Views from Our District Director

[Phil]

The World Bridge Federation has lost the Russian playing site for its Fall World Championships in 2010, and is hunting a replacement venue. We’ve been approached to bid to host it, and several ACBL board members think it’s a good thing to do. I’m not sure. I believe the WBF tournament is mistitled at World Championships since it is not as strong as our NABCs, and to bring it in here will simply be to add a fourth major tournament to compete with our current three nationals for attendance $$$ in these years of a very shaky economy. Also, untold negative impact could be felt at our scheduled regionals, sectionals and clubs in the area when a “world championship,” 10-day affair, invades our turf. Inviting in an other “national” suggests several of these competitive pitfalls and I’m not sure of the advantages other than a real nice chance to play in one.

 

WBF Circus Comes to Town

 

Detroit has volunteered to host the WBF WC; okay, but I’d think offshore or in Los Angeles would be better, or, maybe to combine it with a tournament like an NABC in Orlando, Florida (Fall, 2010), would have been more geographically convenient, and do less area damage.

 

This was in our District 22 Newsletter this month. It was written by Ken Monzingo, who is the D22 Representative to the ACBL.

 

I have pretty strong feelings about his sentiments. What do you think?

[matmat]

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

HAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAhAh

 

 

Ken "Monroe" Manzingo

[JoAnneM]

I am disappointed in Ken. Holding the World Championships would be a huge public relations and publicity opportunity for bridge in the US. If held on the same scale as the games in China I am sure the press coverage would be impressive.

 

I would definetly not support holding the games in conjuntion with an NABC or Regional - that would be an insult to the international players.

[rogerclee]

maybe to combine it with a tournament like an NABC in Orlando, Florida (Fall, 2010), would have been more geographically convenient, and do less area damage

LOL

 

In all seriousness my opinion is that someone who can believe what you quoted is not qualified to be a district director and is probably doing a lot of damage to American bridge without even knowing it.

[jdonn]

It's so sad that he believes what he said.

[Codo]

This was not the newsletter dated 1. of April?

[Hanoi5]

So, no Russia in 2010? Dissapointing...

[mtvesuvius]

LOL, sad.

 

Agree with Josh.

[JoAnneM]

This was not the newsletter dated 1. of April?

http://www.contractbridgeforum.com/May/District22.htm

[crazy4hoop]

Nobody plays in SoCal regionals anyway, it would be such a shame for a regional there to lose its one section single digit number of tables open pairs for an international event. But seriously, how could anyone not want to be in the hunt for hosting something as prestigious as a world championship?

 

D22 pretty much surrounds LA county, if I recall correctly, having lived in LA the first 26 years of my life. Would this proposed tournament be in San Diego, San Bernardino or Riverside (I doubt these Inland Empire citites have anything to offer internationalists unless they like cows), or Santa Barbara, Thousand Oaks, etc.? It is quite a large district geographically.

 

Phil, please share with us those strong feelings you have about this issue. I, for one, would like to read them.

[peachy]

But seriously, how could anyone not want to be in the hunt for hosting something as prestigious as a world championship?

It will be the World Bridge Series event in 2010, not World Championships [which include BB, Venice Cup, and Seniors] if I am reading the WBF information about it correctly

http://www.worldbridge.org/competitions/wo...ips/default.asp

[Phil]

Nobody plays in SoCal regionals anyway, it would be such a shame for a regional there to lose its one section single digit number of tables open pairs for an international event. But seriously, how could anyone not want to be in the hunt for hosting something as prestigious as a world championship?

 

D22 pretty much surrounds LA county, if I recall correctly, having lived in LA the first 26 years of my life. Would this proposed tournament be in San Diego, San Bernardino or Riverside (I doubt these Inland Empire citites have anything to offer internationalists unless they like cows), or Santa Barbara, Thousand Oaks, etc.? It is quite a large district geographically.

 

Phil, please share with us those strong feelings you have about this issue. I, for one, would like to read them.

