495670 - we both have found that competitive bridge has something to offer. I still remember the pleasure of discovering duplicate bridge, over 50 years ago. But not everyone has that reaction, yet they can still enjoy the game.
The organiser of an unaffiliated club who I spoke to yesterday said "we are quite happy as we are, thank you - we have no need to get involved with anyone else". I understand the social players who aren't ready to move beyond the enjoyment they get from playing socially, and often competitively, with their friends.
It is right that the EBU presents opportunities for these players to dip their toes into the more competitive water of say duplicate or a district Swiss, but there should be no implication that people who don't take to this water are a lesser bridge species. They deserve to be members of the national body with equal standing with all other bridge players.
My proposals would treat the competitive bridge world as a subset of the whole bridge world, not as the be all and end all of bridge existence. I believe the EBU should promote bridge in all its forms. There are social and competitive aspects of the game which can both be promoted as strong reasons to play it.
Of course, we should be encouraging as many people as possible to play bridge, to whichever extent they individually feel comfortable, and EBED's role for one is to promote the game as widely as possible.
Equally though, the game at national level benefits very little, if at all, from those who play only socially since these players do not play outside their own circles, do not attend lessons to improve and have no interest in moving beyond casual bridge. Again, returning to my chess equivalent, the English Chess Federation would have nothing to gain from ensuring that anyone who can play chess is a full member of their organisation (but they do gain from a higher percentage of people knowing how to play the game, as they can teach it to others).
It is therefore right that the EBU investigates ways in which unaffiliated clubs and players can be supported by the EBU, but the EBU should not offer full membership to players who don't contribute even at local level - indeed, at present, you can become a member of the EBU just by playing in a few affiliated duplicates a year, and if players aren't willing to do so then I can't see the benefit to the EBU. The EBU is under financial strain and will be limited in the near future in how it can expand membership, promote the game and organise events; Investing time and money in a scheme to find out who isn't interested in playing even in clubs isn't really a step in the right direction.
The only situation where both parties would benefit is where that unaffiliated/casual club has teaching capacity, can promote the game and that in turn leads to an increase in competitive bridge numbers. The EBU ultimately raises income, organises events and provides services that all relate to competitive bridge in some form... EBED on the other hand is better placed as the teaching arm (in effect) of the EBU to invest in all parts of the bridge community, with the assumption that at least a proportion will either play competitively themselves or teach the game to others who end up playing competitively.
So perhaps the casual vs. competitive bridge discussion is just a case of EBU vs. EBED. The EBU is a company that maximises profits by investing in the competitive game because that is where people are prepared to pay. EBED is a charity that maximises participation at all levels, and since everyone starts casually it invests more in that area. If EBED did not exist as its own entity then that responsibility would revert back to the EBU. Even with very limited support, local and county initiatives that run almost entirely of their own accord and volunteering will keep promoting bridge, and from my experience these tend to be more successful than any centrally run alternative.
You are a competitive player yourself judging from your posts and you see the argument from that point of view only. I get the impression that you divide the bridge-playing public into the "competitive" players who are members of the EBU and the non-competitive who play so-called "kitchen bridge". There are far more than that.
I was speaking to the chair of an unaffiliated club last week who set up her club to get away from the sharks chasing local points. They averaged 20 tables a week before coronavirus. Her club would be very happy to contribute to the promotion and teaching of bridge in the area and to enjoy the EBU's support and advice on many administrative issues, but has no interest in the competitive element. And there are so many of these clubs, some of them the largest in their catchment areas.
A couple of years ago we ran a fund-raising event for the national juniors and raised over £1000. Three quarters of the participants were not EBU members.
It is all these people that we should be welcoming as full members of the right national body, with the more competitive element available at a fair price for those who want it.
Ah we have different definitions of "competitive" so I misunderstood your earlier post, apologies. Anyone who plays in at least occasional duplicate sessions was what I was classing as "competitive" above, with those playing "kitchen bridge" as you call it being the casual group. Obviously this competitive class is split into several categories.
The comment you make about points chasers is, for a start, sad to hear but also highlights the issue with the existing masterpoints scheme. I similarly agree that the EBU should be involved in unaffiliated clubs of this sort, which should have the right to run sessions without masterpoints if that makes membership easier to control. Alternatively, masterpoints could reflect the NGS strength of field in some way so that more relaxed clubs have fewer points offered, vastly reducing the gain to points chasers (that's a whole separate discussion though!).
The risk comes from a "pick and choose" approach to the EBU's services when the financial side is considered. There's no problem if these clubs are willing to pay the full UMS rate to enjoy all the benefits and choose to not use all of them (e.g. no masterpoints). The problem comes if clubs start to say we'll pay half the UMS for everything except the diary and masterpoints, for example, because that offer would almost certainly be publicised and other, existing affiliated clubs, may well follow that approach. We have seen during lockdown that several clubs (before the EBU said this was against their conditions) set up tournaments on BBO outside of the Virtual Club scheme, with no masterpoints or NGS and no UMS fee, and I suspect that many clubs will have members that aren't interested in their national point accumulation (clubs could just create their own ladders themselves if they wanted to!). Suddenly all of the more casual affiliated clubs choose the discounted EBU affiliation fee and the EBU is left in a worse position than before. The same principle applies to subsidising EBU events or international players - if only those playing in the events have to contribute, the costs will be too high for either to be feasible. The EBU would be left with more members but insufficient finances to provide the services that are desired by each individual member.
