[jeremy69]

Quote

You can, but that doesn't necessarily allow you to play in county competitions with qualifiers in clubs.

You can join directly and then join a county also directly. This would give you the right to play in their competitions including qualifying heats in clubs. You would not, however, be allowed to play in events which demanded club membership such as the NICKO or Garden Cities Trophy unless you were also a member of that affiliated club.

[jeremy69]

Quote

the EBU seemed to be self congratulating themselves about how much consultation they had done. Utter rubbish.

Well shareholders were asked and had to vote in favour before it could go ahead. Prior to this counties were asked, clubs were asked. Yes it is true that there was not a 100% reply rate. There never is. Is everyone happy? No, of course some will disagree with any new idea good or bad.
The constitution of the EBU since it was founded is not a direct one man, one vote system but rather uses counties as the vocie of the members. Perfect? Certainly not and a model that can be varied. In my view one man, one vote would be expensive and not especially productive but there may be a case for giving clubs a greater say.If you opposed the idea or felt the amount of detail was inadequate then you had the option of
a. asking your county to find out more
b. asking your county to resolve to vote against the idea (I don't think they did)
c. getting your club to lobby the county and then the EBU to provide more information.

There was a vehicle for airing your views. It just did not seem to be the one you thought it ought to be.

So given the core of your problems have been resolved please PM me if there are others on which you think progress can be made or ought to be made.

[Cyberyeti]

jeremy69, on Mar 22 2010, 04:47 PM, said:

Quote

the EBU seemed to be self congratulating themselves about how much consultation they had done. Utter rubbish.

Well shareholders were asked and had to vote in favour before it could go ahead. Prior to this counties were asked, clubs were asked. Yes it is true that there was not a 100% reply rate. There never is. Is everyone happy? No, of course some will disagree with any new idea good or bad.
The constitution of the EBU since it was founded is not a direct one man, one vote system but rather uses counties as the vocie of the members. Perfect? Certainly not and a model that can be varied. In my view one man, one vote would be expensive and not especially productive but there may be a case for giving clubs a greater say.If you opposed the idea or felt the amount of detail was inadequate then you had the option of
a. asking your county to find out more
b. asking your county to resolve to vote against the idea (I don't think they did)
c. getting your club to lobby the county and then the EBU to provide more information.

There was a vehicle for airing your views. It just did not seem to be the one you thought it ought to be.

So given the core of your problems have been resolved please PM me if there are others on which you think progress can be made or ought to be made.

Fine, what can we do, most of our county's clubs voted against, our county reps voted against.

For a small club that plays when we have 8 and doesn't when we don't, but has been to the national final of the garden cities several times, and is organised to have zero maintenance, P2P has killed us off. It offers us nothing but trouble.

[jeremy69]

Quote

most of our county's clubs voted against

Doesn't your county have 29 clubs of whom at least 19 thus far have voted to affiliate next season? There are something like 85 county shareholders and a majority of them had to vote in favour before the scheme went ahead. I understand that your club doesn't feel best served but
a. there are ways to cope with it
and
b. I think you are slanting the facts to suit your argument

In many counties having one club which often wins, for example, county teams of eight qualifiers but doesn't often meet for real is perceived by others in the county to be a bit of a fix. My county had such a club about 15 years ago. It was very successful and played by the rules of the time but bred quite a lot of local resentment. The club I currently play for has been in the last 4 finals and won once, twice second and once third but is not affiliating. If I want to play I'll play for another affiliated club of which I am a member.

[Cyberyeti]

jeremy69, on Mar 22 2010, 05:44 PM, said:

Quote

most of our county's clubs voted against

Doesn't your county have 29 clubs of whom at least 19 thus far have voted to affiliate next season? There are something like 85 county shareholders and a majority of them had to vote in favour before the scheme went ahead. I understand that your club doesn't feel best served but
a. there are ways to cope with it
and
b. I think you are slanting the facts to suit your argument

In many counties having one club which often wins, for example, county teams of eight qualifiers but doesn't often meet for real is perceived by others in the county to be a bit of a fix. My county had such a club about 15 years ago. It was very successful and played by the rules of the time but bred quite a lot of local resentment. The club I currently play for has been in the last 4 finals and won once, twice second and once third but is not affiliating. If I want to play I'll play for another affiliated club of which I am a member.

