[JanM]

This is an attempt both to solicit ideas for how to recruit, train and select players for the U21 event at the 2010 World Junior Championship and to get expressions of interest from players who will be eligible for the event. I'm sure there are countries other than the US who have the same issue, but there are some ways in which the US is different, so I'll limit to our issues.
Some background facts:

• There will be a World Junior Championship in 2010, but we don't know where or exactly when; it may be held in conjunction with the Open World Championship.
  
• The WJC will include an event for U21 teams, which means players all of whom turn 21 no earlier than 1/1/2010.
  
• The US is entitled to two U21 teams, as well as two U26 teams (please let's not get sidetracked into whether this is right or wrong ).
  
• The U26 teams will be selected by a team trials, probably immediately preceding the summer 2009 NABC.
  
• Right now, I have contact information for only about 5 or 6 eligible players.

Given that:
1. Are you an eligible player who thinks s/he would want to play in the U21 WJC? If you are, please send me an email (marteljan at gmail dot com) with your name, birth year & email address.
2. If you were the USBF Junior Committee and Board of Directors what would you do to find & train these teams?
I'm actually interested in wide-ranging discussion here, but just to get things started, some suggestions that have been made are:

• Run a Trials for U21 teams at the same time as the U26 Trials
  
• Run a Trials for U21 teams at some other time during the 2009 Summer NABC
  
• Run a Trials for U21 teams at the 2009 Fall NABC/2010 Spring NABC
  
• Hold training sessions on BBO that are open to any US player in the right age group, then select teams based on performance in these training sessions
  
• Hold training sessions on BBO then have a Team Trials sometime in 2010 (when? one possibility I've thought of is at the end of our 2010 Open Team Trials, which will be the end of June)
  
• Hold training sessions on BBO then have a Team Trials also on BBO (what do we do about security? Does it matter?)

Caveat: We do want to hear from you, whether you're eligible to play or not, but of course the final decisions will be made by the USBF Junior committee and Board.

Jan Martel, this time writing in a quasi official capacity as USBF Tournament Committee Chair

[mtvesuvius]

Idk about U26 players, however I do know/have a team put together for any sort of U21 trials. I suggest having some training BBO sessions (There would be 6 on the tm... Would this change things?) then Trials at the Summer NABC, I don't really care when you make them, however to increase participation, I recommend that you do not schedule it at the same time as the youth NABC. Maybe the 1st weekend? I am strongly opposed to having the trials on BBO, as this would be tough to coordinate, and is extremely prone to cheating, especially with AIM/MSN and Text messaging etc... Who are the team Coaches? I will email you the detailed info, Jan... BTW, 2 U21 teams... Wow. I suggest maybe contacting Patty Tucker here, but I don't know of too many real good USA U21s. Maybe Fred could post a little note about this on the BBO News, this might help somewhat .

[hrothgar]

I expect the following suggestion to be about as popular as a lead pipe to the head, however:

The first thing that I would do is move away from a format of selecting teams and towards a format where you selected pairs. I normally favor systems where the selection criteria mirror the conditions of contest as closely as possible. However, I think that the benefits to cherry picking the top pairs across a variety of teams is likely to outweight the these types of effects.

I understand theories about team spirit and the like. Personally, I place a lot of weight behind partnership harmony. However, I think that pairs on a team should be able to get along with one another. If they can't... well that's when the captain starts benching folks.

If it were me, I'd start with some kind of filter or qualifying event designed to weed the field down to 24 pairs as so. (Said filter could very well be a teams event or what have you).

Run a fairly grueling two day long pairs event designed to select the top 6 pairs.
Tell those 6 pairs to form themselves into two good teams.
Tell them if they can't sort things out for themselves, they'll be assigned at random.

The second thing that I'd do is adopt precisely the same set of convention regulations that get used during the actual event.

[mtvesuvius]

hrothgar, on Jan 29 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

I expect the following suggestion to be about as popular as a lead pipe to the head, however:

The first thing that I would do is move away from a format of selecting teams and towards a format where you selected pairs. I normally favor systems where the selection criteria mirror the conditions of contest as closely as possible. However, I think that the benefits to cherry picking the top pairs across a variety of teams is likely to outweight the these types of effects.

