Youth WC is off

[the saint]

I am very saddened by the EBU meeting news and PABC decision to cancel the vugraphs.

I don't think these two are even in the same ballpark.

[DenisO]

This is very disappointing news. Anyone know what might be the best way forward to try to influence the WBF in taking a more pro-active role in organising internet Vugraph coverage - and not just of youth; we had fairly meagre coverage at Verona which is the World Championship.

 

I emailed Panos Gerontopolous, who seems to be the lead WBF man for youth tournaments, about the lack of coverage in Slovakia and expressed the hope that there would be an improvement for Bangkok. No reply but maybe not surprising as when I did get a reply last year to a similar request his attitude seemed to be that the provision of Internet coverage was the responsibility of BBO or Swan or E-bridge which still existed then and not the WBF's.

 

Wonder if we should be approaching this through our NBOs or is that just wishful thinking ?

 

Denis

[HedyG]

"I was one of the operators in Sydney

 

NickF took us all out for a most excellent chinese dinner. I'm a real food snob, and I consider this one of the best meals that I've had in a long time...

 

I'm quite thanksful tht the Aussies were able to provide hotel rooms for the operators (finally got me motivated to fly down to the antipodes)"

 

 

well done by the "Aussies" as was all the rest concerning the organisation! many could take an example on them!

[fred]

In my experience, the one and only thing that can motivate politicians like Panos to behave rationally is the fear of public embarassment.

 

One thing BBO has going for it is that there are a great many bridge players who log in to our site on a regular basis. This offers us tremendous scope to publicly embarass people as we see fit (not that we have ever done this before).

 

I will write Panos an e-mail when I get home next week (I am at a tournament now) and let him know that we are willing and able to let many 1000s of bridge players from all over the world know about his idiotic decision that is obviously very much against the best interests of bridge. Maybe that will make a difference...

 

In the mean time, I would urge as many of you as possible to e-mail Panos yourselves and cc WBF President Jose Damiani (who I am certain would not be happy to hear about what Panos is doing). I do not have access to their e-mail addresses from here, but I am sure someone out there can find these addresses and post them to forums.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Walddk]

Jose Damiani:

president@worldbridge.org

 

Panos Gerontopoulos:

youth@worldbridge.org

 

I agree with Fred. Bombard them with e-mails, and if that doesn't work, there are easy ways of embarrassing them on BBO. It's about time that we all tell bridge administrators what is good for bridge now that they don't seem capable of finding out themselves!

 

Roland

[hrothgar]

In my experience, the one and only thing that can motivate politicians like Panos to behave rationally is the fear of public embarassment.

 

One thing BBO has going for it is that there are a great many bridge players who log in to our site on a regular basis. This offers us tremendous scope to publicly embarass people as we see fit (not that we have ever done this before).

 

I will write Panos an e-mail when I get home next week (I am at a tournament now) and let him know that we are willing and able to let many 1000s of bridge players from all over the world know about his idiotic decision that is obviously very much against the best interests of bridge. Maybe that will make a difference...

The following posting is going to sound very strange coming from me. I'm normally a firebrand and one of the first urging folks to starting storming the barricades... However, now is not the time.

 

As you note, BBO has some big guns available. I have no doubt that you could easily embarrass the politicos who manage the WBF. You might even be able to effect some kind of change. The problem with this approach is that the power of the Bully Pulpit diminishes with use. As soon as you enter the arena as a player by taking this type of overt political act people are going to start to take notice and, to some extent, start to take sides. BBO's influence is based on the fact that it is starting to enjoy near monopoly status a marketing platform targeting avid bridge players. I suspect that folks are willing to let this slide so long as the benefits outweigh the costs. However, as soon as you start to threat existing power relationships they're going to start taking a second look at BBO and wondering if its possible to “bell the cat”. Expect to see efforts at promoting alternative venues, efforts to limit access to vugraphs, and the like... As much as I would like to see a Vugraph from the youth championships, I don't consider it important enough that I'd recommend taking action.

