[jeremy69]

Quote

That's not so strange; I play at a bridge club which has no members (indeed, is constitutionally unable to have members).

It is strange. You may be making a bid for even stranger.

I await being educated on why there are bridge clubs of which no-one maybe a member of and others where no-one plays bridge.

Does Wellspyders County allow non bridge clubs to play in its league? I think this is the county's affair although those who play other than in the lowest division must be EBU members either via another club or directly. If you play in a league you pay a modest fee(£5 per team per season I think) instead of a P2P fee. In my county the Wellspyder team would be allowed to play in the main league.
As in MJJ's earlier answer most of these things can be sorted out however strange the arrangements are. Sounds from this as if the presumption of bridge clubs that play bridge reasonably regularly is not totally valid.

[campboy]

It is not difficult to see that there may be bridge clubs where no-one plays duplicate pairs, however.

Anyway, it's a college bridge club. We don't want to have a membership charge; however, we don't want everyone in college to be able to become a member just for asking, since we would not be permitted to refuse (and would not have any way to stop them voting to dissolve the society and taking our money).

[jeremy69]

Quote

It is not difficult to see that there may be bridge clubs where no-one plays duplicate pairs

Well, the EBU is about duplicate bridge so expecting clubs to play this is not unreasonable. If your club is a College club why not amend your constitution to make rules of membership that say you can only be a member if you are a member of the college and also pay a nominal charge or perhaps play a certain number of times to become a member. Even 3 times would put off the time wasters!

[campboy]

jeremy69, on Mar 22 2010, 11:50 PM, said:

If your club is a College club why not amend your constitution to make rules of membership that say you can only be a member if you are a member of the college and also pay a nominal charge or perhaps play a certain number of times to become a member. Even 3 times would put off the time wasters!

Because we aren't allowed to (by the student union). Fortunately, we are allowed to have rules on which non-members can vote, which are almost exactly as you suggest

[blackshoe]

jeremy69, on Mar 22 2010, 05:50 PM, said:

Quote

It is not difficult to see that there may be bridge clubs where no-one plays duplicate pairs

Well, the EBU is about duplicate bridge so expecting clubs to play this is not unreasonable.

I fail to see why a club that plays only one form of duplicate — teams — should such a club exist, is not a club that plays duplicate bridge.

[bluejak]

In my case my club runs an annual Simultaneous Pairs, with sixty heats. For this my club pays a subscription to the EBU. Apparently the EBU will be happy for me to run it personally and not to pay them a subscription.

[Vampyr]

jeremy69, on Mar 20 2010, 05:41 PM, said:

There may be clubs without internet access but a club, and its committee all being without would be a rarity these days. and bearing in mind all affiliated clubs will be uploading their data electronically from next month it suggests that this deprived number will shrink even more drastically.

This is not likely to be the case. Most clubs do not have their own premises, and even when they are able to produce the scores instantly via Bridgemates, the electronic transmission is done by someone at their home. In many cases, in fact, the scoring is done the same way.

Quote

A set of flow charts has been put on the EBU website to help deal with some of the most commonly applied laws likely to be the subject of a call at the local club. These and also a host of other information is also available in the booklet given to all directors attending an EBU Club TDs course.

Many clubs have their own flowcharts, but in any case few volunteer playing directors attend EBU courses.

Quote

The Orange Book is directed for the most part at players. Many club players are intimidated or just plain bored by such lengthy regulations hence the attempt to reduce the amonut of reading by producing the Tangerine Book but even so when the next OB comes along some thought, IMO, ought to be given to reducing its length.

I don't understand why, if the Tangerine Book is being produced, the Orange Book should also be shortened. And since it is going to be produced only online and it will be players' own responsibility to print out their own copy, they can delete any portions they wish if they feel that it is too long.

Quote

You may need to stand for the L&E if you want to make more popular the view that the document should be fuller and longer.

Oh, you think so? Golly, thanks for the advice.

[Mbodell]

bluejak, on Mar 21 2010, 02:53 PM, said:

I find the updating principle worrying. Currently it means that no-one seems to have an up-to-date Orange book, as I have discovered recently in Deva BC and the Ranked Masters.

Definitely have an online version number and/or date that changes with each revision! Editing online documentation is a well understood problem with several conventional solutions.

[WellSpyder]

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

Does Wellspyders County allow non bridge clubs to play in its league? I think this is the county's affair although those who play other than in the lowest division must be EBU members either via another club or directly. If you play in a league you pay a modest fee(£5 per team per season I think) instead of a P2P fee. In my county the Wellspyder team would be allowed to play in the main league.

The current county rules are that the league is for affiliated clubs only. Changes are being considered in the light of how the EBU's new rules for affiliation are affecting a number of clubs currently playing in the league, but it is as yet unclear whether or not changes will actually be made.

The EBU's advice is that it is entirely up to the county whether the competition is for bridge clubs only or other groups of players, but that if it is restricted to clubs then these must be affiliated clubs. I think the reasoning behind this is that they do not want unaffiliated clubs to enjoy the benefits of playing in such competitions without paying for the privilege of being affiliated - not unreasonable in some circumstances, but a bit ironic in our case when it is the EBU that appears to be preventing affiliation while the club is still keen to be affiliated!

[jeremy69]

Quote

I fail to see why a club that plays only one form of duplicate — teams — should such a club exist, is not a club that plays duplicate bridge.

It is. To join the EBU it has to play regularly. The working definition of this is once per fortnight or so(or more). University/College clubs who have difficulty in meeting this requirement can negotiate to play a lower minimum number. A couple have already done so

[bluejak]

The point is Jeremy, that you think that a duplicate bridge club must provide a certain number of duplicate pairs sessions a year: other people, including me, think that a club that provides duplicate bridge ought to be allowed to join their national organisation as a duplicate bridge club, whether they play a certain number of pairs sessions a year or not.

