[BLML] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Marvin French mfrench1 at san.rr.com
Thu Jan 7 22:38:31 CET 2010


From: "David Babcock"

> and -- if having seven ACBL'ers on the fifteen-member WBFLC isn't 
> enough
> to ensure WBF/ACBL cooperation in law-making, what "return to [a]
> previous situation" is envisioned?

[the quote is attributed to Gary Blaiss, former Chief Tournament 
Director of the ACBL]
>
Perhaps cooperation means that the ACBL would not make substantive 
changes in the  Laws created by the WBF. Since Gary Blaiss is the 
one who prepared the ACBL's 2008 Laws, that might seem unlikely. 
However,the ACBL LC surely edited what Gary produced, stating (Chip 
Martel) that the WBF Laws serve only as a guide.

I believe the ACBL's current "2008" laws represents the first time 
ever that an ACBL edition contradicted or substantively supplemented 
the WBF's "official" Laws. Since the ACBL was previously an NBO and 
therefore subject to WBF By-laws (which they never acknowledged), 
the WBF version was previously honored. But since 2001 it is 
independent of the WBF and can do what it wishes.

Not only was the ACBL well-represented on the Drafting Committee, it 
was extremely over-represented, going by membership numbers of other 
NBOs.

When I wrote to then-President Dayani about the fact that the ACBL 
no longer is an NBO and therefore can do what it wants with the 
Laws, I got this reply:

But it is totally clear that the WBF Laws Commission leads and 
control the
Laws of Duplicate Bridge as published in 2007. (See attached) With 
kind
regards José Damiani President of the WBF

Attached was a foreword to the 2007 laws, stating in part:
NBOs may utilise the text on the Web Site (and this foreword if they 
wish), but if they print in any format they are requested to put the 
following:

 The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007

Copyright World Bridge Federation

The ACBL  ignored this "request." in its "2008" Laws. Its position 
seems to be that the ACBL indeed honors the WBF's 2007 Laws, but 
only in regard to international  competition. Within ACBL-land, its 
2008 Laws govern all  play. Since the ACBL is not an NBO, that 
position seems legal although outrageous.

But money speaks, and the WBF won't do anything to offend the ACBL, 
whose BoD donated $100,000 to the WBF (via the USBF) for the  right 
to host the World Series of Bridge in Philadelphia next fall. 
$200,000 more is pledged by the USBF, with $63,000 in the bank as of 
last July toward that commitment.. Also $100,000 is required if the 
room block at hotels is not filled, and there is a $50,000 
obligation for sponsors' reception and other hospitality. These are 
theoretically USBF obligations. On its web site the USBF asks for 
donations toward these expenses. Oh, and the expenses incurred in 
fund-raising efforts are to be reimbursed.

We ACBL members wonder what we get in return for this honor, other 
than the opportunity for rich ACBL members to participate in this 
very expensive tournament. Does the ACBL BoD play for free,  I 
wonder?

The USBF is used by the ACBL as a funnel through which WBF 
membership fees for it and two other NBOs (Canada and Mexico), based 
on ACBL membership, are paid. Thus the fees officially come from the 
USBF and the other two NBOs,  not the ACBL, in principle. That is, 
those fees are sent individually, based on NBO membership numbers.

Oddity: We  American ACBL members (not Canadian and Mexican members) 
are automatically "regular" members of the USBF, willy-nilly, but 
the ACBL itself is not a member. Actually we are not truly members 
of the USBF, since it charges membership fees indpendent of the 
ACBL, $50 a year or $130 for three years. Real members are Active 
Members (who have paid USBF dues), Athlete  members (Active members 
who have done well in international competition), and Resident 
Members (foreigners who qualify in various ways).

Marv
Marvin L French
San Diego, CA
www.marvinfrench.com





More information about the Blml mailing list