| |
BGonline.org Forums
Bad news from Belgium
Posted By: Henrik Bukkjaer In Response To: Bad news from Belgium (Daniel Murphy)
Date: Saturday, 9 October 2010, at 10:09 p.m.
Ohh my, Belgium became the next country to suffer from legislation decisions...
As Daniel told, DBgF (the Danish federation) was very closed to being ruled out by the authorities. Actually it was even closer than people know - it was not until the very last night before the 3rd and final review of the law, that DBgF convinced the tax committee to exempt tournament backgammon.
I was part of the DBgF committee to work towards such an exemption, or at least get a law passed that would allow as many activities as possible. Even though we were about 5 people in the committee, it was more or less the incessant work performed by DBgF chairman Frederik Bendtler and known tournament organizer / GIANT Steen Groenbech that got us out of jail. After Fredirik and Steen had presented the DBgF opinion and evidence to the tax committee before the 2nd review of the law, Frederik personally called each party's tax policy spokesman (the entire tax committee, about 8-9 people), and explained them in detail the impact of the proposed law, the history and tradition of backgammon in Denmark, how well-organized the DBgF are and thus how sound the tournament scene are in the country, how the skill/luck ratio differs in the kind of tournaments DBgF hosts, etc. It was literary in the eleventh hour we were saved.
However, one thing is incorrect in Daniel's description of the law and the proceedings around it: Tournament Bridge was INCLUDED in the law to begin with.
In the first review, however, the Danish Bridge Federation were able to convince the tax committee, that it should be exempt. DBgF was not involved at this stage (because of an error by the legislators). When DBgF then tried the same arguments, we were met by an attitude that "it sounds right, but we cannot keep doing exemptions to the law". More or less.
In Denmark, we used to have games split in two groups: Gambling or skill-games.
But in the new law, a new 3rd category were introduced: Combination games. There were no threshold as to when a game was considered skill or combination og luck and skill, so ANY element of luck would put a game in the combination category. (BTW: All sports are not in scope of this law, so arguing that the wind also makes gold random, etc. were not applicable).
The purpose of the law was multifaceted, but avoiding that people become compulsive gamblers, and that people loose more money than they can afford, was a big part of it.
Tournament bridge (at least as played and organized in Denmark) stands far better than backgammon. The stakes and entries are relatively low, compared to some of our high profile backgammon tournaments. The people playing it are not in the pathological gambler segment. There are many many people playing organized in clubs, especially elder people. All entry fees are payed in advance of tournaments, etc.
But the major difference, is the rotation of known cards/hands. The field all play the same hands, so even though the hands are dealt randomly, it evens out the luck-factor.
In order to get tournament backgammon exempt we had to: - not arrange or endorse moneygames. - not arrange re-buy tournaments (or other add-on type of structures): What you pay to start with, is what you play for. - not arrange non-match-like games, such as one-pointers. Games should be to at least 5 points.
Having DBgF arrange tournaments, were in line with the purpose of the law (protecting players), even though it would not grant the casino union and the government games company the monopoly they are eager to get.
But basically, we had two paths to pursue: 1) argue that the classification of backgammon as a combination game was wrong, or 2) arguing that (for backgammon) the consequence of the law would be opposite the intentions, and thus backgammon should be exempt.
I don't know what's the precise situation in Belgium, but if there's a good well run federation there, and the purpose of the law is similar to that passed in Denmark, I strongly advise you to do what we did (you can contact Frederik or Steen and ask for details) and refer to our case.
At least, make sure that you promote only tournament BG with long matches (limiting the luck factor), with (a known) entry fee payed up front, and the prices not being payed after each game or match, but at the end of the tournament. (limiting the compulsive gambler effect). Argue that a federation and skilled / experienced tournament directors promote the game with "international rules" and provide a transparent market.
----
BTW: Chiva sent the DBgF a letter to use in the proceedings (addressed to the legislators) - you could contact him and ask if he'd be willing to do a similar thing for the Belgian authorities ;-)
Best regards, Henrik Bukkjaer
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.