No, it just so happens that in our case we used to have 3-4 tables, but many of our players have moved out of the area as a couple of large employers have shifted some of their business elsewhere, and others have shifted jobs, but remain members. I certainly have not been a member of any other club for many years till I had to join one recently and very very rarely played at any other club. This is true of a majority of the regulars.

We are and have always been a genuine club, we have 9 regular players (one of whom won't make the longish drive to the club in the winter) and sometimes 8 are available, sometimes they aren't.

As I understand what was published in the county newsletter (which I think I've now thrown away), our county voted against, and the vast majority of clubs were against the scheme, but many affiliated as they felt they had no choice.

Having to play for another club (and potentially displace people who've been playing in the garden cities for that club for years) is worse than the alternative you describe anyway.

[NickRW]

jeremy69, on Mar 22 2010, 09:47 PM, said:

There was a vehicle for airing your views. It just did not seem to be the one you thought it ought to be.

As someone who was not an EBU member at the time and indeed, I believe, the consultation document preceeded me even being a member of my local club, no there was no means of airing my views at all. I found out about it through the internet after the fact.

I, along with a lot of other people, wrote of our disgust in the only worthwhile, independent forum that exists - the pages of Mr Bridge (ye Gods!) (And of which I am sure the EBU is well aware). After I wrote that letter, a number of other club members spoke of their agreement with my general feeling and not one spoke of their disagreement.

In any event, as I said, the consultation survey of clubs took place before much of the detail was clear and the contrary views had not had a chance to be communicated. Thus it was a survey of the uninformed.

The county does not consult our Club over this or anything else. As a form of democracy, the EBU constitution doesn't even qualify as a joke.

Nick

[NickRW]

WellSpyder, on Mar 22 2010, 06:08 PM, said:

For instance, I haven't seen anywhere the suggestion from the EBU that they were waiting for you for two months - just a comment that they did reply to the earlier submission of details, and that when you re-submitted there were at that time a lot of other clubs' details to deal with.

Well, I don't think you've really read what was said then:

Quote

Actually, we replied to your first submission on January 15th. It then took you over three weeks to resubmit, by which time we had several hundred other clubs to deal with. I'm sorry if there was a delay but it was only fair to deal with submissions on a first-come first-served basis and you were at the back of the queue.

They are quite clearly saying that they replied on the 15th of Jan and it took me three weeks to resubmit - i.e. it was I that caused the delay. That it is an utter falsehood. They sent what looked like an automated reply acknowledging receipt of our submission sometime around the 15th of Jan - but they did not process it, nor did thay ask for a resubmission. They got around to actually doing something for real in early March. Those are the facts.

Nick

[Vampyr]

jeremy69, on Mar 20 2010, 05:24 PM, said:

Quote

I haven't tried the software, but I would just like to note what a well-spent £700,000 this project is.

I assume you mean the whole project not just the software but I would be keen to know how you arrive at this figure(or one even remotely near it). Do provide your data for this astonishing estimate.

The estimate was the EBU's before the project began. I do not know whether the project is now expected to finish under budget.

[jeremy69]

Quote

The estimate was the EBU's before the project began. I do not know whether the project is now expected to finish under budget.

Was it? Would be interested in where you found it originally because it exaggerates the costs by a factor of about 9.

[jeremy69]

Quote

As someone who was not an EBU member at the time

I am not all that surprised that the EBU did not consult more widely than the membership. If your choice, at the time, was not to be a member of the national organisation then it is a bit rich to complain you were not consulted.

Quote

I, along with a lot of other people, wrote of our disgust in the only worthwhile, independent forum that exists - the pages of Mr Bridge (ye Gods!)

Your entitlement, of course, to make comments where you wish but was this the most effective way? Again you are outside the organisation that you wish to influence. Why didn't you use your committee, county delegates and indeed lobby other counties and clubs if you wanted to be heard and influence people.

Quote

The county does not consult our Club over this or anything else. As a form of democracy, the EBU constitution doesn't even qualify as a joke.