 

Equally significant, I'd argue that BBO is still very much on the upswing. BBO's membership (and therefore its power) continues to enjoy very significant growth. Every day that delays a confrontation with the WBF or the ACBL further increases your bargaining power. In short, bide your time.

 

Personally, I think that there is a much better way that to combat the WBF politicos. Make them irrelevant. Focus on what you do best: Delivering quality products to the user base. If the WBF is unwilling to fund Vugraph, find ways in which BBO can provide the services without them. Every success that you achieve will increase customer loyalty, while further marginalizing the scope of the WBF.

 

With luck, the war will be over without the WBF ever recognizing when it started.

[Walddk]

If the WBF is unwilling to fund Vugraph, find ways in which BBO can provide the services without them.  Every success that you achieve will increase customer loyalty, while further marginalizing the scope of the WBF politicos.  With luck, the war will be over without the WBF ever recognizing when it started.

I disagree wholeheartedly. If BBO does what you suggest, the politicians will be giggling and whispering among themselves:

 

"Finally, we made BBO do our job".

 

It's WBF's responsibility, not BBO's! And we need to make that clear once and for all.

 

Roland

[hrothgar]

If the WBF is unwilling to fund Vugraph, find ways in which BBO can provide the services without them.  Every success that you achieve will increase customer loyalty, while further marginalizing the scope of the WBF politicos.  With luck, the war will be over without the WBF ever recognizing when it started.

I disagree wholeheartedly. If BBO does what you suggest, the politicians will be giggling and whispering among themselves:

 

"Finally, we made BBO do our job".

 

It's WBF's responsibility, not BBO's! And we need to make that clear once and for all.

 

Roland

 

I'm not going to reject a good idea just because it makes the WBF happy.

 

If the WBF politicos view this as a win/win scenario I'll rejoice.

It will make things much easier.

 

My primary goal is ensuring that a quality Vugraph gets provided to the customer base. If the WBF is unable to rise to challenge, then I see no reason to try to drag them kicking screaming into the 21st century. Far better just to cut them out of the loop.

 

(BTW, based on my experiences with the WBF trying to micromanage the Vugraph schedules back in Sydney, I'm quite comfortable in stating that cutting the WBF out of the loop is a very good thing. I didn't have to deal with anything other than recording the bidding/play and I found the whole situtation infurtiating. I surprised that Dave Thompson didn't lose it completely)

 

Of course, over time, this means that the power/influence of the WBF will be marginalized. (Who knows, they might even find that folks are no longer willing to fund all their little hotel suites, entourages, cruises and other such extravagenices). In short,

 

I'm quite happy to give the WBF all the rope they want.

I'll tie a noose for them them.

I'll even starting looking for nice tall trees where they might take in a scenic view

[mike777]

I must be missing something, do we really want the WBF to spend resources on Youth Bridge and Internet access?

Do we really want to encourage young people to have access to Championship level bridge with players their own age? Do we really want them to get to know older players such as Zia or Sabine?

I do not see how any goodwill can come out of people watching bridge on their internet cell phones or other small devices that are proliferating in almost every country around the world.

Do we really want pictures, or short bios or all that other crazy info stuff that is on the internet?

 

I really think our youth not to mention old bridge players have better things to do.

 

Does anyone expect the Chess Championships to be available on the internet with links with further info?

[bid_em_up]

It's WBF's responsibility, not BBO's! And we need to make that clear once and for all.

Sorry Roland, but I cannot agree with this statement. While it is a nice sentiment, try and stay based in the real world. Its all about money.

 

It is the job/responsibility of whoever sees a "benefit" that can be reaped from doing so. That benefit may or may not be monetary. And while Fred has always maintained that BBO would remain a free site (thanks Fred!!), I have to believe he also would like to find ways for it to also generate an income stream to at least cover some expenses (feel free to correct me if I am wrong). I know I would.

 

If BBO (fred, sheri, et. al) were to decide that BBO would benefit/profit from making the vugraphs (and its transmission) available at all major events........then who is to say it can't become their job? Just because "we" feel that the WBF, ACBL, whoever, "should" do it, doesn't mean they ever will.

