World Bridge Team Selection – Its Methods, Pitfalls and Innuendos

I wanted to share with you some interesting, candid thoughts by the celebrated Editor of the International Bridge Press Association (IBPA), John Carruthers, in his June 2010 Editorial.   It gives one much to consider by calling a spade a spade and openly discusses many controversial views as to what is best (for the game itself, the country and/or the individuals involved).

Because many of you are merely interested bridge players and not privileged to access the IBPA, I thought you would enjoy the frank outlook of Canadian, John Carruthers.  He really covers several touchy subjects.  John mentions the non-democratic hand picked teams issue and also takes swipes at the USBF and professionalism.   But after all, is that not what modern day bridge is all about?????

It’s that time of year again – Team Trials. In the matter of Zonal Trials for Bermuda Bowl qualification, expediency and financial considerations sometimes play a part, especially in Europe and North America. The European Team Championships are now held in even-numbered years, despite the fact that the Bermuda Bowl for which they are used as a qualification process will not be held for 15 months or so. Is that a problem? Perhaps not for the NBOs. In practice, it could be a problem for some players because the teams qualify as NBOs, not individuals, so it is quite possible that a team qualifying through the European Championship will not appear in the Bermuda Bowl with the same personnel, and this sometimes happens. Additionally, a team may be more ‘in-form’ coming off qualification than in 15 months’ time. Why does the EBL do it this way? Ever since the introduction of the Open European Championships, it was felt that those championships should be held in non-Rosenblum (odd-numbered) years to ease the financial and time burden on people who can attend only one big event per year. So they fit the European Team Championships into the even-numbered years. The process has its pros and cons and you could argue the case either way.

What about the United States Bridge Federation? The USBF does things a little differently from the Europeans, and even their Open Trials are different from their Women’s and Senior Trials. Both the Women’s and Seniors choose their two teams in the year of the event for which they qualify. However, there are two separate Trials for USA1 and USA2 in the Bermuda Bowl, one this year and one next year. Why should this be? Regardless of the rationale, having two Trials appears to support the view that the professionals, who dominate the USBF Board of Directors, desire two paydays rather than one. That may not be the case, but that’s how it looks.

For individual NBO selections, there are basically two methods of choice: democratic and autocratic. It is difficult to argue with either, since their chief proponents are the USA and Italy, respectively, winners of a combined 39 Bermuda Bowls and Olympiads (everyone else has won just 13 combined) since 1950. Italy is the avatar of the autocratic methodology, Carl’Alberto Perroux dictating the makeup of the Blue Team in the 50s and 60s and Maria Theresa Lavazza choosing the Lavazza Team lately. The USA has always had a democratic process to choose its representatives, whether by pairs trials (in the early days) or team trials (since the 1970s).

Both NBOs get it right in their own selection process. Not many (perhaps no other) countries have the depth of talent the USA has, and thus, in any given year, four or five teams could win their Trials and be a co-favourite for the world title; a handful of other countries could produce two competitive teams. On the other hand, why should Italy take a chance on an upset in a team trials when they know they can produce a co-favourite for a world title without such a process interfering?

The rest of us have to make do as best we can, with some picking a non-playing captain and giving him (almost) free rein, with others holding completely democratic open trials, still others finding a middle ground. Sweden has got it right for them, giving their NPC, much as a national football team manager, the freedom to choose his own team, based on selection tournaments and compatibility.  Other countries using a completely-democratic process have it wrong, with too small a base of world-class players to make an open teams championship winner the best choice.

So, who will qualify for the Bermuda Bowl in Europe and the USA? We’re going out on a limb, making predictions. It is wonderful to see so many teams with really young players and we predict that they will come to the fore this year.  For Europe: Poland, Italy, Sweden, Israel, England, Netherlands; for the USA: Diamond. You will notice that all these teams are relatively young, with Balicki, Lauria, Fallenius and Muller the closest we can come to “Grand Old Men”, not that any of them is ready for the old folks’ home just yet. Another group from which one or more qualifiers could come in Europe: Bulgaria, France, Germany, Norway, Russia, Turkey. In the USA, everyone has to overcome Nickell to win.