The fact that you say your county does not consult you does not automatically make the constitution a "joke" Given that your club is a duly affiliated club in it's county are you not able to a. go to the AGM b. nominate people for positions on the county committee c. ask that the Sussex shareholders are mandated to vote in a particular way d. propose motions to the AGM.
Of course you would have to carry some other members along with you for this to work. I am not clear why all this is a joke but part of the commitment given when the Universal Membership project started was to look at ways of organising the EBU and specifically involving members more fully. I guess one man, one vote is possible but it would be an expensive and time consuming option. Another possibilitiy is to involve the clubs directly. All of this is being discussed by the Board, counties & their committees, shareholders and the club committee now so ask your county delegates to put forward your clubs view. Ask the county committee as to what is going on presently. Ther period of consultation and discussion will go on for some months and any changes will have to be ratified by the EBU shareholders at the AGM. Probably also worth saying that if the EBU is successful in obtaining charity registration at some point in the future then it will have to satisfy the Charity Commissioners that its constitution is not a "joke" and that the corporate governance procedures meet acceptable standards.

[helene_t]

I think this p2p thing is in the process of killing serious bridge at our club. We will continue to have social bridge for the eternal beginners and hopefully also continue to provide lessons for beginners although being non-affiliated could be an obstacle to that, too. It may not affect the quality of the cookies served in the coffee breaks at club afternoons but I think it's a sad development for a club that has many well-known players among its members (and until recently active players), including three current junior internationals and one recent one, and has two teams-of-eight in the first division of our district.

The thing is that a number of good players have stopped playing at the club since we disaffiliated. Last year we won the county teams but were disqualified when it turned out that one of our players was not an EBU member - this year we did not participate, and I believe that without the internal fighting about whether to stay affiliated we would have been able to participate. The loss of good players also threatens our club as an organization since they are difficult to miss not only as players but also as the more knowledgeable and better connected volunteers.

OK this development is due to a number of factors not all related to p2p, but all the bitterness related to the fights over p2p plus the fact that you can't earn masterpoints at club nights anymore, and possible other awkwardness following from our decision to disaffiliate, may in itself have caused the level of participation of strong players to drop to under the critical mass.

I think some form of universal membership was probably necessary but something has gone awfully wrong with the "marketing" of the project. OK England is a conservative country and it might be impossible to achieve popular acceptance of such a major transition, but at least giving it a more attractive name ("pay to play" sounds like the main change is that we are going to pay for something that used to be free, which is how most club players perceive it) might have given it a better chance.

[NickRW]

jeremy69, on Mar 23 2010, 11:42 AM, said:

Quote

As someone who was not an EBU member at the time

I am not all that surprised that the EBU did not consult more widely than the membership. If your choice, at the time, was not to be a member of the national organisation then it is a bit rich to complain you were not consulted.

Look pal, I haven't even bothered to read the rest of your reply because this first bit has got me so damn annoyed.

Those who were not EBU members, but who, in many cases are going to have to become members whether they like it or not are ABSOLUTELY the people who should have been consulted. It is their money that the EBU is primarily raiding, in most cases agasinst their wishes - or they would have been members anyway.

This is symptomatic of the utter arrogance of this scheme.

Nick

[jeremy69]

Quote

Look pal, I haven't even bothered to read the rest of your reply because this first bit has got me so damn annoyed.

Feel free not to read it. Your choice, of course. You wouldn't, in any event, want anything to get in the way of an intemperate rant.
Are you sure I am your "pal" or is this similar to "regards" ending an earlier post to someone else. In case you read on:

You should be clear that no-one "has" to become a member. Some clubs won't affiliate because they don't see the advantage for them. Some will despite initial reservations and others still will be more wholehearted about it. There is certainly one club in your county that doesn't approve, doesn't value master points, sees no reason to have a national organisation it will support, is not interested in other membership benefits(or perhaps doesn't regard them as benefits) and thus won't affiliate. I regret this personally but it's a free world and the trick is to make joining more attractive if possible for Year 2 so some clubs who made the initial decision not to affiliate may change their mind and offer bridge players a wider range of clubs to play in.
You started this thread swinging the bat about the software. You said a little later that the substantial issue is resolved. There may be others. It is certainly in the EBU's interest to resolve them if possible so I invite you again to PM me if there are any others that might be resolved with some help. The help file alluded to earlier is now on the EBU web site.

