[StevenG]

This all seems extremely pointless, anyway. Although we have local clubs that are unaffiliated, the people who run them invariably include EBU members who will still have the same access as before.

Or is the next move automatic expulsion for any EBU member who plays at an unaffiliated club?

[helene_t]

jeremy69, on Apr 14 2010, 12:12 AM, said:

The same applies to playing in a congress. You want to play then you join. You won't join then you can't.

What? So foreigners (such as the Scottish, not sure about the Welsh) won't be able to play in congresses anymore? I am an EBU member but since my regular (for congress purposes) partner lives in the Netherlands and obviously is not an EBU member, I won't be able to play in congresses anymore?

That's a shame. I have enjoyed those congresses. Oh well, we could go to a Scottish congress then, fortunately I live in the North so it doesn't matter much. Would be nice to have more choice, though.

An analogy: as a member of co-op I get (presumably) some benefits over other customers who are not members. But if co-op started baring non-members from shopping they would go bankrupt.

[WellSpyder]

helene_t, on Apr 14 2010, 05:32 AM, said:

What? So foreigners (such as the Scottish, not sure about the Welsh) won't be able to play in congresses anymore? I am an EBU member but since my regular (for congress purposes) partner lives in the Netherlands and obviously is not an EBU member, I won't be able to play in congresses anymore?

Actually, Helene, I don't think this is a change in policy at all. I believe EBU congresses have always only been open to EBU members, and your Dutch partner can participate by paying an EBU membership fee alongside the congress entry fee.

[helene_t]

He just payed the normal fee, the same as I payed. Maybe he cheated

[paulg]

helene_t, on Apr 14 2010, 11:32 AM, said:

jeremy69, on Apr 14 2010, 12:12 AM, said:

The same applies to playing in a congress. You want to play then you join. You won't join then you can't.

What? So foreigners (such as the Scottish, not sure about the Welsh) won't be able to play in congresses anymore? I am an EBU member but since my regular (for congress purposes) partner lives in the Netherlands and obviously is not an EBU member, I won't be able to play in congresses anymore?

I believe that the EBU has reciprocal membership arrangements with the SBU, at least informally, and probably with other national bodies.

When I first became a foreigner five years ago, the EBU told me that the only tournaments that I needed to be an EBU member to play in were Crockfords (English Teams of Four Championship) and representative events (Pachabo, Garden Cities, etc).

Now, reasonably, I have to be a member to play in the Premier League. Although it seems less reasonable to have to pay for direct membership if I were to play more than twelve sessions of tournament bridge - I should probably qualify as a 'Tournament Club' EBU member.

Paul

[pran]

I should be surprised if EBU has rules essentially different from our rules in Norway:

Except for events that specifically require Nowegian membership (i.e. Norwegian championships that are not "open") we welcome "guest" entries by members of other bridge federations provided such members have not established residence in Norway.

[blackshoe]

It doesn't seem very smart to require people to follow certain rules while denying them access to those rules unless they become full members (at full price) in an organization in which they have no interest except on the possibly rare occasions when they might have an opportunity to play in that organization's tournaments.

I think the EBU is going to find it's shot itself in the foot with this policy change.

[gnasher]

Quote

I believe that the EBU has reciprocal membership arrangements with the SBU, at least informally, and probably with other national bodies.

When an American friend of mine played in the EBU's Brighton congress last year, he was told that he didn't need to become an EBU member, as long as he was already an ACBL member.

That sounds like half of a reciprocal arrangement. When, however, I play in ACBL events, I have to be an ACBL member. So, it is, in fact, only half of a reciprocal arrangement.

[jeremy69]

I'm confident that there are reciprocal arrangments with Wales and Scotland and there maybe with other countries. Certainly when I have played in France I did not have to pay a membership atthough in the USA it is different.
The point of all this is not to bar or otherwise make the life of foreign guests difficult anyway. If a Dutch guest was not asked for membership to play in the past I am not aware of anything that has changed in that respect nor is likely to.

