Substitutes in BBO games
I would appreciate some advice about the charging regime for substitutes in BBO games in a vebuXXXXX virtual club.
Last night we had 8.5 tables so recruited two substitutes who stayed with us for the session. Neither had EBU numbers. I have made the EBU P2P submission with them as guests.
- My understanding is that the substitutes will not have paid BBO nor will BBO bill the EBU for them. Is this correct?
- Will the club be charged a UMS P2P charge for them and if so is there any way (legitimate) way of avoiding the P2P charge.
Comments
Hi Stan,
It is correct that substitutes do not pay BBO. BBO shouldn't bill the EBU for them as they played without charge but this is a relatively new setup so the system may not have taken that into account - I would check your EBU statement at the start of next month and let them know if you appear to have been overcharged as this will affect a number of clubs (the statements for this month will be coming out over the next couple of days so others may well be able to provide a much quicker answer here!). It is possible that BBO has asked for the charge even for non-paying substitutes to "compensate" for the fact that it ensures that there are no sit-outs - again, something to check on your EBU statement.
You will be charged a UMS P2P charge as normal since they do contribute to the number of masterpoints on offer for the event (amongst other things). I certainly wouldn't want you to prevent extra pairs from playing to ensure a full number of tables (indeed that would actually leave your club worse off financially anyway); The only way of not paying P2P is to find a pair of juniors that are willing to be a standby pair. You can then substitute these in if they are needed and wouldn't be liable to a P2P charge. (In fact we did this at our club session yesterday but we had a full number of tables so they weren't needed to play).
Personally I think it must be wrong for the EBU to levy a UMS P2P charge for substitutes. I think the EBU should not be charging for substitutes. Like all clubs we are struggling to maintain an income at this time. Charging a UMS fee for subs seems a bit mean.
After quite a lot of problems with the reliability of substitutes we plan to substitute with robots. So if the above is true then there must be a UMS P2P levy for robots? So presumably, if the robots play enough sessions, with enough UMS P2P payments they will become eligible to receive the English Bridge magazine and an EBU dary, like all other players? Our robots would be willing to waive these benefits , so could the UMS levy be waived?
Mark Humphris
For starters, it's impossible for the EBU to know if a substitute pair has played in an event so to enforce a discount isn't feasible. But in any case, the substitutes playing are just guests of the club and are subject to a charge as in normal times, that happen to be handily filling a sit-out. While not something an EBU club would consider, it would also open a loophole to ensure that there are an odd number of pairs registered and to then add in an extra pair, free of charge, as a substitute after the event starts.
We are all very aware that many clubs will be struggling financially, and some much more than others depending on their rent arrangements etc. Others may well have benefited if they've retained their player base without facing venue hire charges, so it will be a real mix.
Robot substitutes have only been added very recently as a TD feature, and this was probably to combat the issues with finding suitable substitute pairs in Virtual Clubs. This option should be seen therefore as a way to make the director's life easier and not a way for clubs to avoid the UMS levy; Indeed, BBO has the option of removing this feature at any time and would normally charge for robots playing in their events. Most clubs would encourage directors to find player substitutes wherever possible anyway as this generally enhances the playing experience.
While clubs are having a hard time of it, the Virtual Club scheme means that people can play with others from the same club at the same time as they would have done before the lockdown, and in some cases has led to an increase in attendance as players don't have to commit to playing as far in advance, no transport costs etc.
The EBU on the other hand doesn't have the option to hold its tournaments as effectively in an online environment, since those rely on the congress experience, hospitality etc. and event formats which cannot be supported by BBO. It is running daily tournaments but those are more designed for players who don't have their own Virtual Club to attend. Congresses online will be enjoyable but won't be able to attract the same income as their face-to-face events. It goes without saying that the EBU will be building a new strategy to better suit the interests of our current bridge-playing community (this year's Eastbourne changes were meant to be the start of that), but that requires funding. For all the problems I know different people have with the EBU, it does an awful lot behind the scenes, and that's not just the NGS, masterpoints and magazine, but also running the Virtual Club scheme, running teacher training, creating and offering bridge resources, providing competitive and relaxed events for those who want to play in them etc. It similarly supports EBED in promoting the future of the game. Bridge in England as we know it wouldn't survive without the EBU, and we will have to make sacrifices to ensure that that worst case scenario doesn't materialise.
You will not be charged under UMS for robots because they are juniors only having been born less than two years ago.
Haha true. I remember reading about it at the time but obviously forgot for my post above.
We recently heard from Gordon Rainsford that Robots (900002 and 900003) are set up as Juniors, so we will not be charged UMS for them.
All clubs will of course be charged for human substitutes.