[NickRW]

helene_t, on Mar 23 2010, 04:28 PM, said:

The thing is that a number of good players have stopped playing at the club since we disaffiliated. Last year we won the county teams but were disqualified when it turned out that one of our players was not an EBU member - this year we did not participate, and I believe that without the internal fighting about whether to stay affiliated we would have been able to participate. The loss of good players also threatens our club as an organization since they are difficult to miss not only as players but also as the more knowledgeable and better connected volunteers.

Well, this is the core of it really, I suppose. We've, in the short term anyway, decided to stay affiliated simply because our Friday session attracts quite a few people who are decent players and, although not one of them has ever even so much as intimated that they might leave if we disaffiliate, we would rather not put ourselves in the position where that might be the case.

However, my difficulties with the software aside (which will, necessarily, be ironed out over time anyway otherwise the scheme collapses by virtue of its core component not functioning), there are other matters that give our committee grave concern - there is, for example the fact that one of our other sessions is for the LOLs - basically it is simple systems. It has never issued masterpoints because they simply aren't wanted and the people that play would rather have reduced table money than pay the EBU anything. Under the new scheme the rumours I hear are that we are going to have to a licence fee for this session anyway. Now this session may not be even on the radar of the better players, but the people who go are as much entitled to enjoy their afternoon session as anyone else - indeed a couple of them are very active members of the club who really help the wheels go around. We may have to force these people to pay more table money, split it into a completely separate club or fold the Thursday session altogether - none of which we want to do - and none of which is in the interests of either our club as a whole or the people concerend as individuals. Yet this appears to be the policy of the EBU - an organisation that is supposed to be fostering bridge in England.

This sort of thing is utterly - and I really mean utterly - alienating.

Then there is their policy that if you want to participate in EBU events you (for most of them anyway) you have to be a member. Yuck. At our club visitors are welcome - they pay slightly more table money. Now I see that this policy is extending to the Sims sessions run by the EBU (perhaps understandable) - but they are even trying to steam roller the BGB events and the Charity session. How flaming arrogant. It really makes the EBU sound like a bunch of money grabbing, don't care b**tards.

Certainly, there is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind, that this scheme is nothing but devisive and not one iota in the interests of bridge in general. And, the really indicting thing is - the EBU do not have an answer to this criticism.

Nick

[NickRW]

jeremy69, on Mar 23 2010, 05:10 PM, said:

Quote

Look pal, I haven't even bothered to read the rest of your reply because this first bit has got me so damn annoyed.

Feel free not to read it. Your choice, of course. You wouldn't, in any event, want anything to get in the way of an intemperate rant.

I am the way I am solely because of the arrogance of people like you. People with attitudes like you are the problem.

[NickRW]

jeremy69, on Mar 23 2010, 05:10 PM, said:

You started this thread swinging the bat about the software. You said a little later that the substantial issue is resolved.

Actually the software is getting resolved. I have since found a couple of further problems - real, reproducible problems. The assertion that 200 odd clubs had tried the software and liked it was really quite silly. I work in the computer industry and it is clear that system testing was not carried out by one single competent person - or I wouldn't have found these problems.

However, the software is not the core of the problem - it wll, necessarily be fixed sooner or later - the real problem is with the scheme itself.

[NickRW]

jeremy69, on Mar 23 2010, 05:10 PM, said:

You should be clear that no-one "has" to become a member.

You got me so wound up. The above seemingly innocuous and reasonable sentence is an utter mischaracterisation. It sounds like we have some sort of choice - that we actually want. No. We actually liked - or at least preferred the old status quo, Now we are put in a position where we have to choose between being "in" or "out". We don't want this choice - our members are probably virtually unanimous that we don't want this choice.

[jeremy69]

Quote

I am the way I am solely because of the arrogance of people like you. People with attitudes like you are the problem.

