[hrothgar]

uday, on Jul 21 2006, 09:48 PM, said:

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]

the saint, on Jul 21 2006, 11:45 PM, said:

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]

the saint, on Jul 21 2006, 09:45 PM, said:

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

[Gerben42]

The problem with the location is that like all other places in Bangkok, it is impossible to get there from any other place in Bangkok. So any VG operator would have to eat and sleep at the hotel.

That is being used as an excuse. Of course there is no such thing as a free lunch. However ONE extra person around in the hotel (of very many: 22 teams, directors, caddies, etc.) will make a huge difference for the exposure of the event. No, it's not Damiani or some other bigshot, it's the Vugraph operator.

Without Vugraph, they might have been playing today and you and I would read about it in two months in our national bridge magazine.

Also there is a difference between the WBF and the FIFA. The FIFA gets overrun by requests to promote their tournaments, whereas the WBF, with the same goal: to popularize bridge, has only one or two offers (basically BBO and one other or so). However choosing not to broadcast one of their most important events is failure to pursue their #1 goal.

[hrothgar]

Gerben42, on Jul 22 2006, 01:06 AM, said:

The problem with the location is that like all other places in Bangkok, it is impossible to get there from any other place in Bangkok. So any VG operator would have to eat and sleep at the hotel.

That is being used as an excuse. Of course there is no such thing as a free lunch.

I was in Bangkok a couple years back... One of my favorite things about the city were the (near free) lunches... Every 100 meters or so there would be a strange little cart selling some bizare foodstuff dispensed in a small plastic bag.

I was never quite sure what i was eating, but as long as you picked a cart with a decent sized line it was inevitably very good and very cheap :-) Sure, you might find yourself chewing on a fish head, but thats part of what makes life so very fun.

[melviss666]

I'm 100% with Fred, & even though bid_em_up & I are from the same hometown, I'm 100% against his being 100% against Fred on this,lol. As I thought Fred tried to make clear, there will be no bridge for us old codgers to play if there aren't young members, so, I find the WBF's stance more than appalling. We will wind up with a world full of Texas Hold 'Em players... sounds like being in hell, doesn't it? & as for calling the occasional bureaucrat an idiot, I'm all for it whether he/she represents the United Nations, ACBL, or WBF. Amen.

[polyvlakas]

It is easy to critisize, difficult to keep silent.
For those who are missinformed, I can add the following:

It is us (Panos and myself) who asked help (operator) to broadcast 1 table - open VG room - through BBO.
The reply said nothing about the operator, but something about budgeting $450 as per diem.
I arranged, thanks to Mrs. Nui Vallapa (not a BBO person, but a very capable local bridge personallity), to have an operator for this broadcast.
If BBO allows, we will broadcast the open VG room from Bangkok.

It is very strange to me that after the reply of fskoul, confirming that there will be a broadcast, some people keep on talking.

Yours,

Dimitris Ballas

[Kaje]

I am from the rank and file, a daily user of BBO. I simply cannot understand why an organization whose very reason to be is thus being self-negated by its patent reluctance to accomplish the job myself and the thousands (millions?) of other rank and files like me have trusted it with. Boggles my mind. My anger cannot address the technicalities whether they are commercial, political or technological, I’m simply not conversant with them and thus can’t discuss them with the appropriateness they certainly deserve. Consequently I have to point at what looks indecently obvious to me and bring out my gut feeling: the WBF, which, no doubt (word , can be compared to a mater/pater familias refuses, point blank, to give exposure to our/its offspring. It denies them the help and assistance any child is entitled to from its parents. Organizing a somewhat huis-clos Youth World Championship (compared to what it could have been on the internet) is outrageous because it is jeopârdizing the very lives the WBF’s sole purpose is to protect and help thrive. This could be construed as child abuse. The job of the WBF is to promote the game through its actions which should/must (we gotta make room for tremendous but fruitless efforts) benefit its members at large, the masses (there’s the big frightening word). Period. Not doing it in this particular case is denial of service. All these misdemeanours in our modern times are severely punished by the law, or are they? Does the WBF think it is untouchable? That would be arrogance. The WBF is not run nor does it run for the sake of the WBF but for the sake of those who pay for the WBF to be able to run their bridge interests or any interets linked with in any licit manner we would give our support to. If there can’t be any showcase project seen worldwide, why call it “world”? Add to the aggravation the fact that my child, your children could be missing yet another opportunity to show what they can do. Bridge can surely also be understood as a mere medium through which talent would be channelled and talent that might have nothing to do with bridge directly. We want our kids to be something (?) and bridge players, at least that what I would like for my daughter. I certainly would not want her to be a bridge player period, tends to be sclerotic, not the right 9-letter adjective today . If she would still ask for my advice, I would strongly encourage her to try and develop any other skill, any other center of interest.

