[h2osmom]

Probably I should already know this, but I don't. USBF is in charge of teams for international competition. What else do they do, and how are they related to ACBL, if at all?

[h2osmom]

OK, since I posted that question I got my renewal for ACBL, which asked for a donation for USBF, supports US players in international competition, so maybe that's all USBF does? If so, why isn't it part of ACBL rather than a totally separate body? Also, I noticed there have been 50 views since I posted original question and no responses. Usually this is a vocal group, maybe no one knows?

[helene_t]

ACBL covers both USA and Canada, I suppose that's why the USA delegations are dealt with by a separate org.

[JoAnneM]

The following information, and more, is available at the USBF site:

Federation Information
The UNITED STATES BRIDGE FEDERATION was formed in 2001, for the primary purposes of selecting and supporting United States teams in International Competition and supporting the World Bridge Federation in its efforts to obtain Olympic recognition for bridge. After making a significant effort to promote bridge as an Olympic Sport, including sending a team to the Salt Lake City IOC in 2002, USBF now focuses primarily on selecting teams for International competition, by holding the United States Bridge Championships for Open, Women, Senior and Junior teams, and on providing training and support for United States teams in International competition. USBF was originally formed by ACBL and ABA . It now receives support for United States International Teams from the ACBL International Fund and Junior Fund. It is otherwise self-supporting, with support coming from membership dues, contributions and entry fees for the USBCs.

www.usbf.org

[JanM]

I should have answered this, but haven't been reading the Forums the last week. I'm very grateful to JoAnne for pointing you to the USBF website, where I hope you'll find the answer to your question as well as some interesting information about the just-completed Open and Under 21 Team Trials (and if I can figure out how to get pictures off a new camera, some pictures of the winning and second place teams).

Since this is a BBO Forum, I want to add that one of the things on which USBF spends money is BBO Vugraph - if you were watching the Team Trials for the last 10 days, you'll already know this, but if you weren't - we cover every table in the Open Trials from the Round of 8 on. That involves having and maintaining laptops and a router; finding, training and paying operators; having our Director create .dup files for the hands being played and me or a substitute put the hands and scores on the Vugraph computers before each match (only reversed the scores once - I knew Chip's team was behind after the first segment of the Finals, but had somehow forgotten they were the 1-seed ). We're grateful to Blackstone Partners, who have generously donated laptops for us to use, and to those people who donated "seed money" when we started this ambitious Vugraph program.

We're now paying for the Vugraph out of "general funds" - it cost about $2800 for operators in Chicago, not counting my expenses (I do things other than Vugraph at the USBC). So if you're deciding whether to make that $1.95 contribution with your ACBL dues, one reason to do so is to support Vugraph. Shameless plug: if you want to make a direct contribution to Vugraph, you can click on the "Online Donation Form" button on the USBF website and make a "vugraph and website" contribution. I'm personally committed to full coverage of the Trials and I can use all the support I can get.

[NickRW]

h2osmom, on Jun 28 2010, 11:19 PM, said:

If so, why isn't it part of ACBL rather than a totally separate body?

Yeah, but there are 3 countries that are part of the ACBL, not just the US. In matters of purely national interest, there needs to be a body that represents that specifically - and similarly for Canada and Mexico.

I suppose it is the way it is for historical reasons. In Eurpoe, the equivalent body to the ACBL is the EBL - but it does not figure so hugely in the minds of most European bridge players because the national bodies are a much bigger part of the overall scene.

Nick

[tbr]

Don't forget Bermuda is also part of ACBL-dom.

[hrothgar]

10 odd years ago, the WBF was desperately lobbying to get bridge approved as an Olympic Sport.

Some people believed that Olympic accreditation would be a wonderful way to promote the lovely game of bridge. The more cynical among us felt that the primary motivation was the ability to sell Olympic Gold medals to well heeled “sponsors” (along with the endemic graft and corruption that surrounds the Olympics).

Regardless of the motivation, in a vain attempt to comply with the Olympic regulations the powers that be introduced some exciting new changes.

The new “drug testing” regime was one of these exciting new innovations.
The USBF was another.

(As others have pointed out, the ACBL is an international body that governs bridge in North America. The USBF is a national body that selects the United States team for international competition. The only reason that this change was introduced was the desire to conform to the team selection criteria for the Olympic Games. Now that this effort has – hopefully – been staked through the heart and left out in the sun to die I sometimes question to need for a redundant regulatory structure. It probably doesn’t hurt, but it does seem somewhat strange)

[whereagles]

hrothgar, on Jun 29 2010, 12:05 PM, said:

(along with the endemic graft and corruption that surrounds the Olympics)

I guess you could say the same from football as well... but I digress. Carry on

[fred]

I believe that Richard's account of the history of the USBF is at least partially correct (and FWIW I too always thought that trying to get bridge into the Olympics was a dumb idea).

But whatever the exact details of the history, we are where we are now. In my strong opinion, if you care at all about serious bridge in the USA then you should support the USBF. This organization really does a great job, but funding remains a challenge.

Thanks USBF (notably Jan Martel). Your hard work on behalf of American bridge really is appreciated by a lot of people

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

fred, on Jun 29 2010, 05:21 PM, said:

But whatever the exact details of the history, we are where we are now. In my strong opinion, if you care at all about serious bridge in the USA then you should support the USBF. This organization really does a great job, but funding remains a challenge.