Well Chris, I need to be careful in a public forum LOL.

 

I share your feelings. I think its very petty to think about the table count in a club game when the Worlds are knocking at your door.

 

While Ken might be right that NABCs are stronger than some of the World events, I'm quite sure that many NABC events are weaker too.

 

I haven't thought about dovetailing a World with one of our NABCs. Might make sense and it might not. Sounds like an awful lot of bridge to me.

[gnasher]

The idea that an open World Championship might be weaker than an NABC held in the same place seems absurd. Other things being equal, how many of the top players would choose to go to an NABC but not to a World Championship, and why?

 

It's possible that some players couldn't commit to an event as long as the World Championships, or might dislike the idea of a 15-session pairs, or don't like the disorganisation which tends to be a feature of WBF events. However, these would be more than balanced by the overseas players who would travel to the USA for a World Championship but not for an NABC.

[gnasher]

But seriously, how could anyone not want to be in the hunt for hosting something as prestigious as a world championship?

Cost might be a legitimate objection. Would District 22 be interested in taking over the 2012 Olympics?

[kfay]

If this ends up in Detroit and I'm on a team that goes...

 

St. Petersburg..... 30 minute card ride down I-94?

 

@#$!

[kfay]

btw your director is a total idiot

[mycroft]

The Spingold field is probably stronger than the RR of the world championships, easily.

 

Why? U.S. X would be better than half the field in the RR of the BB. Italy IV, Poland IV, same. They're "all" at the Spingold - but only one team from each country (two if you're Special) at the BB. All the weaker teams (and that includes me whenever I can go to play) are there as well, but not multiplied by the same amount...

 

Imagine if you had a world-wide hockey championship, where it is financially worth playing for the world's best. Which would be a stronger field - the IIHF finals currently, or the WHC with 4 Canadian teams, 3 Russian, 3 U.S., the Czechs, Slovaks, Finns and Swedes, and then the also-rans?

 

But why should that discourage anyone in the U.S. from holding the worlds, if they can? And yeah, really, how many club tables would they lose? As for the idea that they could just "tack the WBC on to the NABC"...does he pay attention to who plays in the big events at the NABC?

[fred]

The Spingold field is probably stronger than the RR of the world championships, easily.

It depends on which World Championship event you are talking about.

 

For the Bermuda Bowl or Olympiad I would agree with you, but for the event in question, the Rosenblum - an open event, you are probably wrong. This would be especially true if the Rosenblum were to be held in the USA for 2 reasons:

 

1) Because enough major sponsors would be interested in attending that many of the world's leading players who might not otherwise participate would be hired to play. In other words, most of the best teams in the Spingold would be there in one form or another.

 

2) Because the middle of the field would be strong since many strong amateur players would find it convenient and affordable to attend.

 

I suspect that reason 1) would still carry some weight if the Rosenblum were to be held in an attractive venue in Europe (but probably not as much weight since most of the big sponsors are American and some of them are not inclined to travel overseas for bridge).

 

I suspect that reason 2) would carry at least as much weight if the Rosenblum were to be held in Europe.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[JoAnneM]

Why would D22 be covering the cost just because it would be held there. The Districts and ACBL have little to do with each other, actually. There is no financial tie that binds themaside fromthe fees of each individual Regional and the contract when there is a NABC. And with NABC there is no possibility of a loss to the Districts unless they happen to overspend their guaranteed hospitality money.

[dianeg]

Had heard there was some consideration of Las Vegas...

And I say YEAH.

 

Cavendish is next week and it doesn't take away from Nationals, Regionals or Sectionals.

 

Let's have lots of bridge here in the US....and especially LV as our economy needs the business

 

Diane

[blackshoe]

Everybody's economy needs the business. ;)

[TimG]

Why would D22 be covering the cost just because it would be held there. The Districts and ACBL have little to do with each other, actually. There is no financial tie that binds themaside fromthe fees of each individual Regional and the contract when there is a NABC. And with NABC there is no possibility of a loss to the Districts unless they happen to overspend their guaranteed hospitality money.