The WBF must be our two-way window/mirror. I understand from what I’ve read that they do a great job in other instances. Why stop the good work there? Is it as if to say : “the excellence we have reached there can cover our other weaknesses here”. No way.

What is blatantly missing here is solidarity with the have-nots. All those ever-inflating bodies which deliberately sever links with those they represent invariably become monolithic and self-serving. Do the job you were elected to do.

I’m not sure though that the embarrassing bit is the right thing to do, seems to be pointing at one man. This is exactly what frustration that has been building up, does; the feeling gets to the brink of explosion when you feel trapped. The other (ugly) face of the moon is that I am not capable of seeing which other lever would be efficient in making the behemoth change its way, either. So, as is always the case we (the same) are caught up between evils that systematically boil down to one thing : our own demise. The eternal dilemma between hard-core actions and middle of the road ones

Scuttle the ship and we wind up drowning. Try to seal off the gaps from within and it may take so long that the monster will restore its forces to the point it becomes an impregnable fortress (i.e, ship too deep in waters). Most NCBO's are a mere extension of the WBF, should be the reverse, hmm, let me think about that again

I understand Fred, BBO staff and Roland’s position though, how couldn’t I?
BBO is committed to keeping whatever they can free, and by golly, that’s what they’ve done. This argument is extremely tough to refute as one can experience it every/any second one wishes to. Going to and fro unrestrictedly, changing your name, leaving the table when you wish (politely whenever possible). You feel at home, you make friends, you can host them, you can block any unwanted conversation. You feel free, can't say that about a whole bunch of places today.That’s comfort or I’ve never played on BBO .
That’s exactly what we Bridge lovers --not necessarily good players or experts-- or simply WBF members from all the nooks and crannies of this all cracked up flat Earth have been expecting from the WBF. Why can’t they deliver?

No, my one and only daughter doesn’t play bridge. Why? At age 2 she had some reserves about the WBF and she preserves herself from everything on shelves.

Kaje, keep all jacks enlightened:)

[mrdct]

fskoul, on Jul 21 2006, 01:27 PM, said:

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.

In Sydney three separate wireless broadband interent connections were used. One shared wirelessly amongst the three or four broadcast tables and one about 500 metres away shared amongst a wired LAN with about a dozen computers in a players' internet cafe and three or four computers in the vugraph theatre. The third was in WBF offices for the use of the bulletin editor and WBF officials.

Most of the time this worked OK, but in the evenings the internet was noticably slower and on two or three occasions we had sessions (I think matches 3, 6 & 9) in which we reverted to single table coverage. When problems with the internet arose, my priority was always the online coverage for the 2000+ spectators we usually had rather than half-dozen or so people watching in the onsite theatre.

For the onsite vugraph theater it is true that there were a few evening matches where the connection to BBO was unstable for the few people there, but it was usually sorted out fairly quickly by restarting the wireless modem and disconnecting a few computers in the internet cafe. Only a few boards were missed iirc.

We fiddled a few things around as the event went on, including moving the computer on which comparitive scores were entered to the playing area and reducing the number of machine sharing a connection with the vugraph theatre, which sorted things out for the last few days of the round robin and for the KO matches (where we also had one table on dial-up to be doubly sure).

The internet situation in Sydney was not optimal, but it was a reality we had to deal with as a DSL connection at the venue was going to cost about $2000 compared to $180 for three one-month subscriptions to a wireless service which the provider actually threw in for free as a sponsorship.

Having a BBO server onsite was considered, but I decided against it for the following reasons:

1. It may have been more reliable for people onsite, but much less reliable for people offsite (as was clearly evidenced with Istanbul fiasco).

2. It would've been a major pain in the arse to set up. including all sorts of security issues around BBO's source code, etc.

3. Site survey tests of the wireless connection (albeit conducted during the day) indicated that the connection would be more that capable of handling everthing.

4. On the reasonable assumption that the interent connection would be stable, the most likely point of failure would be the local server. BBO's servers in the USA are hosted in a climate controlled data centre with 24-hour monitoring and continuous power - so I took the view that failure was far more likely with a local server.

The WBF's preference for a local server is based on ignorance and lack of appreciation for the fact that only about 0.5% on the vugraph audience is onsite.

Slightly off-topic, but as has been said in this forum many times before, having a good quality internet connection is the key to a successful broadcast.

[mrdct]

Gerben42, on Jul 21 2006, 05:06 PM, said:

The problem with the location is that like all other places in Bangkok, it is impossible to get there from any other place in Bangkok. So any VG operator would have to eat and sleep at the hotel.