I'm not saying that's what would happen, and I agree with you that unaffiliated clubs should be a target for EBU membership if the right balance can be achieved, but it would require a lot of thought to work out how best to propose some "associate membership" option as it were without losing revenue from existing full member clubs.
The financial side is not the only factor of course. An alternative approach is for these unaffiliated clubs to sign up to the EBTA scheme for teachers, giving them access to teaching resources and support without the more competitive side.
I have heard the suggestion that the more casual affiliated clubs might opt out of the competitive side before. Of course that is a financial risk, but it would only prove that the EBU is providing services that people don't want and aren't prepared to pay for.
Before Pay to Play was introduced I was a full member paying I think upwards of £20 a year for my membership. Now before lockdown I probably played in no more than 10 or 15 club duplicates a year so the EBU received a lot less from me. Most of my bridge was teams bridge or national competitions. Other players at one of my regular clubs would not have been members of the EBU before P2P but now do contribute every time they play. Is that fair? I think not. I would happily pay more as I appreciate most of the 11 services the patricks lists. Why should they subsidise me?
Whilst having many more members paying a smaller amount for the common services that are of benefit to all bridge players, the EBU will find that it has a smaller number of people who actually still want the full list of services, but there is no reason to assume that they won''t be willing to pay for them.
Of course if there are services that there is insufficient demand to fund, those services should be discontinued. One of the biggest problems with the system that has been operating over the past ten years, which I would categorise as a "one size fits all" approach, is that you don't actually know which of your services are appreciated and which aren't.
I think the EBU should be looking to represent ALL bridge players. Although it is a pretty impossible task to determine exact numbers, the impression is that years ago, a much higher proportion of the population played bridge, in whatever form. Competitive players are a self-selecting group within this overall population. Promotion of the game in any form should therefore eventually lead to a higher number of competitive players. But the competitive game will need to be welcoming, attractive and not too costly. Robert’s suggestion that the EBU focuses on elements that will benefit ALL players is a good way forward. Other services can then be supplied to competitive players and we can investigate how these might be funded.
Comments
495670 - we both have found that competitive bridge has something to offer. I still remember the pleasure of discovering duplicate bridge, over 50 years ago. But not everyone has that reaction, yet they can still enjoy the game.
The organiser of an unaffiliated club who I spoke to yesterday said "we are quite happy as we are, thank you - we have no need to get involved with anyone else". I understand the social players who aren't ready to move beyond the enjoyment they get from playing socially, and often competitively, with their friends.
It is right that the EBU presents opportunities for these players to dip their toes into the more competitive water of say duplicate or a district Swiss, but there should be no implication that people who don't take to this water are a lesser bridge species. They deserve to be members of the national body with equal standing with all other bridge players.
My proposals would treat the competitive bridge world as a subset of the whole bridge world, not as the be all and end all of bridge existence. I believe the EBU should promote bridge in all its forms. There are social and competitive aspects of the game which can both be promoted as strong reasons to play it.
Of course, we should be encouraging as many people as possible to play bridge, to whichever extent they individually feel comfortable, and EBED's role for one is to promote the game as widely as possible.
Equally though, the game at national level benefits very little, if at all, from those who play only socially since these players do not play outside their own circles, do not attend lessons to improve and have no interest in moving beyond casual bridge. Again, returning to my chess equivalent, the English Chess Federation would have nothing to gain from ensuring that anyone who can play chess is a full member of their organisation (but they do gain from a higher percentage of people knowing how to play the game, as they can teach it to others).
It is therefore right that the EBU investigates ways in which unaffiliated clubs and players can be supported by the EBU, but the EBU should not offer full membership to players who don't contribute even at local level - indeed, at present, you can become a member of the EBU just by playing in a few affiliated duplicates a year, and if players aren't willing to do so then I can't see the benefit to the EBU. The EBU is under financial strain and will be limited in the near future in how it can expand membership, promote the game and organise events; Investing time and money in a scheme to find out who isn't interested in playing even in clubs isn't really a step in the right direction.
The only situation where both parties would benefit is where that unaffiliated/casual club has teaching capacity, can promote the game and that in turn leads to an increase in competitive bridge numbers. The EBU ultimately raises income, organises events and provides services that all relate to competitive bridge in some form... EBED on the other hand is better placed as the teaching arm (in effect) of the EBU to invest in all parts of the bridge community, with the assumption that at least a proportion will either play competitively themselves or teach the game to others who end up playing competitively.