It is probably true that, at least, some players who are non members will be able to access material wherever it is. Existing copies are not going to self-destruct lthough changes will eventually render them less useful. It's also probably true that some non-affiliated clubs will seek to use documents that they aren't entitled to and I doubt there will be a white or orange police to stop them

Quote

Or is the next move automatic expulsion for any EBU member who plays at an unaffiliated club?

No. not being considered. But you knew that really.

Quote

But if co-op started baring non-members from shopping they would go bankrupt.

Possibly and no bad thing but if they started giving a dividend to non members the existing members might think they weren't getting value for money and not join anymore.

The suggested policy of baring non members sounds an interesting way forward in selected cases only.

Quote

The EBU is not a corporation beholden to providing shareholders with more money - it's an institution whose aim is the furtherance of bridge. In the same way that the EBU spends money to encourage youth bridge and teaching of bridge, this is a service which the EBU should provide to bridge as a whole.

Actually it is a company and does have shareholders although it's primary motivation is not to make enough to provide them with a dividend. It's a members organisation and it's prime responsibility is to it's members. The edifice will not come crashing down if someone gets an illicit copy of the White Book. The point is that some of it's products and services add a value to membership and should not be freely given away to non members.

[hrothgar]

jeremy69, on Apr 14 2010, 06:09 PM, said:

The point is that some of it's products and services add a value to membership and should not be freely given away to non members.

I would argue that there is significant value in propagating a clear and consistent rule book.

If I were an EBU member, I'd want to make sure that the individuals that I am playing against know and understand the rules and regulations under which they will be competing.

Preventing third parties from viewing said regulations is a piss poor way to achieve this end. You'll do fine, so long as your events are for EBU members and by EBU members. However, you are going to make it enormously more difficult for "random" individuals to make a spur of the moment decision to attend a congress or even play in a club.

There have been numerous occasions when I've been travelling in Europe and made the decision to play in an event or even a tournament. Being told that I'm not allowed to know or even understand the system regulations would be a immediate turn off.

Normally, I wouldn't give a damn about any of this. Its your membership organization. Please feel free to run it into the dirt. However, I have long maintained that the EBU has done a masterful job developing and publishing its system regulation. The EBU is the example that I point to when I'm criticizing the cluster ***** that is the ACBL.

Walling folks off from the Orange Book and the White book is going to make it that much more difficult to show people how things ought to be done.

Oh well, guess I better download copies of the existing documents and store them somewhere safe. (At least until electronic copies of the new stuff leaks which should take all of 30 seconds)

[mjj29]

jeremy69, on Apr 14 2010, 10:09 AM, said:

Actually it is a company and does have shareholders although it's primary motivation is not to make enough to provide them with a dividend. It's a members organisation and it's prime responsibility is to it's members. The edifice will not come crashing down if someone gets an illicit copy of the White Book. The point is that some of it's products and services add a value to membership and should not be freely given away to non members.

And some of its products (such as the orange and white books) add far more value to the game as a whole by being generally available than they do to the membership by being restricted.

I refer you to the Memorandum of Association:

"3. The objects for which the Company is established are:- ... (E) Generally to do all such things to elevate and maintain the status and procure the advancement of the game of Bridge"

[bluejak]

jeremy69, on Apr 14 2010, 04:09 PM, said:

The point is that some of it's products and services add a value to membership and should not be freely given away to non members.

The point is, as you can see from other posts, is that we agree with you: the EBU should not, for example, give its magazine away for free to non-members.

The difference is that a fair few posters feel that this should not apply to the Orange and White books. This seems right to me.

[jeremy69]

Quote

I would argue that there is significant value in propagating a clear and consistent rule book.

Don't disagree with that but, of course, in unaffiliated clubs they can do what they want in terms of regulations and although in theory probably not with the law, in practice..............

Quote

Oh well, guess I better download copies of the existing documents and store them somewhere safe. (At least until electronic copies of the new stuff leaks which should take all of 30 seconds)

I'm sure that will be true as it will be that some who choose not to affiliate and make a lot of noise about this and how little the EBU does for them will be amongst the first to try to circumvent any restriction and then let us know how clever they have all been.

[blackshoe]

I can see it now: "You have violated OB x.y.z" "Oh, what does that say?" "I'm sorry, you're not permitted to know that."