 

At 3000-4000 (or even 300-400) viewers per vugraph, I think a nominal fee would/should cover the costs of paying someone to operate, and probably their expenses as well. Hell, eventually, it might even cover the costs of paying the commentators a pittance, if nothing else, for their time and efforts as well. As someone else suggested, even simply requesting a donation to help offset the costs might well cover all of this and then some.

 

Corporate sponsorship of vugraph (The Spingold brought to you by Microsoft, Geico, Berkshire Hathaway, Bear Stearns, you get the idea) is another path that could be considered as well......from what I have read, and heard, I would not be the least bit surprised if Mr. Gates, Mr. Buffet, or Mr. Cayne would be willing to at least entertain such a possibility. I do not know if they have been approached regarding such an issue. Of course, these are three of the most obvious choices to seek out regarding promoting the game of bridge, however, I am certain there are others.

[mike777]

Is the WBF or youth bridge just broke? One gets that impression with the lousy Internet info during the World Champs and now youth bridge.

[fskoul]

I don't want to spoil the good party, but NickF we all were there last year in Sydney and we "almost all" remember the - not few at all - days where the Internet was down and thus we didn't even have a Vugraph onsite (which, of course, is ridiculous). That's why, as Fred can easily tell you, in the major WBF events there is a request for a BBO server onsite, and not through the Internet: to comply with the standards of the contract.

 

Since I also happen to know one-two things about Bangkok too, can you really guarantee that the Internet connection will be good enough so as to HAVE a vugraph at all? Because the "other" solution (i.e. the onsite server) costs much more than a single operator (which is not one, but let it be). The solution to this problem is by far more complicated than what you describe.

 

I think we all are in favor of a better presentation for any bridge event, but instead of advertising our ignorance (like what mike777 just did), wouldn't it be better to propose something that can really work?

[fskoul]

And just for the record, as the Director of Operations just 1 minute ago confirmed to me, there WILL be BBO coverage in Bangkok. It will be the Open room of the Vugraph match. The only difference is that the onsite Vugraph will not be BBO.

[uday]

I am not convinced of the wisdom of an email campaign. I believe that we could make any person's life annoying enough that he will have someone pay some attention to the issue (maybe just once) but this isnt the right way.

 

Having customers (and we are the WBF's customers) bombard top management with email will only tick off the vicitms. In the long run, this will possibly work against our interests.

 

And what are those interests? We want WBF, etc. to put some resources into online coverage of their events. That's really all we want, I think. But money is always going to be an issue, whether the choice is between suites and vugraph, or humane pay for the staff and vugraphs.

 

We don't anticipate a future at BBO where we force people to pay for vugraph. We've said that before, and this is something Fred, Sheri & I feel strongly about.

 

Hrothgar and others discuss a future where we could try to make vugraph a cash-positive experience via sponsorship or advertising. If we could achieve that then all our goals would be met, and the WBF would benefit as well. If we could pay for coverage and not bleed too much cash, we'd consider doing so.

 

How do we do this? Obtaining advertisers/sponsors for WBF tourneys seems easy enough for them but seems considerably harder for us. In fact, it seems near impossible, as far as I can tell.

 

The ACBL, flaws and all, seems very forward-going w/regard to online coverage. Perhaps it is only bec. Rick Beye is a forward thinker, but he must have support within ACBL management. The recent round-of-64 vugraphs from Chicago are an example of how the ACBL is straining to do better each time. We could still use more help with better online statuses of matches and the like but we seem to be making progress.

 

So, wrapping up my rambling ;maybe I'm being naiive but perhaps there is a way to get what we want without the agression of public embarassment or mass email campaigns.

[bid_em_up]

In my experience, the one and only thing that can motivate politicians like Panos to behave rationally is the fear of public embarassment.

 

One thing BBO has going for it is that there are a great many bridge players who log in to our site on a regular basis. This offers us tremendous scope to publicly embarass people as we see fit (not that we have ever done this before).