Thanks USBF (notably Jan Martel). Your hard work on behalf of American bridge really is appreciated by a lot of people

Please note: My post should not be intended as a slam of the USBF. From an outsider's perspective, the organization seems to be in much better shape that the ACBL. If anything, I wish that the USBF would rub off on the ACBL.

Quick question about finances and the like: Any chance that you coud provide a detailed breakdown of the budget required to provide the Vugraph for the team trials?

I'd be very interested to understand the "per capita" expense. (divide the total costs of providing the Vugraph by the total number of unique individuals who viewed any portion of the event)

[JoAnneM]

Thanks Jan, for explaining about the funding of USBF. I have absolutely no involvement in the program other than as a spectator, but I do run a club and it is nice to know where the money from our special games is going. I don't think ACBL does a very good job of explaining this, or maybe I just don't read that part of the Bridge Bulletin.

Also thanks for running a great vugraph event. I especially liked watching the kids play. These were children playing a tough schedule, and hopefully they all had a good time. For the most part the commentators were gentle with them, remembering who they were watching.

Thanks again

[blackshoe]

tbr, on Jun 29 2010, 07:29 AM, said:

Don't forget Bermuda is also part of ACBL-dom.

This turns out not to be the case. Some years ago (I forget exactly when, but I think in the last decade or so) Bermuda moved to the Caribbean and Central American zone, while retaining its sanctions to run ACBL games.

[JanM]

Actually, Bermuda is a special case. It is part of ACBL for everything except international events. So ACBL sanctions the local Bermuda tournaments, but Bermuda participates in the CACA for purposes of deciding who goes to World Championships.

[JanM]

hrothgar, on Jun 29 2010, 07:34 AM, said:

Quick question about finances and the like:  Any chance that you coud provide a detailed breakdown of the budget required to provide the Vugraph for the team trials?

I'd be very interested to understand the "per capita" expense. (divide the total costs of providing the Vugraph by the total number of unique individuals who viewed any portion of the event)

The major cost for Vugraph is the operators. We pay operators the modest amount of $80 a day (so that's $20 a segment of play). So to cover the 8 tables of the Round of 8 costs $640 a day, or $1280 for the Round of 8. The semi's are half that, and the finals half again. This year we covered 4 tables for the first half day of the Round of 16 and 6 for the full day. When I am an operator, I don't pay myself, which saves some money. I do get reimbursed for travel, room & board, which I allocate to general tournament expenses, although running Vugraph is a major part of my job (the rest is seeing that scores are posted on the website and providing unskilled help for the Directors).

A few years ago we purchased a reasonably powerful router, so that when we aren't able to get free internet from the hotel, we can use my Sprint broadband card for internet access. We also lend that to ACBL for their Vugraph coverage of the NABCs. I honestly don't remember what that cost, but not a lot. We are lucky that we found Blackstone Partners who were willing to donate computers, so we didn't have to buy those. We pay something for shipping them to and from tournaments, but since they come with all the other supplies we need, I don't even try to account for that separately.

I don't know whether you consider website coverage of the tournament - posting scores and bidding and play records - as part of Vugraph, but given the internet and websites, it always ends up costing something for last minute "fixes" and troubleshooting. I budget $1000 for that; it's usually less.

Finally, one comment about Vugraph - it can have a positive effect on the tournament sometimes, in addition to allowing everyone to watch. For instance, I noticed in another thread that in the Europeans, two teams sat the same directions at both tables. A few years ago, we had a table where the teams sat in the wrong directions - we caught it on the first board because (unlike in the Europeans) the names were entered on Vugraph correctly. This year, when a board was fouled in duplication, our alert Vugraph operator (Adam Kaplan) caught it and we were able to have a substitute board available as soon as the teams finished playing so there was only a small delay from the board being fouled.

Uday sends me a detailed record of the number of Vugraph kibitzers, but I'm afraid I haven't had a chance to digest it yet. I'm sure he'd be happy to share it, but that's up to him, not me.

[PeterGill]

USA has had two teams in each of the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup and will continue to do so, provided that USA's WBF membership remains above 140,000.

Back in the 1990s that membership was over 200,000, when I looked it up.
Right now, it is 142,592 ref http://worldbridge.o...ist.asp?qzone=2.
When I looked it up a year or two ago, the membership figure was above 150,000.

Various ACBL and WBF documents confirm this figure of 140,000,
e.g. ref http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/about...ard_minutes.htm

At the current rate of membership decline, there's some chance that USA will have only one team in the 2011 and/or 2013's BB and VC.

My question is:
How is this figure of 142,592 calculated?

Is it USA citizens/residents who belong to the ACBL?
Or can the USBF somehow count its membership?
Or something else?

[gnasher]

hrothgar, on Jun 29 2010, 01:05 PM, said:

(As others have pointed out, the ACBL is an international body that governs bridge in North America. The USBF is a national body that selects the United States team for international competition. The only reason that this change was introduced was the desire to conform to the team selection criteria for the Olympic Games. Now that this effort has – hopefully – been staked through the heart and left out in the sun to die I sometimes question to need for a redundant regulatory structure. It probably doesn’t hurt, but it does seem somewhat strange)

If the ACBL filled both roles, wouldn't that mean that mean that Canadians and Mexicans were able to influence the selection of the US team, without any reciprocity?

[blackshoe]

My understanding is that US citizens who are members of either the ACBL or the ABA are automatically counted as members of the USBF.