Two pairs respond positively!
One other pair said they were interested, but on holiday that weekend.
And one player said 'Not for me'
But there was deafening silence from the other 800!
We didn't run a heat.

My perception, and the evidence from this venture, is that players graded 9 and below are just not very interested in competitive bridge.
(The positive responses were from players who have been more highly graded in the past.)
They like playing in their local club against people they know.
But getting bragging rites over their friends is about the limit of their competitiveness.

I would be interested to know the experience in other Counties.

David Guild guildbridge1@gmail.com
Attachments
9:48 PM (25 minutes ago)
to patrick

Hi Patrick
At our Away Day last week, our YCBA Board considered the explanation of possible EBU Board adjustment to UMS calculation - as set out in the Updates from Aylesbury dated 6 March.
We raised a number of matters and asked me (DG) to write back to you and broaden our reply to our Yorkshire clubs who have already been contacted by you and to additionally place this response on the County to County Forum for wider discussion.
DG started by saying that he would have much preferred that County Chairs/Boards had received prior notification of UMS new methodology approach being considered. This is because UMS is a highly sensitive topic that needs careful change management and should not be a stone thrown into a still pond by a general news item. To issue in this manner may very well be misinterpretted as intent rather than a possibility. We seem to have not yet learnt the lessons of the last major change to funding method in 2010/11.
DG further said that it is very difficult for any club to give an opinion as to the efficacy of the "flat fee + xpence/Board" approach without a charging framework. (Rather like being asked to comment on ordering decision for home underfloor heating without knowing costs and efficiencies).
It certainly is not a consultation document without this financial framework.
Fortunately, the EBU Competitions Committee did make an explicit proposal to the EBU Board in January 2024 and this was agreed to be pushed out for consultation. The UMS proposal is for a flat rate of 23p plus a linear rate of 1p/board per person/session.
Based on this precise figure, DG calculated the financial impact as attached sheet 1.
The YCBA considered first the overall concept. Comments were:
1. This sounds complex and overkill. From a club and player perspective the player fees are fixed across a wide range of regular play boards so why have one part of the table money fee so convoluted.
2.There is no known "pain" being signalled by the clubs, so why amend the process entirely? What is the overriding objective? To make black pointed competitions cheaper? If overall EBU revenue remains neutral is more money to be taken from regular club play?
2. At present UMS, TD Fees, Green and Blue Point licenses et al do not have a consistent charging thread. TD Fees for example, increase in 4-board steps and colour coded competitions are on a per table fee rate. If a major change is envisaged, should all fee types be synchronised at this time? Perhaps a common multi-step approach in 4 or 6 board ranges may have merit but it is unproven.
The Board considered then considered the figures in Sheet 1.
From April 24, the UMS is 45p. The Board first considered this against the proposed new method. The Board concluded the new model logic to be flawed as there is not a plateau distribution to boards played; instead there are distinct peaks and troughs and these need to be weghted in a financial model.
The majority of regular club play is around the 24 to 27 range and here the UMS fees will move up sustantially. Some clubs, particularly smaller clubs already under pressure, operate entirely in this range and would be penalised.
The Board eventually decided that the fee rate cannot be meant to apply to 2024-25 as there would be a substantial £000's windfall to the EBU, so estimated a 47p UMS rate for 2025- 26 and applied it there. This looked more financially palatable (and may reduce EBU income?) but has fundamental structure issues.
These being:
1. Clusters of play - see Sheet2 - Analysis of Feb 24 Sessions at Olicana BC. The clusters are: low number of boards for beginners/early players (8 to 16), less boards (18 to 20) for online play as 2 hours/session is usually the limit, a regular higher range for standard club F2F play (22 to 27). It seems overcomplex to differentiate within each cluster
The future will see the ultra-low board count for lower duration games offered daily, such a one hour games and DIDO. A new fee structure would need to accommodate these without penalty.
2. Far Greater Complexity
Current UMS is based on sessions rate 2/3, 1 or 2 times usually at 1 times rate. The difference between Boards in play and the count of those played is not usually a problem as both are usually in the same fee band.
Treasurers get simple statements showing the number of sessions in each charging band and this is based on Boards in play.
However...
As Sheet 2 shows the boards in play can be substantially different from number played. If there is an uneven number of pairs,not all players reach the same number of played boards in the session. Also, if not all the boards are played by every pair in a movement, the diifference can be great (eg 30 in play with 16 played by each pair).
For this reason, sessions will need to be broken down into pairs charging.
Club charge statements will have to radically change and it is difficult to envisage how a Treasurer will be able to validate any fee invoice.
Also, there is a software development cost and delay to create such a radically new financial charging system.

