achievement as determined by trial competition and training.

d. Provide an equal opportunity to bridge athletes, coaches, trainers,
managers, administrators and officials to participate in amateur
bridge competition without discrimination on the basis of race,
color, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation, and with fair
notice and opportunity for a hearing to any bridge player, coach,
USBF BYLAWS 1/07 Page 2
trainer, manager, administrator, or official before declaring such
individual ineligible to participate. Notwithstanding the above, the
membership explicitly endorses the establishment of events
restricted by gender or gender combinations (e.g., Mixed;
Women’s)”

I respectfully submit these purpoeses, which are included in the by-laws presumably submitted to the IRS for tax exempt status, are not being met. When I look up the meaning of the word participant, I see synonoums including member, contributior, contestant. It seems to me that USBF has changed this meaning to team.

The ACBL should think about why it is subsidzing sponsered team.

And yes, though I do not know him, I wish for the best of health for Mr. Freeman.

Since I have not yet recovered from the humiliation of the Shanghai Witches Side Show at the 2008 World Championship, I don’t have much faith in the USBF. After threat of lawsuit against them and their individual members (via a wealthy sponsor’s interceding and financial backing in protection of the SW) — all charges were dropped and not an ounce of regret or apology by the brazen offenders. Hopefully, in Sao Paulo we will have no Obama malcontents making childish fools of themselves in similar fashion.

Before yesterday’s decision had appeared on the USBF site, I had already learned if it. I immediately wrote to my old friend, USBF President Billy Pollack, as I have never been a believer in secret votes. Everyone should be openly accountable for their action:

My letter:

Billy: Are you at liberty to reveal the names of the USBF TOURNAMENT COMMITTEE WHO CONVENED, REVIEWED THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND RECOMMENDED TO RETAIN ALL SIX PLAYERS as if the finals were played in the normal fashion?

Thank you

Judy Kay-Wolff

Billy’s prompt reply appears as follows:

Sure, Judy. Ask me a straight question, get a straight answer.

The Committee was John Sutherlin, Chair, Rose Meltzer, Henry Bethe, Jeff Polisner and John Solodar. We avoided other candidates who were judged to be too closely linked with the Nickell team (although obviously, everyone we would consider had some- connection). The committee’s vote was unanimous.

The USBF Board (which contains, by my count, three membres who are typically not sponsors or pros — me, Beatty, Joan; two pros — Hamman and Passell; and two sponsors — Jacobs and Moss), I’d say is well balanced. Per the Conditions, we have to accept or reject the comitteee’s recommendation, I recused Hamman, and asked the other members to vote. I got four responses so far, plus mine, all in favor of retaining Nickell-Freeman. So I won’t say it’s unanimous unless and until and I get the last vote.

We do intend to revisit the Conditions, and I have already begun that process, but it would have been horribly wrong, IMHO to retroactively change them.

I will compose a general statement in a few minutes.

Best regards to you and Bobby,

Bill P

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

At this point, I do believe they did the best they could with the cast of characters involved and the obvious detemination expressed to prevent a repeat performance in the future. However, with committees like these (with such unavoidably politically incestuous relationships with sponsors and pros who have much to gain or lose – especially with the subject individual/s) — it is a no-win situation for bridge. Most important is we move forward and prevent another debacle. My heart goes out to the Fleisher team who really got the @#X%! end of the stick!!!

However, my most distressing question (as explained on the site originally) — who was responsible for this original Condition of Contest — tantamount to quaranting both partners for one’s incapacity — JOINING THEM AT THE HIP! Seems like better alternatives were available.

Unquestionably the most important issue is that Dickie returns to good health and is at his best in Sao Paulo. My vehement position had nothing to do with the subject characters. In fact, I was a big Dickie Freeman Quiz Kid Fan and marveled in the sixtieis how he flawlessly totaled the scores at the tournaments leaving the players in awe of his talents. Norman and I had been friendly with Dickie and Louise for about forty years (being married about the same time). As to Nick — he is everybody’s’ hero.

All we can do at this point is hope the USBF plugs the flaws and wish both USA teams banner results!

Let us understand what, if anything, we should learn by this episode:

1. Practically thinking, the Fleisher team, obviously through no fault of its own, and from a bookmakers point of view, went from being perhaps a 2 to 5 underdog to realistically a 1 to 15 underdog. For those unfamiliar with gambling lingo that means that with the particular matchup of Fleisher’s six handed team against Nickell’s front four that Nickell would win approximately 15 out of 16 matches instead of approximately 5 out of 7 with both teams in tact.

