Stacy Jacobs started a conversation about bridge professionalism on her blog and I thought I'd weigh in.  (Note to china shop: The bull has arrived.)

Edit: Stacy responded on her blog and I've incorporated her answers into this post.  Unfortunately this crappy blog software (Quick Blog, courtesy of godaddy.com, NOT recommended) doesn't let me change font color so I'm gonna have to do it manually.)

1.  There's nothing inherently wrong with hiring a bunch of pros in an effort to win major events or masterpoints but let's be frank that it's almost exclusively motivated by selfish interest (the desire to win) and not by some philanthropic desire to 'give back to the game.'  There are lots of ways to give back to the game, but this ain't one of them.

Let’s define some terms before we go any further: I’m talking about bridge at the top. The very top. And I guarantee that the sponsors and pros at the very top of the game — the “selfish” people you’re judging above — give back to the game in ways most people can’t even imagine. At the very least, the current generation of sponsors are the ones who have (singlehandedly) created the very industry we’re sitting here discussing. Have you heard about the parties for juniors? Ever talked to someone who’s been to junior camp? Perhaps you don’t know about the lecture George gave in Nyack, on the heels of that Spingold semifinal where Nickell staged an 80-imp comeback in the 4th quarter…

On giving back to the game:  Many do, many don't.  My point was that hiring pros (or creating an industry, as you put it) isn't an example of that practice.  Bridge would be better in some ways and worse in some ways without that industry.  Overall I think it would be better, but I don't feel strongly about it and would strongly oppose any effort to abolish the practice (it's a free country, or at least it used to be.)

On judging:  I act selfishly (in my own self-interest) all the time. 

I was at Junior Camp in 1996 (Marco Island, right after the Miami NABC.)  Great fun.  That Rose and George and others do give back to the game is indisputable.  I don't see how that has any bearing on the issue at hand.  If there were no bridge pros, would there not still be generous people with an interest in promoting bridge and mentoring/sponsoring the next generation of players?

2.  Big money has a tendency to corrupt any competitive endeavor, whether it's the Tour de France (blood doping) or baseball (steroids) or bridge.  That's not to say that removing money would eliminate all unsavory activity, but money creates a lot of bad incentives.

I contend that it is the nature of some competitors to cheat. At Monopoly, Miniature Golf or Life.

I don't dispute this point.  Do you dispute mine?

3.  If a wealthy person is motivated to become the best bridge player he/she can be, I would recommend that they hire the best partner that they can find/afford and play pairs events.  Failing that, if you must play teams, play 4-handed.  Victory will be tougher, but it will also be sweeter.  If all you're doing is playing the first half of team events on a 6 bagger and then retiring to the peanut gallery, you're missing out on what bridge is all about and you do leave yourself open for a certain amount of justified skepticism of the character of your 'victories'.  (I don't know why the ACBL doesn't have more '4-bagger only' events, but they should, including national events.)

What about an ambitious beggar? What do you recommend for him? Yes, experience is important. I’d be a better bridge player if I played as many hands as, say, Paul Soloway. (I hope.) But I’m not exactly a member of the class we’re discussing.

It's not so much the number of hands I was referring to, I certainly wouldn't recommend that someone play 4 sessions a day in an effort to improve their game.   But if the client is always playing the minimum, and getting out of the way early, it would be fair to draw certain conclusions from that.

This is exactly the attitude that kicked off this conversation: a Flight A-/B+ nitwit made an ignorant and disrespectful comment about my husband. And his 11 North American titles. And his two US Team Trials wins. His third in the World Championships. Oh, wait. How about the highest scoring matchpoint game in the history of bridge? Or the national pair game he and Ralph won? One of the things I really wanted to say to that guy: he’s better than you. I mean no disrespect. Really I don’t. But I’ll take any odds that the sponsor-pro pair on each of the top 10 seeded teams is better than any random “good player” foolish enough to make this sort of point.

I don't know why the guy made that comment.  Maybe his partner was nervous.  Maybe he was nervous.  Maybe he was trying to pay you a compliment (if George is the customer, that would make you ...)  Maybe he has a small penis.  What's more interesting (to me, at least) is how it seems to have affected you.  Obviously George is a great player (as are all the players on the top seeds.) 

4.  George Steinbrenner is a good businessman.  But if he ever suits up for the Yankees in right field ...  And yes, lots of people (myself included) cheer against the Yankees (I don't give a hoot about baseball, but I loathe the boys in pinstripes) because whatever success they have doesn't come from heart, or guts, or shrewd management, or a great farm system, it comes from having a virtually unlimited salary budget and buying up the highest price (most talented) free agents every off-season.  I couldn't be happier that they have been in a prolonged post-season slump and hope it continues.

Let’s put him on the mound, Jon. In fact, let’s gather up all the owners and make them pitch every other inning. Now we’ll get to see who the real superstars are… the ones who have to find the offense to overcome ERAs in the mid-thirties. Now you start to see the value of a sponsor who can play.

I just thought it was interesting that that's the analogy you chose. 

5.  All that being said, people who resent having to play against pros are misguided sissies.  They're sissies because getting to play against the best in the world is one of the things that makes bridge so great.  (Playing against Fred Gitelman and Brad Moss for 3 quarters in St Louis was fantastic (and would have been even moreso if I'd been playing with a partner whose game I respected.))  They're misguided because if that pro wasn't playing pro, he might be marginally less talented, but he'd be playing with an equally talented player and it's easier to beat a world class player playing with an average player than to beat two expert players.  Besides, with the A/X flight, GNT Superflight, events like the mini-Spingold, and stratification in general, the ACBL does a great job of protecting talented amateurs by giving them a readily attainable prize to strive for.

You don’t get to play against Fred and Brad in the limited games. Some talented amateurs are sissies, right? For avoiding the big guns (being “protected” in the limited games)? Or is it just the amateurs who actively resent playing superstars who are sissies?

That's a judgment call.  Let's look at my event choices at the last 2 spring nationals, for example: When I drove down to Dallas for the 2 weekends last year, I knew I wouldn't be playing in any national events.  I didn't have a regular partner, I just wanted to see some familiar faces and pick up a few masterpoints.  So I hit the partnership desk and was fortunate enough to end up first loser in the 2 KO's I played in.  (Top bracket and 2nd bracket.)  Does that make me a sissy?  Maybe. 

In St Louis I planned to play in all the national IMP events and play KO's opposite the national pairs events (since I'd only played about 10 sessions of matchpoints in the preceding 5 years.)  I didn't make the 2nd round of a single knockout, but got through the first day of the Vanderbilt (I was hoping to draw Cayne, but drew Rubin instead) with a pickup partner (beaten soundly on day 2 by Gitelman/Moss and company,) had a 5th in the Red Ribbons with a pickup partner (an event I used to have too many masterpoints to play in, crown me King of the Sissies!) and got paid (31st) in the Jacoby Open Swiss on a 4-bagger with Jeff and a pro-client pair.  If someone wants to call me a sissy because I didn't play in the IMP Pairs (I was looking, but the best available partner wanted to play Red Ribbons,) or the Mixed Pairs, or the Open Pairs, that's cool.

Bottom line, if you always or almost always actively avoid playing against the best, in my books you're a sissy.  If you occasionally play in a restricted event just to see how you stack up against your peers, or to give your ego a boost, you're human.  I would reason similarly when determining whether a client is a PLAYER (like George, or Jimmy, or Nick, or Rita, or Rose, etc.) or a CUSTOMER (a Steinbrenner, if you will.)