I appreciate that I won't be getting your vote anytime soon. However perhaps the way you are is not directly my fault! Let me put the idea to you that
a. the current membership model is not sustainable because of declining numbers over a sustained period. There is compelling evidence of this.
b. The EBU needed therefore to produce a new model. Research was done over a substantial period. Clearly there are alternatives and the EBU consulted with their members/shareholders etc. I understand you think this consultation inadequate and the solution wrong.
c. The idea of P2P goes forward with which you(and some others disagree) once it is voted on an approved by the county representatives(shareholders)

In under a year we will see whether it is
a. an abject failure
b. neither good nor bad
c. a modest success
d. a roaring success

Some benchmarks will be: how big is the membership? do more people want to play bridge in the new environment? Is it financially stable? Will clubs sign up for Year 2 and beyond? If it is a. then no doubt there will be some resignations and perhaps you will be there to step in and pick up the pieces? One thing it is not is a money making exercise.

It's, of course, possible, that you are right and you will then enjoy many happy hours gloating about how you knew it would be a catastrophe all along. As it happens I don't think you will be able to do this but in any event if it works it will be down to countless hours spent by bridge players who have volunteered to help and assist their national organisation because they believe in it's future rather than the minority who wish to, fortunately ineffectually, carp but actually do nothing very much about it. If I have learnt one thing from the last year or so it would be how many individuals work really hard at all levels to make competitive bridge work in this country. Try turning up at something like a Camrose match and see the number of people who have not the slightest chance of ever playing working their socks off to make the event a smooth running success enjoyed by player and audience alike.
If there is a second thing it would be that there is a minority who like nothing more than to bemoan how awful those who run the organisation are but are less than great at putting their money where their mouth is. If you don't do it my way you are
a. arrogant
b. corrupt
c. incompetent
d. lazy
e. a joke
f. perm any two or more from the above

[NickRW]

[quote name='jeremy69' date='Mar 23 2010, 08:23 PM'] [QUOTE]but in any event if it works it will be down to countless hours spent by bridge players who have volunteered to help and assist their national organisation because they believe in it's future rather than the minority who wish to, fortunately ineffectually, carp but actually do nothing very much about it. If I have learnt one thing from the last year or so it would be how many individuals work really hard at all levels to make competitive bridge work in this country. Try turning up at something like a Camrose match and see the number of people who have not the slightest chance of ever playing [/quote]
You're still not getting it are you. I do not want to be in the Camrose - I doubt that there are many at my club who do. If you or someone else wants to be in the Camrose great for you - and in if others want to support its smooth running - then that is absolutely fine.

I am someone who does, however, apart from obviously score local duplicates, also direct, I organise the rota for all the other people who direct, maintain much of the club website and do all sorts of other odds and sods - including - ye gods - just now - help (whilst not being paid) Stephen from Scorebridge and Michael from the EBU get their systems to work. It may not sound like I am helping them - but actually I am (so that you can have your silly P2P in working order). So I do my share of organising bridge at the grass roots and am not the slightest bit daunted by how much someone else does at whatever level.

Others do all sorts of things - like the little of lady down the road from me who sees that all sessions have tea/coffe and biscuits and also organises the Thrusday Afternoon duplicate (that we may have to lose due the policies of the organisation you are defending)

Our opinions - our feelings - are part of this and we do not much care about your damn Camrose - as you obviously do not care about us - given that the policy of your organisation may well destroy that Thursday session and possibly leave us without the lady that does the biscuits. Maybe you don't care about that - I do.

Nick

[jeremy69]

Quote

I do not want to be in the Camrose - I doubt that there are many at my club who do

Fine but in many sports/mind sports/pastimes including bridge there are people who are proud of what their country does and want to help it achieve better. I accept you don't but it is a competitive game and the top level is important which doesn't mean that other levels are not. The contributions of people who help the club or county or body at National Levle are also important. I fear it is you who doesn't get it because no-one is permitted to disagree with your myopic view of the game(or at least without some modest abuse!).
The Thursday afternoon game continues if that is what the club wants. No-one is stopping it or wants to or has the right to. What this is about is a viable model for the future of duplicate bridge in England and you move the argument from matters of great principle(in your view) to more mundane arguments about how the software works and back again without any cogent view on how you would move forward.