USBF "Members"

[Jan Martel]

Just to be clear, the USBF Bylaws provide that all ACBL & ABA members are “regular” members of USBF:

"A person qualifies as a Regular Member if s/he meets any of the following three sets of criteria:
1.
He or she is a citizen of the USA; is a member in good standing of the
American Contract Bridge League ("ACBL") or the American Bridge
Association ("ABA”); and is not under probation for ninety (90) days or
more, nor under expulsion or suspension by either of those bodies. Any
person who satisfies these criteria is automatically a member of the USBF."

If we were ever paying WBF dues based on USBF membership, I am sure WBF would take the position that this applied and the “members” on the basis of whom we paid WBF dues were in fact all US ACBL & ABA members. 

On Jul 21, 2015, at 10:48 AM, Michael Kamil <michael.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why would the ACBL pay WBF dues when 99% of their membersh ip couldn't pick out a Bermuda Bowl player in a police lineup? While I am disgusted that the ACBL has totally given up even the pretense of supporting and promoting real bridge I can't blame them for wanting to represent their non-real-bridge playing constituency. If WBF countries are supposed to pay a buck per member the USA has been overpaying dues from folks like "Irma from the club." It is clear USBF should be paying dues since it fields all participants. The only question is how much? I hope WBF only charges a buck per USBF member which would be no big deal for members to cover. Anything more than that would be excessive and unfair. 

Mike Kamil

  Jan Martel

mart...@gmail.com

[Michael Kamil]

Hi Jan,

 

I hear you that that's the "rule".  However, I believe that in practice we've reached a point where we have two different entities.  On the one hand you've got the ACBL which is looking out for it's membership.  99% of the membership doesn't care about the WBF or world championships, just masterpoints.  On the other hand you've got the USBF which generally consists of those who are interested in bridge as a game and bridge at a higher level.  I guess to put it simply, I'm suggesting that the entities should cease to operate jointly.

 

Michael

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Chris Compton]

Flat out wrong that 99% of ACBL members don't care about World Championships. Not even close.

Chris 

[Robb Gordon]

As somebody on the inside/outside border, I have followed this with much interest. Some thoughts –

 

1.       If the ACBL pulls out of the WBF the consequences will be significant, perhaps even causing a split and “competing” bridge organizations. Is that a good thing? I don’t think so, but nobody knows.

2.       The motion is unlikely to pass, but stranger things have happened.

3.       Do more than 1% of the membership care about the WBF and world competition? My guess is no, but nobody really knows – all we have is anecdotal evidence and in this case that is no evidence at all. It is something worth researching.

4.       While the motion is distinctly “isolationist” this doesn’t mean there are no problems with the WBF. When I applied to be WBF rep one of my goals was to try to make the WBF more transparent. Yes it is only a buck, but where is that buck going? Who is getting salaries and perks? Why does the WBF essentially loot and pillage when places want to host a world championship? Their deal is “you get the expenses, we get the revenues” basically. I haven’t spoken to him, but I am sure Howie who was chosen has similar thoughts. In light of the FIFA scandal world sports organizations should be falling over each other to be above board.

Concluding, I hope the motion is defeated but I would welcome a “fact-finding” committee of ACBL and USBF (and CBF and MBF if they wish) to inquire of the WBF how we can get financials out into the open as well as the city selection process.

Robb

[Danny Sprung]

Just to play devil's advocate...We had a number of 1020 ACBL members who have represented their country in WC's.  Chris, are you saying there aren't another 600 who don't play, but do care about them?  Just the spouses alone will get you close to 600, I'd guess.  Have you ever watched a VuGraph of our trials?  Once again, 600 is way on the low side.  Through an event, I'd guess the number is closer to 6000 different ACBLers who have never played in a WC actually watch and care about the events.  That may still only get us to 5%.  So, while we may be quibbling over epsilons, the number is much bigger than the nay sayers say.  

[Chris Compton]

I am confused Danny, I am arguing we have indeed have widespread support: there are a lot of ACBL members who do not try to represent their country, but who want the U.S. to do well and are fine w the teams being financially supported. It is a total guess, but I would assume close to 50% of the total membership support our representatives being given $$. Put in the reverse manner, who among us has heard from someone at their club (or the 110,000 members who DO NOT play in any any ACBL sanctioned game) who objects to the expenses being paid for our representatives? If you follow this, it leads to a check-off donation on your dues bill. We have a lot of support, period. 

Chris 

[Robb Gordon]

I think Danny had you confused with Mike Kamil's statement and my "who knows?" statement.

You raise a good point that there is a USBF checkoff on membership renewals. I wonder what % of our members pay the voluntary $2 or whatever it is?
 

[Danny Sprung]

I misread your statement, Chris.  Got it backwards.  Sorry

Danny

[Danny Sprung]

I think it was the double negative that got me.

[Mike Passell]

If worse comes to worse we can send our prime fund raiser Chris out there 

Sent from my iPhone

[Al]

The 99% argument comes from the naysayers.  Don't fall into the trap of agreeing. Just because I'm a golf hacker isn't to say that I want to get rid of major championships. The importance and prestige of bridge comes from the top end. If it didn't exist bridge would die a slow death. 

Al