 

I will write Panos an e-mail when I get home next week (I am at a tournament now) and let him know that we are willing and able to let many 1000s of bridge players from all over the world know about his idiotic decision that is obviously very much against the best interests of bridge. Maybe that will make a difference...

 

In the mean time, I would urge as many of you as possible to e-mail Panos yourselves and cc WBF President Jose Damiani (who I am certain would not be happy to hear about what Panos is doing). I do not have access to their e-mail addresses from here, but I am sure someone out there can find these addresses and post them to forums.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Mr. Gitelman,

 

While I agree with your sentiments in this matter, I find it disturbing that you would make this post on the public forum, and I do not believe this to be the best manner of addressing the issue. My perception of what you are suggesting you might do (use BBO as a means to publicly embarrass an individual) is effectively tantamount to threatening extortion, blackmail, slander, libel and numerous other litigous avenues, ie. cooperate with us (BBO) or we will embarass you.

 

While you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine, your's, by default, will carry more weight on BBO and its forums. If I were to suggest such a thing, people would most likely take it with a grain of salt; your suggesting it makes it more likely to become a reality.

 

I also believe that to use a venue as great as BBO is, as a means for all of us to exert pressure on an organizing body, goes against the very grain of what makes BBO such a great place to play. That you can indeed play here with anyone in the world, regardless of status, capabilities, political or religious views without encountering the bickering of such issues is something that I believe most players value highly. If you were to put BBO in the middle of such "political' issues, then some of that "greatness" is lost. At least, for me.

 

Not to mention that it is in total violation of our own "Zero Tolerance" policies.

 

I also think that calling somebody an idiot (regardless of how much of one they may be) or bombarding them with emails from BBO members certainly will not be conducive to getting their cooperation in any further matters. If anything, it will be counterproductive. I also find it surprising that you, of all people, would use such language, in a public forum, to refer to an executive/officer of an organizing federation, especially in view of BBO's and the forums Zero Tolerance policies. I will conceed the point that you didnt call him an idiot directly, but only referred to his decision as idiotic. To me, it is effectively the same thing.

 

I respectfully request that you reconsider your position of the possibility of using BBO (and its members) as a means of implementing changes within the various organizing bodies and instead seek out other means of cooperating with them that are beneficial to them, BBO, and the bridge world at large. Several suggestions have been made in this and other threads regarding some possible solutions that would be beneficial for everyone involved.

 

Sincerely,

 

Charles Frith

BBO User ID - bid_em_up

[hrothgar]

How do we do this? Obtaining advertisers/sponsors for WBF tourneys seems easy enough for them but seems considerably harder for us.  In fact, it seems near impossible, as far as I can tell.

Hi Uday

 

I recommend taking a look at the following web site: http://www.fundable.org/

Fundable is an ecommerce play that enables a large group of people to pool resources for a project. (For example, I've saw a case where a group contributed money to sponsor a Habitat for Humanity houing project) There is some overhead involved - fundable takes a 7% slice - but so be it...

 

Here's how I'd run things (Please note, I prefer methods in which a large number of users chose have the option to contribute a small amount of money rather than an advertising driven model or corporate sponsorship. I don't rule out the possibility that one individual might chose to bear a disproportionate portion of the financial burden, but I'd prefer not to rely on it)

 

Select an upcoming event - ACBL Spring Nationals in St Louis would be an obvious choice.

 

Create a formal "Request for Proposal" process. Indicate that BBO is looking for a partner who would be in charge of onsite Vugraph. Interested individuals are encouraged to submit RFP's to BBO (potentially even to the BBO forums). The RFP should document that service offerings that will be provided, along with associated cost structures. In additional, there should be some kind of Quality of Service clause...

 

Interested members of the BBO community should have the ability to evaluate the RFP. Ultimately, the quality of the proposal will be judged by whether or not members of the user community chose to fund the project.

[bid_em_up]

And fred, since I know that you have read my prior post now (I can see you that you are online and in this thread), please feel free to remove it, if you feel the need to so.