It is for these reasons that the YCBA Board reject this new approach to "flat fee and per board rate" for UMS charging.
Regards
David Guild
For the YCBA Board Response

I've been tasked by my county organisation with making recommendations as to whether we should have various price discounts at our congress.

What I'm interested in is what (if anything) other counties have done.

What did you do? Why did you do it? Did you have any stated goals? What did you achieve?

Thanks

Jeremy

• The EBU wants to be both a member-focused and a club-focused organisation.
• The EBU must be relevant and provide useful services to bridge players of all standards, and to both social and competitive players.
• The EBU will support both face-to-face bridge and online bridge in the future, recognising that both have different strengths which are valuable in different contexts to large subsets of our membership.
• The EBU has a responsibility for promoting the game with non-players.
• The EBU has a responsibility for ensuring newcomers can get access to suitable teaching.
• The EBU needs a good spread of player players across all age groups if the game is to thrive in the future, and we must work to recruit from a wide spectrum of sources.

There is a more complete statement of the foundations of the strategy here

VISION STATEMENT : To bring Bridge to everyone.

MISSION STATEMENT : The EBU exists to regulate the game for the benefit of players in England, and to enrich the Bridge playing experience of its members, by supporting their affiliated Bridge Clubs and by running EBU competitions.

VALUES STATEMENT : Collaboration, inclusivity, transparency and integrity.

A key reason for creating these is to allow the actions of the organisation and the decisions of the EBU Board to be tested against the above declaration.

VISION : Bridge is recognised as the best mindsport, and has become the most popular card game in England, providing individuals and society with social, health and intellectual benefits.

MISSION : The EBU exists to represent the interests of all bridge players in England; it provides a valued set of services to these players (and to those learning the game) and to their bridge clubs, to ensure that playing bridge is an enjoyable experience.

VALUES : We will achieve our vision in a collaborative way with players, volunteers, employees and partners, based on the principles of inclusivity, transparency and mutual respect.

Thoughts still welcome.

• There is a freely accessible, well respected and widely used, flexible and well supported, roadmap through which a player or potential player can develop their bridge skills.

This is a core activity more necessary than ever in the current crisis. The scope includes identifying pupils and teachers, and linking the two. The issues include the current player demographic, in which the bridge playing population is ageing, and the effect of that on the size of the EBU membership.

Inputs on scope, issues and solutions are welcomed.

• Our player members will have access, at reasonable cost, to the best online bridge playing capabilities which exist across the world; while we will maximise the value of the supporting systems EBU has developed over the years.

The scope will include how we make best use of today’s offerings for online bridge, and how we invest in technology now and in the future.

Inputs on scope, issues and solutions are welcomed.

• By keeping them well informed, we will enable all bridge players to engage fruitfully with the EBU thereby growing the number of members and volunteers who support the game.

This strategy includes helping the other strategies align better with the interests of the members, and includes engagement with members of non-affiliated clubs.

Inputs on scope, issues and solutions are welcomed.

• Players across the country have access to an abundant variety of bridge games which they enjoy, and these include the best offerings in the online world.

This strategy (component) complements what County BAs and Bridge Clubs do, and includes helping CBAs and BCs to organise themselves and run events. Issues which must be addressed include the decreasing popularity of nationally run events.

Inputs on scope, issues and solutions are welcomed.

• A wide variety of players get the chance to represent England and in doing so they earn a good reputation for English bridge players.

This strategy needs to address the principles which drive selection, and the extent to which all opportunities for international representation are taken up.

Inputs on scope, issues and solutions are welcomed.

(a) To learn what we can from the current county consultation about the Mission and priorities
(b) To understand the issues that each component of the strategy must tackle (its scope)
(c) To collect as many ideas for how to proceed as we can find
(d) To select and document the best way forward.