2. Whether this is fair or not possibly is not the primary question, but rather just maybe we should consider this to be, as insurance companies write in their policies, an act of God.

3. However, rather than passing the blame to others (especially a deity) perhaps we should recognize that the writing of Conditions of Contest is a very tricky thing with several time worn caveats ever present:

A. Seeking to cover as many unpredictable events happening as thoroughly as practical.
B. Always, while expecting ethical compliance from every combatant, still addressing the possibility of untoward maneuvering, and, if so, how to detect it and, of course, prevent it.
C. Establishing before the fact, the overall goals involved in determining who wins and, very importantly, particularly with our complicated playing requirements, fulfilling various possibilities which could occur and the penalties, if any, for either non-compliance or perhaps only semi non-compliance.
D. In the event of unusual circumstances, (such as occurred here) whether there is any recommended mitigation of possible damage suggested or required from the team causing those circumstances to happen. In this case, of course, if the illness had occurred to any of 4 of the 6 players on the Nickell team the illness in itself would have provided the obvious solution, but alas with what actually happened, it didn’t. Note: At least 70+ years ago, when competitive high-level duplicate contract bridge team games came into existence only 5 players were allowed on each team, with the specific idea of, “if anyone gets incapacitated that team will have a built in substitute ready to play”. Approximately 10 years later, 5 players were expanded to 6, serving the tri purpose of endurance, possible illness and keeping partnerships intact.
E. Make no mistake that our recognition of sponsors or the less polite. but more graphic , description of players, as expert-challenged has geometrically made writing CoC’s that much more difficult. And what about those same players, perhaps on other less world class teams, being the best player(s) on that team? Since many problems remain unseen before the fact, perhaps we should announce general caveats to be applied. In this case a glaring example, at least to me, would be: Should we not consider what our laws regarding sponsors not having to play do to the team they do not have to play against?

4. What are we immediately going to do with a possible copy-cat rerun of what happened in White Plains? Do we have the capability of investigating possible ruses? At least in the White Plains conundrum no one had any doubt as to its authenticity. To me, it would be irresponsible not to immediately address this potential problem.

As a result of Dick Freeman’s illness, and his inability to play in the finals to determine USA2, the USBF, in accordance with its General Conditions of Contest, named a Tournament Committee to review the circumstances and recommend a course of action to the USBF Board. Led by John Sutherlin, the Committee met, and unanimously recommended that Nickell-Freeman be permitted to remain with their team. The USBF Board unanimously accepted the Committee’s recommendation, and USA2 in Sao Paulo will be the original six-handed Nickell team. We all wish Dick a full and speedy recovery.

Bill Pollack, USBF President

Thanks for your follow-up. Whether we see eye-to-eye on this or not, it is obvious to me that our differences will not reduce the respect I have for you and all your wondrous accomplishments for the communication you have created which has so greatly enabled and thus enhanced the world of competitive bridge.

There are perhaps only two episodes necessary for me to illustrate the reasons for my reluctance to trust the USBF and their judgments.

1. Their handling of the Shanghai Seven after the Shangai World Bridge Championship in 2007.
The Ladies team and their Captain produced the “We did not vote for Bush” sign at the closing awards presentation, specifically violating a rule which they had all had signed at least one time to not violate in order for them to be eligible to both represent our country and, of course, play in the Championship. While not important to some and even funny to others, it took the elegance, not to mention to lessen the significance of the formal occasion of honoring the medal winners. The WBF had seen fit to try (and almost always succeeding up to then) keeping all world politics away from the competitive world of bridge. The WBF’s motto is Bridge for Peace which symbolizes how the players of all countries not only mingle, but competitively play the game against each other, in spite of the obvious vast differences between some of the competing countries political policies.

In any event the USA needed to let the rest of the world know how seriously we agreed with their intent and would demand discipline in enforcing what was the law. Instead, after the USBF had announced and then arranged through their lawyer a trial to be held, if necessary, to decide on what punishment to inflict, then when the Shangai Seven’s lawyers appeared in front of the USBF BOD’s with veiled or perhaps not so veiled threats against the USBF members, our group put their tails between their legs and begged off with not even a whimper. To me that was a scandolous ending which was a deep embarrassment to me since I had a small part in developing that very important, successful and necessary WBF rule.