 

:)

[the saint]

As I read it there are two main points that need to be addressed:

 

1) Transparency in spending of WBF funds

2) Provision of Vugraph both at a venue and online.

 

To deal with the first one quickly, the EBL (European Bridge League) has as Article 9 in its statutes, the following words:

 

Article 9 - Non-profit making organisation

 

The EBL is a non-profit making organisation of a strictly civil nature. Its resources shall be applied exclusively in furtherance of its beneficent purposes; and no part of its resources or earnings shall accrue to the benefit of any private person

 

There are no such equivalent words in the by-laws of the WBF (surprisingly). If there were, I would have thought that hotel suites, extra tickets for relatives and boat trips would violate this tenet. The WBF and the Zonal organisations are at least partially funded by member NBOs, which does mean that all of us (presumably) are stakeholders, since we pay our membership fees to our NBOs. In this matter, I would suggest that going through your NBO is the best route. I know one of the Euro Bridge Committee members quite well, so I might have a quiet chat with him on how the whole thing works before I do something really silly!!

 

The second issue - vugraph, has both technical and financial issues to resolve. In some way, these are related. I think it would be reasonable to assert that online productions are still in their infancy both technologically and methodically. I think it would be short-sighted of the WBF not to investigate the best method for transmitting coverage of its events. While we get coverage ostensibly for nothing at our end, it is not stupid to assume that this could be a suitable revenue stream for the WBF from either PPV, sponsorship or advertising in the future. Audience figures have been growing rapidly here on BBO and with a growing worldwide awareness of the product, it is not ridiculous to assume that they won't continue to do so.

 

I don't believe it is BBOs job to provide the show. That is like FIFA deciding to hold the World Cup and then deciding that providing TV coverage isn't worth the hassle. BBO is simply one possible medium for providing coverage. The WBF must take stock of future demands and future technologies and invest accordingly and chat with people like Fred (from a technological standpoint) who have some understanding of the requirements and future directions. Some posters have mentioned a server running BBO onsite at each major event as a solution. I have no idea of the pluses and minuses, but if the WBF were to have some kind of presentation rig to be transported around the world for such a purpose, I would consider that a worthwhile expenditure of my contributions.

 

Just a few more thoughts

 

Alan

[fred]

Here is how I think about this:

 

The ACBL (for example) is a membership organization. As such, its primary mission is to serve its members. Furthermore, the ACBL has a mandate to promote bridge (specifically in North America).

 

If members of the ACBL judge that this organization is doing a poor job, it is entirely appropriate for them to complain about it. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with specific ACBL members trying to organize a campaign to get other members to complain. The more members that complain, the more likely that the complaints will be heard and the more likely that change will result.

 

If you are a member of the ACBL (or any other National Bridge Federation) you are also a member of the WBF. Every year your National Bridge Federation gives some money to the WBF for each of its members. It is reasonable for those of us who are WBF members to expect something in return.

 

For those of us (like me) who play in World Championships, the WBF does indeed offer me something of value - I get a chance to play in the excellent tournaments that the WBF runs. But the WBF doesn't do much for the other 99% of its members. In my view it is not unreasonable for such people, at the very least, to expect the WBF to do the best they can to promote the game we all love.

 

At this particular moment in time, Internet vugraph is the most effective tool that tournament organizers have to promote bridge and to give something back to the average players who support the organizations that run major tournaments.

 

Besides that, it costs almost nothing in the grand scheme of things to put on an Internet vugraph show.

 

Besides that, at this time in which all bridge players should be concerned about the lack of young players who are interested in our game, using the Internet (a medium that young people can relate to) to promote our game is a very sensible thing to do.

 

So, in my opinion, it is BEYOND OBVIOUS that the person (or people) who made the decision to not present Internet vugraph of the World Youth Teams Championship has made a SERIOUS error in judgment.

 

They should be held accountable for this and it is up to the members of the WBF to make sure that this happens - if they don't then nobody else is going to.