The first step is already underway, and the intent is to use September to tackle the next two steps, and for the final step to take place during October.

The strategy components, while being tackled separately, are not independent; it is important that they are consistent and support each other. They are all equally important. The current breakdown (which could change if the issues we capture and the inter-relatedness reveals the need) is as follows

1. Player Recruitment and Development Strategy, this is catering primarily for those who are potential players, but also providing support for the development of existing bridge players.
2. Competitions Strategy, delivering opportunities for players to enjoy playing the game in a variety of different formats and at all skill levels.
3. Representative Events Strategy, managing opportunities for players to represent England in competitions with other nations.
4. Membership & Communications Strategy, which explains how we engage with the bridge playing population, and grow the EBU membership appropriately over time.
5. Financial & Commercial Strategy, which explains how we raise funds for the organisation and manage the organisation’s activities within that budget, proving good value for money for our members.
6. Technology Strategy, which explains how we support the technology on which we rely today, and how in the future we will use technology to enhance the bridge playing experience of our members and the efficiency of the organisation.

For each component there is, in the forum below, a discussion thread in which all stakeholders are invited to contribute

(a) Questions about scope – such as “does this component cover X”.
(b) Issues on which the strategy needs to give direction – such as “must decide how much of Y we do”.
(c) Ideas which the strategy could adopt to address the issues identified.

Please contribute and encourage relevant others to do so also. Anyone with access issues on the forum can send their input by email to patrick@gcba.org.uk

• The EBU has a stable financial footing and financial future, enabling it to invest in developing the game and interest in the game to the benefit of all its members.

A major issue for this strategy at this time is the dent in finances being made in the current crisis, and coping with the likely lower level of bridge club activity in the next few years.

Inputs on scope, issues and solutions are welcomed.

There is also a method of running Swiss Teams directly in BBO, but it needs to be enabled specially and it requires that one member of each team uses the old Flash version of the BBO software in order to match up the pairs. It also uses old ACBL VP scales.

There is also a new platform in the late stages of development, RealBridge, which seems likely to be the best option of all once it is fully functional.

This is focused on the present and explaining why we exist and whom we serve. For the EBU it needs to be something like -

• To promote the game of Duplicate Bridge so that the game is attractive and easily accessible to all potential players in England - or -
• To govern, promote and grow the mindsport and game of Bridge for, and throughout, England - or -
• The English Bridge Union is responsible for the advancement of Duplicate Bridge and the provision of the infrastructure to play the game in England. (Bidding for the Future 2013-2018) - or -
• To lead the game of Duplicate Bridge throughout England so that it grows and is accessible to all - or -

Your views on the improtance of different words and concepts in the mission statement is sought.

This is a declaration about how the organization wants to value their customers and suppliers, and be valued within its own internal community. In our context it needs to capture the fact that we depend on volunteers as well as paid staff. It could be something like

• We will work cooperatively with all others who are promoting the game of bridge, and will respect the contributions and views of all bridge players, and we will do this in a legal and transparent manner - or -

• We value all people in the ecosystem of bridge. Including those playing, teaching, promoting, administrating, researching, developing and providing services or products. Our commitment to inclusion across race, gender, age, religion, identity, and experience drives us to become the national mindsport of England - or -

• (Bidding for the Future, 2013-2018) To act always in the best interests of our membership; to take pride in delivering quality and value for money; to respect each other and celebrate diversity so that everyone can give of their best - or -

• We will achieve our vision in a collaborative way with players, volunteers, employees and partners based on the principles of inclusivity, transparency and sustainability - or -

Your views on the important of the various words and concepts in the values statement is sought.

This is focused on the future and what the business aims to become; it needs to be stable, memorable, motivational and brief, something like -

• To make Duplicate Bridge the most popular indoor pastime in the country - or -
• To develop bridge from niche pastime to mass mindsport and game throughout England - or -
• To increase the awareness and attractiveness of Duplicate Bridge amongst people of all ages and cultural backgrounds, and so double our membership by 2025 - or -
• To enable everyone to enjoy bridge, in an atmosphere where you can make friends, bringing people together to exercise their minds while they socialise; we will challenge and inspire people to learn more about the game - or -

Your views on the importance of different words or concepts within the vision statement is sought.