Nonsense. I visit Bangkok every year or so and have never found transport much of a problem. The new elevated rail is very efficient and there are plenty of cheap taxis and tuk-tuks to get you around. The venue itself, the Baiyoke Sky Hotel, has plenty of 2-star to 5-star hotels within a few blocks to suit any budget.

[oblio11]

[QUOTE](polyvlakas @ Jul 21 2006, 07:52 PM) It is easy to critisize, difficult to keep silent.

Do you imagine a silent world where politicians do whatever they want, mr. Polyvlakas? I have been growing up in such a world. It is a nightmarish one. I refuse to consider that you see as normal this option. Maybe you intended to say: "it is easy to criticize, difficult to be constructive."

I've been reading very carefully all the posted messages; the dispute about the WBF' s job of promoting bridge, especially among youngsters, and the BBO's. Because it's obvious this is all about. Not sharing the money made from these vu-graph transmissions, because there are no money to be shared. A dispute between an entity paid to do its job and another one whose motor is only the enthusiasm (for now, at least). Who will be in the future the financial beneficiary of this promotion? WBF is certainly one. BBO could be. Who is fighting to perform this transmissions? BBO. It's hilarious, but when we draw the line we witness an enthusiastic and volunteer fight of a group to open the pocket of another one for being fulfilled with money in the future. Of course it is a small investment to be made right now (I really don't know and I wouldn't like to be wrong, but 450 $ "per diem", in Thailand seems too much), but it's how the money are usually made. Should BBO make also the investment? It sounds outrageous; enough that they build the future of bridge for some personal satisfaction.

I learned bridge because my new, very young and enthusiast math teacher just won the national team championship that time. At math club, instead of math we learned bridge. But it was an unbelievable chance. Anyhow, out of four enthusiasts who started it's only me who continue to play. I played on the internet for a while but, for a certain reason, I couldn't afford to pay the annual fees and I had stopped playing until, by a nice chance, I discovered BBO. No fees, no ratings (that really kill bridge), but the most important issue, the vu-graph. I had seen Nafiz Zorlu playing at the European championships for BC's, two days later I played against him in a TM. Of course it's not an isolate case, it is just an example. I will be a teacher. I will make a Bridge Club in school, for sure. Do those guys from WBF know what means to be able to tell the students: "Look how it's in bridge, you connect on BBO, you see guys like you playing there in the World Championship for Youth and maybe you can disscuss right after that with your heroes about the boards, play against them because most of them have accounts on BBO; you can personally congrats Fulvio Fantoni for his last successes, you can see every evening champions playing around, like Benito Garrozzo, Meckstroth and his sons, and so on; you can disscuss with commentators about boards while they are played, and commentators are champions themselves; of course they are nice, because they do what they do only for moral satisfactions; is this possible in any other sport or game? No thick glasses between you and the champions' world but a big family?". This being the case, they have a chance to surpass the various difficulties they need to confront with in order to become good and loyal to bridge players.

So BBO is doing exceptionally well its job. Does WBF?

[fskoul]

mrdct said:

Most of the time this worked OK, but in the evenings the internet was noticably slower and on two or three occasions we had sessions (I think matches 3, 6 & 9) in which we reverted to single table coverage.  When problems with the internet arose, my priority was always the online coverage for the 2000+ spectators we usually had rather than half-dozen or so people watching in the onsite theatre.

...

The internet situation in Sydney was not optimal, but it was a reality we had to deal with as a DSL connection at the venue was going to cost about $2000 compared to $180 for three one-month subscriptions to a wireless service which the provider actually threw in for free as a sponsorship.

At last the euchologies have stopped (at least partially) and there is some admitance of the problems. I will not stay in the point that, if in an event of 10 days, you have problems in the 3 of them (and they were more than 3) then there is something seriously wrong, but I want to point out something else. Look how easily you decided on a suboptimal solution to save YOUR money - on the other hand, look how easily you ask for the best when it is someone else who pays. This is especially the case in Junior events, as I know very well first as a player and later as member of the staff.

But even worse is your first phrase - are you realising you are doing serious harm to BBO with what you say right there? You admit that, when it was to decide if the contract with WBF or BBO would be satisfied, YOU decided that it should be BBO. By doing so YOU decided that the players, for whom their federations have PAYED money, wouldn't see vugraph onsite, some persons (like the Vugraph commentator) wouldn't be able to do their job, etc. In other words you are saying that in view of the presence of BBO the onsite function of the event was worsened.

I am really surprised that nobody from the BBO officials hasn't already reacted to such statements. This is a mentallity that seems to separate BBO from the WBF event organization, and it is clearly not the appropriate way to look at things.

P.S. Edited some of my usual typos.

[Walddk]

Glad to see that the WBF has found the money. One table is better than no table. Perhaps we will be able to find volunteers so that we can broadcast from the closed room too.

By the way, $450 a day can cover the expenses for more than one person.

Roland