 

Given that I am one of the owners of BBO and that BBO vugraph is good for our site, it would not be unreasonable for people to question my motives here - perhaps the campaign that I have launched is motivated by self-interest.

 

That in fact would be true, but not because of business reasons. In 20 years a large percentage of the world's current bridge playing population will be dead. There is a good chance I will still be alive then and I would like to think there will still be plenty of people for me to play bridge against.

 

BBO has become a serious business, but we have not forgotten that we created our site with the hope of making bridge more popular. I believe we have had some success in that regard and I am hopeful that we will will have more success in the future.

 

To me it doesn't seem right that we are (as businesspeople) are willing to spend a lot of time and money on areas of BBO that are good for bridge but do not generate revenue while non-profit organizations that are supposed to be dedicated to promoting bridge are sometimes unwilling to do their part.

 

The "sometimes" should be emphasized. This post in not meant as a blanket condemnation of the WBF (who do plenty of good things), but they have really dropped the ball as far as Thailand is concerned.

 

I find myself in a position that I have a chance to improve things. In my view it would be irresponsible of me to ignore what I consider to be a travesty when I may have the power to stop it.

 

That is what I am trying to do. Perhaps the strong language in my previous post will ruffle some feathers, but my experience suggests that it is sometimes necessary to do just that if your goal is to get politicians to do the right thing.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

While we get coverage ostensibly for nothing at our end, it is not stupid to assume that this could be a suitable revenue stream for the WBF from either PPV, sponsorship or advertising in the future. Audience figures have been growing rapidly here on BBO and with a growing worldwide awareness of the product, it is not ridiculous to assume that they won't continue to do so.

From my perspective, you've just raised a very significant issue:

 

At some point in the future, there could a reasonable revenue stream associated with Vugraph. I don't think we're talking World Cup or the Superbowl, but you could (probably) start to generate a some cash.

 

My experience with both the WBF and ACBL suggests that neither organization should be permitted to get their hands on any of the revenue stream. (The issues surround the WBF politicos in Sydney provide a classic example why I don't want either group involved)

 

I'm a strong advocate that BBO takes the initiative in promoting these new models. (When talking about BBO, I am referring to both the management and the user base) I want to see all of this take root before groups there is any significant revenue that the WBF can coopt. This will make it much more difficult for any to start charging for braodcast rights...

 

Furthermore, the models that I are advocating a designed to promote transparency and competive bidding. Ideally, this type of system will insure that as much surplus as possible remains in the hands of the consumers.

[Walddk]

I agree with everything fred is saying, but let me add one thing he doesn't mention.

 

You may be for or against his or my views, but no matter what, you can't do what the WBF has done here:

 

Step 1. "Go ahead and broadcast. It's fine with us" (the e-mail I got from Dimitris Ballas) and the promise of "comprehensive coverage" Mark Reeve got in Slovakia.

 

Step 2: "Sorry folks, we withdraw. There is no money".

 

That is breach of faith, unfair, absurd, outrageous. It takes no Einstein to figure out who is responsible here: the politicians obviously. If no-one tells them, they won't get any wiser, will they?

 

I have said it before, and I don't mind saying it again:

 

Drop one of the posh dinners at thousands of $$, and stay in hotel rooms like everyone else, not suites with in-laws, etc. One dinner less will provide plenty for a 10 day event.

 

Roland

[david_c]

I don't believe it is BBOs job to provide the show. That is like FIFA deciding to hold the World Cup and then deciding that providing TV coverage isn't worth the hassle.

There's something wrong with this analogy. What FIFA actually does is sell the right to provide coverage to [usually] the highest bidder. This is viable because coverage of the world cup is worth a huge amount of money to the television companies. If you apply the same reasoning to vugraph, then you have to believe that BBO should be prepared to pay money to the WBF for the right to broadcast. In particular, it would be BBO's responsibility to pay the expenses of the operator.

 

Now, I hate to say this, but I believe this analogy is valid. There are almost certainly enough people wanting to watch vugraph that a sizeable profit could be made from providing the coverage (whether this be though charging the viewers, or though advertising, or whatever). The decision of the BBO management that vugraph should be free therefore puts it in a poor bargaining position with the WBF.