So perhaps the casual vs. competitive bridge discussion is just a case of EBU vs. EBED. The EBU is a company that maximises profits by investing in the competitive game because that is where people are prepared to pay. EBED is a charity that maximises participation at all levels, and since everyone starts casually it invests more in that area. If EBED did not exist as its own entity then that responsibility would revert back to the EBU. Even with very limited support, local and county initiatives that run almost entirely of their own accord and volunteering will keep promoting bridge, and from my experience these tend to be more successful than any centrally run alternative.
You are a competitive player yourself judging from your posts and you see the argument from that point of view only. I get the impression that you divide the bridge-playing public into the "competitive" players who are members of the EBU and the non-competitive who play so-called "kitchen bridge". There are far more than that.
I was speaking to the chair of an unaffiliated club last week who set up her club to get away from the sharks chasing local points. They averaged 20 tables a week before coronavirus. Her club would be very happy to contribute to the promotion and teaching of bridge in the area and to enjoy the EBU's support and advice on many administrative issues, but has no interest in the competitive element. And there are so many of these clubs, some of them the largest in their catchment areas.
A couple of years ago we ran a fund-raising event for the national juniors and raised over £1000. Three quarters of the participants were not EBU members.
It is all these people that we should be welcoming as full members of the right national body, with the more competitive element available at a fair price for those who want it.
Ah we have different definitions of "competitive" so I misunderstood your earlier post, apologies. Anyone who plays in at least occasional duplicate sessions was what I was classing as "competitive" above, with those playing "kitchen bridge" as you call it being the casual group. Obviously this competitive class is split into several categories.
The comment you make about points chasers is, for a start, sad to hear but also highlights the issue with the existing masterpoints scheme. I similarly agree that the EBU should be involved in unaffiliated clubs of this sort, which should have the right to run sessions without masterpoints if that makes membership easier to control. Alternatively, masterpoints could reflect the NGS strength of field in some way so that more relaxed clubs have fewer points offered, vastly reducing the gain to points chasers (that's a whole separate discussion though!).
The risk comes from a "pick and choose" approach to the EBU's services when the financial side is considered. There's no problem if these clubs are willing to pay the full UMS rate to enjoy all the benefits and choose to not use all of them (e.g. no masterpoints). The problem comes if clubs start to say we'll pay half the UMS for everything except the diary and masterpoints, for example, because that offer would almost certainly be publicised and other, existing affiliated clubs, may well follow that approach. We have seen during lockdown that several clubs (before the EBU said this was against their conditions) set up tournaments on BBO outside of the Virtual Club scheme, with no masterpoints or NGS and no UMS fee, and I suspect that many clubs will have members that aren't interested in their national point accumulation (clubs could just create their own ladders themselves if they wanted to!). Suddenly all of the more casual affiliated clubs choose the discounted EBU affiliation fee and the EBU is left in a worse position than before. The same principle applies to subsidising EBU events or international players - if only those playing in the events have to contribute, the costs will be too high for either to be feasible. The EBU would be left with more members but insufficient finances to provide the services that are desired by each individual member.
I'm not saying that's what would happen, and I agree with you that unaffiliated clubs should be a target for EBU membership if the right balance can be achieved, but it would require a lot of thought to work out how best to propose some "associate membership" option as it were without losing revenue from existing full member clubs.
The financial side is not the only factor of course. An alternative approach is for these unaffiliated clubs to sign up to the EBTA scheme for teachers, giving them access to teaching resources and support without the more competitive side.
I have heard the suggestion that the more casual affiliated clubs might opt out of the competitive side before. Of course that is a financial risk, but it would only prove that the EBU is providing services that people don't want and aren't prepared to pay for.
Before Pay to Play was introduced I was a full member paying I think upwards of £20 a year for my membership. Now before lockdown I probably played in no more than 10 or 15 club duplicates a year so the EBU received a lot less from me. Most of my bridge was teams bridge or national competitions. Other players at one of my regular clubs would not have been members of the EBU before P2P but now do contribute every time they play. Is that fair? I think not. I would happily pay more as I appreciate most of the 11 services the patricks lists. Why should they subsidise me?
Whilst having many more members paying a smaller amount for the common services that are of benefit to all bridge players, the EBU will find that it has a smaller number of people who actually still want the full list of services, but there is no reason to assume that they won''t be willing to pay for them.
Of course if there are services that there is insufficient demand to fund, those services should be discontinued. One of the biggest problems with the system that has been operating over the past ten years, which I would categorise as a "one size fits all" approach, is that you don't actually know which of your services are appreciated and which aren't.
I think the EBU should be looking to represent ALL bridge players. Although it is a pretty impossible task to determine exact numbers, the impression is that years ago, a much higher proportion of the population played bridge, in whatever form. Competitive players are a self-selecting group within this overall population. Promotion of the game in any form should therefore eventually lead to a higher number of competitive players. But the competitive game will need to be welcoming, attractive and not too costly. Robert’s suggestion that the EBU focuses on elements that will benefit ALL players is a good way forward. Other services can then be supplied to competitive players and we can investigate how these might be funded.