I understand theories about team spirit and the like. Personally, I place a lot of weight behind partnership harmony. However, I think that pairs on a team should be able to get along with one another. If they can't... well that's when the captain starts benching folks.

If it were me, I'd start with some kind of filter or qualifying event designed to weed the field down to 24 pairs as so. (Said filter could very well be a teams event or what have you).

Run a fairly grueling two day long pairs event designed to select the top 6 pairs.
Tell those 6 pairs to form themselves into two good teams.
Tell them if they can't sort things out for themselves, they'll be assigned at random.

The second thing that I'd do is adopt precisely the same set of convention regulations that get used during the actual event.

This is actually a good suggestion, but I will probably be playing with more than 1 partner on the team... The trouble is that if any bad pair or pair that is disliked is in the top 12, then we have a problem. Personally, I would like to be able to have a pre-determined team that I can practice with and we can train together as opposed to having a pool of pairs, and not knowing my team. What if 2 pairs what the same pair? This is a good idea but could present real problems imo.

I strongly agree that the trials regulations be the EXACT same as the WJC.

[uday]

Lets put up a lobby news item and see if we can get the U21s to contact you.

I think the Trials should be held online, proctored - it would be much easier for people to be able to attend, i think.

[mtvesuvius]

uday, on Jan 29 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

I think the Trials should be held online, proctored - it would be much easier for people to be able to attend, i think.

How can you proctor online tournements? Maybe send an ACBL Tournement director to the person's house? I guess that would make sense .

[jdonn]

hrothgar, on Jan 29 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

The first thing that I would do is move away from a format of selecting teams and towards a format where you selected pairs.  I normally favor systems where the selection criteria mirror the conditions of contest as closely as possible.  However, I think that the benefits to cherry picking the top pairs across a variety of teams is likely to outweight the these types of effects.

I understand theories about team spirit and the like.  Personally, I place a lot of weight behind partnership harmony.  However, I think that pairs on a team should be able to get along with one another.  If they can't... well that's when the captain starts benching folks.

There was a time I agreed with this. Then when I played on the team, and we won despite being underdogs, I realized how wrong I was. Team unity is gigantic, and doing this is a huge mistake AFAIC.

hrothgar, on Jan 29 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

The second thing that I'd do is adopt precisely the same set of convention regulations that get used during the actual event.

Now THAT should be done, clearly, and yet I think in the past it inexplicably hasn't been.

[olien]

I think the trials should be a team format because of the reasons suggested by JDonn. The trials for the 2006 U21 World Championships was a pairs qualification. We ended up qualifying, and basically said hi and shook hands with the other qualifying pairs. Basically, we showed up in Thailand not knowing our team mates. Team spirit is of the highest importance. Never under-estimate that.

P.S. I think the trials (whatever format) for the U21 and U26 should NOT be concurrent because then you may not get the best teams for both events.

[awm]

There really are very few people eligible for this event. While I agree with some of the ideas others have posted in the context of something like the U26 teams where there are a fair number of players available, it seems likely to me that every American under twenty-one who has devoted a serious amount of time to playing duplicate bridge can probably be on one of the two teams!

With this in mind, I'd start by having some sort of training sessions on BBO. If the number of people who attend these sessions is not much more than twelve, then probably the best we can do is to have the folks running the sessions select a team.

If there seem to be substantially more than twelve interested players then I'd go with something closer to the hrothgar approach.

I'll check with the UCLA bridge club members and see who's eligible/interested, and forward their email addresses to you.

[JanM]

mtvesuvius, on Jan 29 2009, 01:57 PM, said:

uday, on Jan 29 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

I think the Trials  should be held online, proctored - it would be much easier for people to be able to attend, i think.

How can you proctor online tournements? Maybe send an ACBL Tournement director to the person's house? I guess that would make sense .