[pran]

bluejak, on Mar 23 2010, 01:41 PM, said:

The point is Jeremy, that you think that a duplicate bridge club must provide a certain number of duplicate pairs sessions a year: other people, including me, think that a club that provides duplicate bridge ought to be allowed to join their national organisation as a duplicate bridge club, whether they play a certain number of pairs sessions a year or not.

There is a club in Norway, fully member of the Norwegian Bridge Federation that used to have their weekly club meeting day listed as one particular date of the year! According to rumours they met for bridge just on that single date each year.

NBF doesn't seem to ever having had any problem with that.

[Rossoneri]

This is kind of sidetracking from the original topic of this thread, maybe we should move this elsewhere?

[jallerton]

jeremy69, on Mar 21 2010, 09:48 AM, said:

Quote

why not distribute hard copies to clubs rather than expecting every TD to do that? I would even be happy to pay some reasonable fee for one, as I did for my lawbook.

There are two reasons for this. The first is that some will be more reluctant than you to pay for a copy. With previous OBs they have also gone to the tournament players as well as clubs and directors. The second is that it is easier to keep it up to date in online form. The Laws being worldwide change only every 10 years. The OB typically has some minor modification each year.
All the laptops taken by directors to EBU congresses have electronic copies of both White and Orange Books on them and I think that many clubs will find it easier to use it this way(searcnig, for example, being quicker and simpler) if they use a computer for scoring.

So what is the primary reason for ceasing to print the Orange and White Books?

1. The EBU Board and/or L&EC thinks that these publications are better in electronic form.

2. The EBU Board considers this to be a good way to save money.

3. Other (please specify).

[FrancesHinden]

I think it's more that they consider the incremental costs associated with printing copies for everyone outweigh the benefits.

I would guess that most people who received the full EBU white book previously never read all of it. Some of those that did might consider somewhat fairer that they pay for their own printing of it, as it's for their own benefit, rather than the EBU commit to printing lots of unwanted copies.

There was some discussion about whether the L&E would print and send a copy to anyone who specifically requested one.

[bluejak]

The suggestion is that the EBU prints and sells the White book. I, for one, would happily pay for a copy. I am completely unconvinced that it is better in electronic form. And no, it is nothing to do with whether I have read it through: it is a work of reference: when I need it I want it to be there.

I am getting less and less convinced by the "easier to update" argument. In practice, no-one has an up-to-date Orange book. I wonder whether the EBU has made the right decision here, and several people I have talked to have shown worry about this approach.

[jeremy69]

Quote

So what is the primary reason for ceasing to print the Orange and White Books?

1. The EBU Board and/or L&EC thinks that these publications are better in electronic form.

2. The EBU Board considers this to be a good way to save money.

3. Other (please specify).

1. Yes because of previously mentioned items such as searching and availability in up to date form
2. Yes. The cost of printing is significant and unlikely to be offset by sales.

Quote

it is a work of reference: when I need it I want it to be there.

I can recall from work having a number of software manuals that the company concerned switched to only producing electronically and initially because we were used to it the printed copy was missed but most got used to using it on line and those who didn't/wouldn't/couldn't printed their own.

Quote

In practice, no-one has an up-to-date Orange book.

I do.

[campboy]

jeremy69, on Apr 12 2010, 08:51 AM, said:

Quote

it is a work of reference: when I need it I want it to be there.

I can recall from work having a number of software manuals that the company concerned switched to only producing electronically and initially because we were used to it the printed copy was missed but most got used to using it on line and those who didn't/wouldn't/couldn't printed their own.

As I have pointed out before, the comparison is specious. The only time you are going to need a software manual is when you are already sitting at a computer, so the electronic copy is fine. When you need the OB, on the other hand, it is unlikely that a computer is available.

[hrothgar]

bluejak, on Apr 12 2010, 12:58 AM, said:

The suggestion is that the EBU prints and sells the White book. I, for one, would happily pay for a copy. I am completely unconvinced that it is better in electronic form. And no, it is nothing to do with whether I have read it through: it is a work of reference: when I need it I want it to be there.

I am getting less and less convinced by the "easier to update" argument. In practice, no-one has an up-to-date Orange book. I wonder whether the EBU has made the right decision here, and several people I have talked to have shown worry about this approach.

Has anyone looked into print on demand options in the UK?

One relatively simple option would be that

1. The EBU publishes one version of the White book in a format commonly used by a print on demand shot.

2. Anyone who wants a hard copy can wander down to Lulu, Kinkos, whatever and have a copy printed. Individuals who don't have convenient access to one of these shops can arrange to have a hard copy mailed to them.

3. If some enlightened soul sees an opportunity to make a quick buck, they could even self fund a small print run and try to turn a profit.

Simply put, the fact that the EDU doesn't want to print and sell the White book shouldn't stop any other individual from doing the same...

[jeremy69]

Quote

As I have pointed out before, the comparison is specious.

The fact that you have said it before doesn't make it any more or less valid. You may only look at a software manual when you are next to the screen but that does not mean everyone does.
In some clubs and at some tournaments there will be easy online access to the White or Orange Book. If I am telephoned for a ruling then I can have both on my screen more or less immediately. In clubs where there is no easy access it maybe necessary to print one but that will be an improvement over having the last printed copy (in the case of the OB 2006) and adding the later additions by hand or perhaps printing them separately.

Quote

Simply put, the fact that the EDU doesn't want to print and sell the White book shouldn't stop any other individual from doing the same...

Oh yes and how will you manage the copyright problems related to taking someone else's work, printing it without permission and selling it?