S c o t t i s h B r i d g e U n i o n

A Selector’s Life - a personal view by Paul Gipson. [These are my personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Selection Committee or the SBU] It has been a hectic six months, but we now have a Camrose team and an Open team for the European Team Championships. With no outstanding law suits! As a Selection Committee we have done our job but I cannot say that it has been a wholly satisfying one. We have not selected, but we have run the trials process within the narrow constraints defined by the SBU Council. Naturally, the Council is a remote body to most and so we get all the flak. People are quick to judge, criticise and vent, but when we ask for help they mostly fall silent – but I would like to thank the dozen people who have responded constructively to our request for comments on the process for next year: there will be feedback shortly. Looking at the Open trials a number of points are clear: Scottish bridge is going through a transition. Many of our top players are now more interested in playing in the Women’s and Seniors teams rather than the Open. The Council’s ‘open to all’ policy is extending the trials process for no good reason. I think we need to let the selectors use their discretion in the main trials process. The prevailing feeling of the vocal minority – that any Selection Committee is out to pick established favourites and prevent other competitive players from getting a fair chance – is unhelpful and dealing with it is time consuming. Apparently this goes back a decade, but it is time to move on. The Camrose trials were a close fought affair with little to chose between the top four pairs at the end. I think it is fair to say that two of the four pairs were most people’s favourites and the other two would have been on everyone’s short-list. The trials process did what we hoped it would. Following the trial, it was disappointing that five of the top eleven pairs were not interested in playing in the European Team Championships next June. Prior to our existence Council had decided on a three team trial – something that I’m sure we shall propose changes to next time – but it provided an exciting test of judgement (choosing your team mates for one) and bridge. In something of a surprise, it was the Ash team (Mike Ash, Alan Goodman, Jim Hay, Frazer Morgan) who prevailed. They completely dominated the weekend and would have won whatever scoring method was used, so fully deserve their place. We asked Douglas Piper and Alex Wilkinson to be the third pair: they were the outstanding pair over the trials. It is remarkable to see the progression of Jim Hay and Frazer Morgan, from ninth in the Trials Preparation Weekend (TPW) to the European Open team. It is open to question whether this is (a) an endorsement of an open policy, (b) an indictment of SBU bridge, or (c) a disjunctive trials process. To my mind it is a little of each. There is little doubt that Jim and Frazer have improved immeasurably during the trials process and, in my mind, playing in the TPW was essential to their eventual success. The Selection Committee did not handle the TPW/main trials interface particularly well but I'm pleased to see that it all worked out well in the end. A failure of the process caused primarily by lack of time and something else to be remedied next year. They then played exceptionally well in the Stage I weekend, but found the Stage II weekend more testing when faced with the stronger (exempted) pairs. Again this is the trials process working as it should. The fact that so few then wanted to play in the European Open is a symptom of an aging playing community and, arguably, the SBU funding arrangements, but Jim and Frazer took full advantage of the opportunity that came their way. It is interesting to debate, as I’m sure many will, whether the European Open trial process has delivered our best team. Like national football teams, one can speculate but in the end it is the actual results that count – so we'll just have to wait and see The selectors, most of whom were involved in some capacity at the last European Team Championships in Pau, are firmly of the belief that a team is required for a long World event. Gone are the days where one pair can play most of the matches and be the backbone of the team: rest days are gone and the team has to play three 20-board matches every day, so everyone has to pull their weight. This means that the team must function as a team and being able to get on with your team mates is essential. Just picking the top three pairs often will not deliver this. Most of our top players have petitioned for team trials for the Camrose. I understand why and, as a competitor, prefer teams myself, but I don’t think it will deliver the results that they always expect. The European play-off highlights this, where the less experienced team demolished everyone in sight. To be honest I don’t find the team argument for Camrose events compelling. The next challenge for the selectors is the selection of the team for the second Camrose weekend. A quandary is whether we should use the weekend to help the European team prepare, but obviously the performance in the first weekend will have a major impact on our decision. In the next few weeks we have the Women's and Seniors trials. Numbers are up on last year, which is very encouraging, and I expect that these will run smoothly. As holders of the Seniors Camrose and Lady Milne trophies, I am sure that they will be fiercely competitive. So what are my highlights to date? Seeing two young players earn places in the European Open team is very encouraging. We are now using screens in all the trials we can. This replicates championship conditions and most pairs actually prefer it. And the lowlight? Well, it is a bizarre world. Everyone complains, publicly and privately, about the cost of sending teams overseas. None appear to realise that the cost of sending teams overseas is funded by Bridge Great Britain and the players themselves, the SBU members do not contribute at all. Perhaps if the SBU invested something in its teams then our best players would want to play, we could invest in some coaching, and we could try to improve the competitiveness of our internationalists. And the statistics for the past six months: I have sent 355 emails and received 654 on Selection Committee matters We have published the minutes of five meetings We have published and revised the Conditions of Contest for six trials We have run five weekends of trials, generating three teams We have completed a consultation process on the format of next year's Camrose trials As I said last time, selecting teams is not a great interest of mine. I’d prefer to work on getting them playing at a higher standard. I’m not entirely sure how to do this, but taking an interest in our strongest partnerships, seeing them playing competitively regularly and monitoring progress might be a good starting place. As the selecting is coming to a conclusion, this is an area that we are starting to think about. Finally, I should thank those who have helped most during the last six months. Anne Perkins, our Secretary, does all the real work and far more than most appreciate. The Tournament Directing team is enormously supportive and donate a lot of time to the trials. Fiona Abbott has been at most of the trials, has given a lot of support in the background, and shown a real interest in developing our international teams - it is largely due to her unflagging support that we have made the progress we have. So it’s good luck to our Camrose team next month in Edinburgh. As it is important to have a patriotic buzz at the event I hope to see you there! Paul Gipson http://thebeercard.blogspot.com