I think that we could do this by having players play at a local bridge club where the director would wander by occasionally to check that the player isn't talking on a phone or IM'ing. In a world where we all have easy internet access and laptops, I don't think it would be hard to find a club within at most an hour's drive for each player.

[TimG]

I attended ACBL's bridge camp for juniors/junior trials in Boston in 1990. Although I was 22 at the time, it was the first time I had ever been in a situation where there were lots of people my age (and younger) playing bridge in the same room. I was paired for the trials with someone I had only met a few days prior at the camp. Lots of the people at the camp knew a few others, but we were, for the most part, meeting a majority of the other participants for the first time.

After the bridge camp, I immediately started playing on teams and in partnership with other juniors. A nearly 10 year partnership came about through players I met at junior camp. In short, it was a great networking opportunity of sorts. That's probably less important in this age of online bridge, but it was very important for me at that time. And, I think a yearly gathering of juniors at a camp or at a junior NABC is an important part of developing a junior program.

That being said, there should also be regional coordination and opportunities. One can't expect juniors from different parts of the country to be able to get together and play face-to-face bridge with any regularity. As nice as being able to play online is, it cannot fully prepare someone for the conditions of face-to-face play. Juniors also need opportunities to play together regionally.

Juniors playing with juniors and juniors talking with juniors will go a long ways toward eliminating situations where juniors are introduced to their teammates just prior to an event. It will also allow for more flexibility in team formation. The team unity that others have said is so important would be available in more combinations.

I think the idea of a 24 pair pool is a good one. If these juniors have occasion to play with and against each other during the year, the coaches will have more ability to select the teams they want without disrupting chemistry. I think it best to leave the ultimate team formation up to the junior players, but regular interaction with each other and with coaches would allow the coaches to be in a better position to influence the decisions and to know which way they want the influence to go.

While coaching sessions and the like can be held online. The trials should absolutely be held in person, under conditions similar to those the players will encounter in the world championship.

[mtvesuvius]

JanM, on Jan 29 2009, 03:16 PM, said:

mtvesuvius, on Jan 29 2009, 01:57 PM, said:

uday, on Jan 29 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

I think the Trials  should be held online, proctored - it would be much easier for people to be able to attend, i think.

How can you proctor online tournements? Maybe send an ACBL Tournement director to the person's house? I guess that would make sense .

I think that we could do this by having players play at a local bridge club where the director would wander by occasionally to check that the player isn't talking on a phone or IM'ing. In a world where we all have easy internet access and laptops, I don't think it would be hard to find a club within at most an hour's drive for each player.

Could a club director really be trusted? Even if the director could be trusted, wouldn't a small bribe defeat that? . In addition if the director is friends with the Participant, the director may just choose to allow it anyway, this is still not secure imo.

[Rossoneri]

The best selection for f2f tournament is of course a f2f trials. Players need to get used to playing with screens and bidding boxes etc.

If coaching sessions could be done online, that would allow the players to get to know each other etc, and selecting pairs would not be such a big problem to team unity as they would already have known each other beforehand.

Whether to hold it as teams/pairs is a question depending on how many pairs you get. In Singapore we currently have it as pairs selection for U-26 and U-21 but that's partially down to the limited pool of players we have, and the fact that everyone knows each other already.

[JanM]

Thanks for all the prompt replies here . And a special thanks to Uday & Adam for helping me get some names and email addresses. I agree with Adam that there aren't very many eligible players out there, and I hope that during the next year and a half we can find them and also give them some training.

My personal opinion (not to be confused with any USBF position) is that we shouldn't use a Pairs Trials to select international teams. I believe that for two reasons - first, as some people have said, "team spirit" is more important than it might seem. Sure, you don't actually play at the same table as your teammates, but it's still a big deal how you get along. I've seen too many under-performing and over-performing teams not to believe in that. Second, and probably equally important, even in a relatively small and select IMP pairs event, there's a lot of randomness. Look at the Cavendish. For them, the randomness is good - how else would they get people to put so much into the auction? But for purposes of choosing the best team, it isn't. If you told me we had to use a pairs format, I'd prefer a matchpoint event, not IMP pairs. But of course that's not a good idea either.