Seems rather Orwellian.

[paulg]

Now that these publications are so valuable, I guess the editors, contributors and reviewers will all be looking for a significant increase in their financial compensation.

[campboy]

bluejak, on Apr 14 2010, 04:50 PM, said:

The difference is that a fair few posters feel that this should not apply to the Orange and White books.  This seems right to me.

You are being rather more diplomatic than I could stand to be under the circumstances. "A fair few posters" seems to be everyone except Jeremy. The numbers hardly matter though, since the opinion of the man who edited both the White Book and Orange Book as to how they should be promulgated carries rather more weight -- morally if not legally -- than the questionable motives of finance.

[WellSpyder]

cardsharp, on Apr 14 2010, 11:35 AM, said:

Now that these publications are so valuable, I guess the editors, contributors and reviewers will all be looking for a significant increase in their financial compensation.

Good point. I propose we immediately double the financial compensation paid to all those involved in producing these. Fortunately, this shouldn't cost a penny, though...

[WellSpyder]

I wonder whether at the end of the day this is a question about whether the end justifies the means.

The ultimate objective of the EBU is, I believe, to encourage the development of duplicate bridge in England. Unfortunately, it found itself in a position which did not appear to be viable in the long run and therefore devised an alternative model to try to ensure the future of the organisation. To try to safeguard this new model, though, the EBU appears to be finding itself doing a number of things that are actually a positive obstacle to the development of duplicate bridge in England.

Not surprisingly, many of those involved in duplicate bridge in England regret these obstacles and argue that the EBU should be more mindful of its fundamental purpose. Others, perhaps more directly involved in trying to ensure the future of the EBU, put more emphasis on safeguarding that future before worrying about whether it is moving in the right direction regarding its original purpose.

I think both points of view are understandable, but my personal view is that some of the unfortunate things being done with a view to safeguarding the new model for the EBU aren't actually necessary from that perspective and therefore in these cases it would be better to remember what the organisation's underlying purpose is - and making the Orange and White Books generally available may well fall into this category.

As perhaps a bit of an aside, there is also work underway to secure charitable status for the EBU. Although I am not an expert in this field, I would have thought this would at the least require the EBU to have wider interests at heart than simply those of its members.

[Vampyr]

jeremy69, on Apr 14 2010, 04:09 PM, said:

Actually it is a company and does have shareholders although it's primary motivation is not to make enough to provide them with a dividend. It's a members organisation and it's prime responsibility is to it's members. The edifice will not come crashing down if someone gets an illicit copy of the White Book. The point is that some of it's products and services add a value to membership and should not be freely given away to non members.

Why do increasing numbers of people have trouble spelling 3-letter words? "Led" is another one that seems perplexing to many

Anyway, whatever the policy of the White Book, I am sure it is not the same for the Orange Book, since the latter contains information that is vital for foreigners (and English potential members) who intend to play in an EBU Congress.

With regard to the White Book policy, it seems sad and rather loony that there should be this paranoia about non-affiliated clubs "stealing" the EBU's resources. It seems like the thought is that clubs are being "punished" for not affiliating. Since, as has been mentioned before, in the extremely unlikely chance that a non-affiliated club should know what a White Book is and want one, there is sure to be a member of the club who is an EBU member, or who knows someone who is. So the only people who will suffer are foreigners who want to use/study/emulate the White Book.

I don't think that any of the clubs and counties who decided to give "universal membership" a go thought that it involved creating a (hopefully) bigger organisation, but one that is much more exclusive.

[jeremy69]

Quote

"A fair few posters" seems to be everyone except Jeremy.The numbers hardly matter though, since the opinion of the man who edited both the White Book and Orange Book as to how they should be promulgated carries rather more weight -- morally if not legally -- than the questionable motives of finance.

A few posters here may have their point of view but that does not mean that either I am in a minority of one in the real world nor that it is a matter of weighing views.
Both book are commissioned by the L&E on behalf of the EBU so they have all the rights to decide how they will be published. None of this is a matter of money, no-one apart from perhaps you is suggesting it is. Please read previous posts and you will see the reasons even if you do not agree.