From a distance, it is sometimes difficult to understand the reasoning behind legislation and/or regulations. Such is the case with the following from the WBF website: “Participation in the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup Only NBOs participating in the World Bridge Games (incorporated in the 2nd World Mind Sport Games) are eligible to qualify to participate in the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup Championships held in either of the two subsequent odd-numbered years; in each case, an Open Team must participate in the Games in order to be eligible for the Bermuda Bowl and a Women’s team must participate to be eligible for the Venice Cup. Thus if an Open Team from an NBO did not participate in the 2012 Bridge Games then that NBO would not be eligible to participate in the Bermuda Bowl in either 2013 or 2015.”
The regulation then goes on to state that eligibility may be restored for 2015 (for example) by the NBO’s participation in the 2014 Rosenblum Cup/McConnell Cup/ Open Pairs at the World Bridge Series. One can understand the desire of the WBF to have as many countries as possible compete in the World Bridge Games (formerly the Olympiad). However, questions arise: (i) Is the regulation designed to encourage participation or to punish recalcitrance? (ii) Why should participation in the WBG be tied to eligibility for the BB/VC anyway? (iii) Is the ill will created by this regulation worth the cost? (iv) Does the regulation accomplish its avowed goal? (v) Is there a better way to encourage participation?
If punishment is the goal, it is a goal uncharacteristic of the new WBF administration. In the recent Zone 5 (CACBF) Trials, Jamaica defeated Guadeloupe in the Women’ National Teams, but was declared ineligible for Bali for failing to send a team to the WBG in Lille last year. Thus, the more financially-secure Guadeloupers will benefit from Jamaica’s ineligibility. Furthermore, this is not the first time this has happened to a team from Zone 5 (it also happened once each in Zone 3, South America and Zone 8, Africa), so the penalty has not apparently acted as encouragement to compete. In the case of the Jamaican women, a potential once-in-a-lifetime experience has been derailed.
As for the other questions, the answers seem to be: (ii) It is (dubiously) believed to encourage participation, (iii) The WBF seems not to be concerned about ill will, (iv) It does not accomplish its goal. As for (v), wouldn’t it be better to (a) get rid of this unfair regulation and (b) help teams from the poorer Zones to attend the World Bridge Games rather than punish them for financial distress, which is certainly the main reason (perhaps the only reason) for non-attendance? This could best be done by subsidizing the NBO or the players directly to the extent of lower entry fees, lower hotel rates and so on, or even by helping them acquire sponsors. Have someone from the WBF Executive speak to the administrators in the non-attending NBOs to offer encouragement and find out why they are not attending.
Looking at participation numbers (by number of countries attending) in the Olympiad/WBG, from 1960 to 2008, participation by nation rose steadily, in the Open Teams from 25 to 71 and in the Women’s Teams from 14 to 43. The Seniors began in 2000 and attendance has increased each time, from 24 to 32. Two thousand and twelve witnessed the first significant dip in participation in the 52 intervening years. In Zone 5, only Guadeloupe regularly sends teams to the Olympiad/WBG in all three categories. It is a similar picture in Zones 3 (SA), 4 (BFAME), 7 (Oceania) and 8 (Africa) where only Argentina, Brasil, Pakistan, India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Egypt regularly send teams in all three categories. It’s only a matter of time before another similar situation occurs there.
Instead of preventing nations from participating in the World Bridge Championships, let’s work on more effective ways of expanding the roster so all may attend.
***
John Carruthers
IBPA Bulletin No. 581 June 10, 2013