 

Of course, we all hope that instead of selling of the vugraph rights to the highest bidder, the WBF instead chooses to subsidise it "for the good of the game". In the short term, BBO has such a dominant position that they can ensure this is the only option. In the longer term, I'm worried that it might not make economic sense.

[Rain]

What costs are there to set up an internet vugraph transmission? Please correct if wrong.

 

1) On site internet access (This would be inexpensive in some locations, very expensive in others)

 

2) 1 laptop per table coverage (possibly inexpensive, since laptops can be borrowed)

 

3) 1 Chief vugraph operator to oversee operations if complex enough

 

4) Vugraph operators to help run vugraph

 

In many countries, (3) and (4) are high voluntary positions with some very small financial incentive. I know how much we in Singapore are paying our VO for the upcoming singapore nationals, and its not a lot.

 

I suspect in Thailand, like in many countries, there are also lots of students and bridge players who would do this for little financial incentive. Young bridgers? Heck, other sports do this all the time. Student volunteers for xyz Games and abc Olympiads. Is Bridge so different?

 

So the main, prohibitive cost of vugraph seems to be that internet cost could be high in some locations. Does it apply in Thailand's case? From PABF youth coverage, doesn't seem likely--Thailand's pretty good.

 

Anyway I think my point is, I don't think it costs so much, and I don't understand why cost can be a valid factor in deciding vugraph if it doesn't cost much. There are probably other reasons that we don't know about.

[goose]

This issue seems to have provoked a large number of responses and i havent read all of them so excuse me if i am repeating other's observations.

 

There are two expenses at championships relating to conveying information to the world - the bulletin and the on site viewgraph. I am not sure how much these cost but flying 5 or 6 people half way round the world and providing their subsistence and accommodation does not seem particularly cheap.

 

So this expense is dedicated to maybe a few dozen on site spectators and bulletin readers ( granted there are a large numbere who read the bulletin off the net).

 

BBO viewgraph presentations for reasonably important events now regularly attract several thousand Bridge people so are the resources rally being directed in the right areas? Maybe the world has yet to catch up with on line presentations?

 

If a small amount of their vast wealth is not available for BBO operators, could not some of the bulletin staff be delegated to this purpose, say? After all they report on the matches and presumably watch them so why not operate at the same time?

 

Seems such a shame for juniors particularly to miss out on being presented. And such a loss to the Bridge community that we wont have the privilege of seeing our next generation of world champions:-(

[fred]

My view on how corporate sponsorship of BBO vugraph should work (at least for now):

 

The WBF (and some other tournament organizers) already depend heavily on the corporate sponsors to finance the events they run.

 

The fact that BBO vugraph exists should make it easier for organizations like the WBF to attract corporate sponsors. They can approach companies and tell them "lots of bridge players who watch Internet broadcasts of the tournament will know that your company helped sponsor it!".

 

Potential sponsors are looking for exposure. Right now Internet vugraph is the best thing that tournament organizers can offer them in this regard.

 

We can put the sponsor's logo on the backs of the playing cards, display banner ads in various places, and I have no doubt the Roland and his team will be happy to thank the sponsor via chat in the Vugraph Theatre.

 

Thoughtful tournament organizers might even offer BBO a small % of the money.

 

Sure it could work the other way - we could try to find the sponsors ourselves and give the tournament organizers some of the money so that they could afford to finance fantastic vugraph broadcasts. However, tournament organizers are already in the business of trying to attract corporate sponsors and we are not. Maybe it would make good business sense for us to change this, but for now I think it makes sense for the tournament organizers to handle this - they will certainly receive our full cooperation (and appreciation).

 

The bottom line is that tournament organizers are going to need to find sponsors regardless of whether or not there is BBO vugraph, but the fact that BBO vugraph exists should make it easier for organizers to find quality sponsors (and for such sponsors to offer more money than they otherwise might).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com