[rogerclee]

I feel strongly that holding training sessions is definitely the best way of determining the 2010 teams. Either hand-selecting the teams or having a trial afterwards is fine, depending on how the Junior committee sees fit.

It is not a secret that American junior bridge is getting weaker. It is also rare for a country to have so many strong older players capable of coaching and helping the juniors.

If we had to select twelve U21 players right now, I would predict a disappointing American showing. Nobody on last year's U26 or U28 teams will be eligible for the U21 competition in 2010, and one (or maybe two) of the best players on last year's U21 team will be too old by 2010 to play.

However, there is one big chance for U21 bridge; when you are that young, you are capable of learning very quickly. If the USBF could successfully get a bunch of enthusiastic U21 players together and really encourage them to learn, we could very easily win a gold medal in 2010. A year and a half of practice for 12 to 16 junior players could revitalize American junior bridge. This to me is more important than many, many, many things the ACBL (or USBF) spends money on, so I think that training a new wave of juniors should be a priority, not only to keep America at the top of bridge, but also to maintain interest level among the next generation of players.

By the way, e-mailing the top 50 or so masterpoint holders who qualify by the age restriction would be a good start. I'm aware that masterpoints do not really reflect skill level, but it is better than nothing. You could also send an e-mail to each district representative/president and ask for nominations of young players who they feel are truly talented.

[uday]

I'm sure you've thought of this already, but Rick Beye at the ACBL might be able to arrange a mailing (or supply contact info) for all members who meet the age criteria.

Or perhaps he could supply contact information for the clubs, who could in turn track down their U21s.

[peaceman]

I have had a fair amount of experience at recruiting and training players in the 18-26 age range. I taught at an ACBL sanctioned student run bridge club in Toronto for 5 years.

The goals of building an U21 team for 2010 and builiding up interest in bridge among under 21s are not entirely compatible. I think the latter more important than the former, but good luck with both : )

My first suggestion is: remember that bridge is supposed to be fun. Only players that have completely devoted themselves to the game for a long period will go back to the duplicate trough after a terribly stressful and unfun touirnie. Younger players can be terribly self-conscious about their weaknesses, even when very talented -- in team sports nobody jumps into the big leagues before going through the little leagues, which have a very different atmosphere.

F2F tournies, bringing forward all the fun social aspects of the game -- as well as the excitement of visiting new places, which cannot be underestimated in that age group -- are a must I think.

Local clubs can probably be recruited to defray some of the costs. I started to play at 14 and my small town club was encouraging in every way.

My second suggestion is: make use of your ACBL Tournie Directors to spot talented U21s playing in Sectionals & Regionals. "Buy" them entries to team events in local clubs.

And of course spread the word about BBO, the youth chat forum, etc. A few regular events online for the juniors who play regularly, perhaps with commentators, would be great fun. Have Junior-Master games online.

Trying to hasten their technical development too quickly would lead to burnout. On the other hand, once a community of a variety of levels is created, natural leaders with organizational and/or playing talent will emerge and push forward. They can start clubs at their high schools and universities, taking care of your recruitment issues for you a few years from now.

[kfay]

JanM, on Jan 29 2009, 01:12 PM, said:

[*]The U26 teams will be selected by a team trials, probably immediately preceding the summer 2009 NABC.

REALLY!?!?!?!?!?!

[JanM]

kfay, on Jan 29 2009, 11:53 PM, said:

JanM, on Jan 29 2009, 01:12 PM, said:

[*]The U26 teams will be selected by a team trials, probably immediately preceding the summer 2009 NABC.

REALLY!?!?!?!?!?!

Yes, really. As soon as we have confirmation of space, we'll be posting dates and Conditions of Contest on the usbf website. I think that the Trials will start on Wednesday, July 22nd and continue for 2, 3 or 4 days depending on the number of teams that enter. The format will be very much like last year's FISU Trials; the event will be open to teams of 4, 5 or 6 players who are eligible to compete in the U26 event in 2010.

[JLOL]

Hope a 4 handed team wins! lol