I'm pretty sure that some Districts have a considerable outlay when they host an NABC. District 25 (New England) sets aside funds for the NABC, spends them during the NABC, and then replenishes during the years between NABCs in New England.

[Vilgan]

Why would D22 be covering the cost  just because it would be held there.  The Districts and ACBL have little to do with each other, actually.  There is no financial tie that binds themaside fromthe fees of each individual Regional and the contract when there is a NABC.  And with NABC there is no possibility of a loss to the Districts unless they happen to overspend their guaranteed hospitality money.

I'm pretty sure that some Districts have a considerable outlay when they host an NABC. District 25 (New England) sets aside funds for the NABC, spends them during the NABC, and then replenishes during the years between NABCs in New England.

yeah... everytime I've heard discussion of funding for an NABC, it is assumed that it will be very expensive for the hosting district. Districts do things like tacking on a dollar to entry fees for the NABC fund, hold special games for funding, etc.

 

I'm not personally familiar with how the whole process works, but it seems unlikely that so many districts would need to raise money for NABCs if it wasn't costing them a pretty penny to host.

[JoAnneM]

Why would D22 be covering the cost  just because it would be held there.  The Districts and ACBL have little to do with each other, actually.  There is no financial tie that binds themaside fromthe fees of each individual Regional and the contract when there is a NABC.  And with NABC there is no possibility of a loss to the Districts unless they happen to overspend their guaranteed hospitality money.

I'm pretty sure that some Districts have a considerable outlay when they host an NABC. District 25 (New England) sets aside funds for the NABC, spends them during the NABC, and then replenishes during the years between NABCs in New England.

yeah... everytime I've heard discussion of funding for an NABC, it is assumed that it will be very expensive for the hosting district. Districts do things like tacking on a dollar to entry fees for the NABC fund, hold special games for funding, etc.

 

I'm not personally familiar with how the whole process works, but it seems unlikely that so many districts would need to raise money for NABCs if it wasn't costing them a pretty penny to host.

I AM personally familiar with the District finances of NABC's. I was Sec/Treas of D20 during the 2004 Reno NABC and I am Finance Chair for the upcoming 2010 Reno NABC.

 

Appoximately one year before a NABC the District is given an estimated table count. There is a city chart which tells you how much per table ACBL is going to give the District to spend on Hospitality and Entertainment. This amount is guaranteed. The fundraising that Districts engage in is for extra money to enhance that ACBL funding. At the end of the NABC the District keeps any excess funds from this account based on the total table count on the Tournament. Districts do not lose money from NABC's unless they budget poorly, and even then

with the guaranteed funds there would be no reason for a District to lose money.

 

These funds pay for registration gifts, free food to players, entertainment, prizes, partnership, I/N, volunteers, caddies hospitality, tours, anything that is not pertinent to the games themselves.

 

Each NABC involves 2 to 3 years of planning.

[TimG]

Appoximately one year before a NABC the District is given an estimated table count. There is a city chart which tells you how much per table ACBL is going to give the District to spend on Hospitality and Entertainment. This amount is guaranteed. The fundraising that Districts engage in is for extra money to enhance that ACBL funding. At the end of the NABC the District keeps any excess funds from this account based on the total table count on the Tournament. Districts do not lose money from NABC's unless they budget poorly, and even then with the guaranteed funds there would be no reason for a District to lose money.

I think perhaps there is a difference in how we are defining "losing money".

 

If a District engages in "extra fund raising" and then spends this money so that at the end of the NABC a District has less money than it started with, to me that is "losing money". Even if the District planned all along to spend that money during the NABC.

 

While I have not been as involved with District finances as you have, I have been on a District board before and after a NABC and have seen District treasurer reports. The balance of the District's "NABC fund" is much lower after an NABC than it is before an NABC. Bottom line: District 25 spends money when a NABC is held in the District. Whether that is considered "losing money" or just spending according to budget, the result is the same.