2. While President of the WBF, my office negotiated and developed a WBF World Championship in Albuquerque, NM in the fall of 1994, some 8 years after a previous WBF Championship was held in Miami in 1986. From 1994 on, the USA did not have another WBF championship and in spite of the later formation of the USBF, I think in the late 1990’s (or early 2000’s), they continued to refuse to have another WBF World Championship on US soil. I tried many forms of persuasion, but to no avail. They claimed it was virtually impossible for many reasons, which fact continued to strain our relationship with the WBF, Jose Damiani of Paris, France, President, and the rest of the whole world. Add to that the hostile attitude the ACBL BOD’s WBF representatives showed toward the WBF in regard to our dues paying and other general policies of the WBF and thus chaos between Zone 2 (North America) and the rest of the world, particularly Zone 1 (Europe) was the order of the day. Finally after much consternation and hand wringing the USBF agreed to at least try. Presto Chango, magically in a very short period of time Philadelphia, 2010 was agreed to with other sites, notably Las Vegas standing by. At least to me, all that needed to be done was go look for a site, find the not so steep financial backing and get it accomplished. Why did it take 15 years for this to be done? Shouldn’t Zone 2 have shown more responsibility to the WBF and to bridge in general, especially so since the USA is the only individual country to be allowed 2 teams instead of 1 in all of the different categories of WBF competition?

Fred, that is why I have little faith and confidence in what the USBF stands for. Being a personal confirmed optimist, I am hoping that will change.

Good luck in whatever great new innovative services you continue to bring to our wonderful game. You, perhaps as much as anyone else ever has, have contributed so much to our hope for the future.

Bobby Wolff

To Bobby: You had two questions for me:

Question 1: “why don’t you also mention the horrible conflicts of interest present by the USBF committee who makes these decisions?”

I did touch on this subject in my original post in this thread, but I will try to clarify my position…

Because I believe that intelligent, well-meaning people of good character are capable of rising above potential conflicts of interest and doing the right thing. I assume you believe this too (about Joan Gerard for example) because you say “Except for Joan Gerard who has always been above suspicion”.

Furthermore, I assume you believe that you yourself would do the right thing if you were on the Committee despite your potential conflicts of interest. For the record I believe that about myself and this makes it easy for me to believe the same thing about my fellow bridge players on the USBF Board (most who I also happen to count among my friends).

Please do not tell me that Joan (and perhaps you) do not have potential conflicts of interest because she is neither a professional player nor a sponsor (same might be true for you – perhaps you no longer consider yourself to be a professional player). We all have potential conflicts of interest because we all have close friends (and/or hated enemies) who are either professional players or sponsors (to say nothing of the fact that all of us have personal relationships with one or more members of the Nickell Team).

The world of high-level bridge in the USA is a small and incestuous place. IMO it is impossible to put together a Committee consisting of those among “our best and our brightest” to make the big decisions without every single Committee member having multiple potential conflicts of interest inherant to almost every decision of consequence.

The best we can hope for is that such people will be able to act responsibly despite these potential conflicts. Perhaps I am naive, but for me it is easy to hope and expect this to happen.

Question 2: “but can you truthfully say that you expect this Committee to show the leadership necessary to right our ship?”

100% truthfully I believe that this Committee will try to do the right thing regarding the Nickell Team and that they will be able to overcome any potential conflicts of interest. My answer to question 1 hopefully explains why I believe this, but a more cynical way to justify the same answer is this:

The whole world is watching. Under the reasonable assumption that these people care about their personal reputations in the bridge world, it would be insane for them to allow their potential conflicts of interest to sway their decision. Whatever you might think about these people, I suspect you will agree with me that they are not insane.

But about “showing the leadership to right our ship”, I will have to think about that one. I believe that by and large the USBF Board consists of good and smart people who are willing to listen to the ideas of others. I believe some of them have strong leadership skills. I believe that all of them care deeply about the future of bridge in the USA.

However, I can’t say for sure that our ship needs righting, if so to what extent it is off course, if so how it could be righted, or if so if it is even possible for any Committee to right the ship without creating side effects that may well be worse.

For me the Nickell issue is not about ship-righting. It is about following the existing rules. IMO ship-righting should wait for another time (and another discussion).

It seems we do not see eye-to-eye on a lot of this, but I thank you (and Judy) for taking the time to try to make your positions clear.

Fred Gitelman

Thanks for your kind words. Without at least a little encouragement it becomes distasteful to continue making enemies.

The world apparently has been changing right in front of us. I, at least had a chance to be alive during a period which has been renamed, The Greatest Generation, beginning around the time of World War II. I think that name is perfect for that time period since, at least the way it seemed to me, pride, a taste for unconditional victory, honor, patroitism and big efforts permeated the atmosphere where now politics, chicanery, dirty filthy money, and power are our gods.

World history is full of the bad group of the above adjectives, but perhaps a miracle will come along and we will become a proud meritocracy.

Thanks for writing. You are much appreciated.

Love,

Bobby