[campboy]

I did not intend to suggest you are in a minority of one in the real world -- clearly you aren't, since you are defending EBU policy -- merely that you are in a minority of one in this thread. I also do not dispute that the EBU has full legal control of the text of the OB and WB.

I was under the impression that the purpose of restricting access to members was to encourage membership; how is that not a financial consideration?

[jeremy69]

Quote

I was under the impression that the purpose of restricting access to members was to encourage membership; how is that not a financial consideration?

The purpose for restricting anything is to seek to provide value for those who have decided to become members. I agree that if 10000 additional people join to see the White Book there will be a benefit(other than watching pigs fly) and I guess if that was so then that might mean no or lower increases in fees (or even a reduction) at some point in the future but the primary consideration for any of this is not a financial one. It goes deeper than whether anyone can see/gets an Orange Book.
Let's say there is a problem in a club and advice from the EBU is requested. Given willingly if the club is affiliated but what do you do if it is not? Clearly you can give the same advice to all on the grounds it is "good for the game" but if there are many more calls on the time of those that give the advice then they are not going to be doing other things to assist the membership and one of the benefits of membership is diluted. If you have, let's say, not joined a union then if you have a work related problem the union will likely turn round and say that the advice it will give is limited to members only. You can give the same insurance discount to non members as members on the grounds that it is a good idea for clubs to be insured properly.
IMO it is this principle(which one can argue about) which is more central than the availability of a book on regulations which is but a small part of it.
I think a properly regulated game is good for everyone and there needs to be a central body doing the regulating and organising. Some people don't agree with the model and they may not have been great fans before universal membership but apathy ruled until they had a decision that they could not really avoid. I hope that more clubs will decide that the new model is good for the game but am realistic enough to know that there are some who will not.

[helene_t]

blackshoe, on Apr 14 2010, 05:31 PM, said:

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.

This is not quite fair.

If you play at a congress (I was just told ) or at an affiliated club then you are a member.

If you play at a non-affiliated club then they probably won't enforce things written in the orange book anyway. OK, the basics of the alert procedure probably applies at most non-affiliated clubs but only to the extent that the TD knows it by heart. OB restricted or not, it isn't a secret that in EBU (and, therefore, also in most non-EBU bridge in England) you alert penalty doubles of natural suit bids below 3NT.

The following could happen:
Alice: Should we go to an EBU congress this year for a change?
Bob: Hmmmm ... do you think our two-way heart system with canape preempts is allowed at such an event?
Alice: Oh *****, we can't get hold of the system regulations before we have actually signed up (and thereby become members).
Bob: No problem, we just post a query on BBO forum, there are plenty of law experts there who have a copy of the OB and will be happy to help.

[WellSpyder]

helene_t, on Apr 15 2010, 05:05 AM, said:

If you play at a congress (I was just told )  ... then you are a member.

I don't know who told you this, but I think they have it the wrong way round. You have to be a member to play in a congress (or a member of an overseas NBO), but entering a congress does not make you a member of the EBU. Being a member of an affiliated club makes you a member of the EBU, but if you want to play in congresses without being a member of an affiliated club then you need to join the EBU directly. (I have had to do this since the EBU has not allowed my club to affiliate.)

I wonder whether your informant was confusing the position with how you qualify to receive membership benefits such as the magazine, etc? To do this you have to play at least twelve times a year (unless you pay the direct memership fee), and for these purposes playing at either an affiliated club or a congress counts.

[helene_t]

Yes that's what I mean. It was said in this thread that if a non-member sign up for a conference then they pay for membership during the congress on top of the normal congress fee. So I suppose that also means that as soon as you have signed up for the congress (and payed for you temporary membership) then you can download the OB. Or maybe I misunderstood.

Whatever the rights of those players who join EBU temporarily for playing a single congress, obviously foreign players can't legally get hold of the OB.

[hrothgar]

jeremy69, on Apr 15 2010, 12:48 PM, said:

Let's say there is a problem in a club and advice from the EBU is requested. Given willingly if the club is affiliated but what do you do if it is not? Clearly you can give the same advice to all on the grounds it is "good for the game" but if there are many more calls on the time of those that give the advice then they are not going to be doing other things to assist the membership and one of the benefits of membership is diluted.

Remember all that "pontification about economic theory" from a few postings back?

Said theory show the problem with this analogy:

The Orange Book is "non-rivalrous". If I "consume" the Orange book, it in no way degrades the ability of anyone else to use the same resource.

In contrast, the example that you postulate specifically states that calls to to EBU for advice is diluting the quality of the service to other members.

I think that there is a significant difference between the two cases. I think that the Orange Book should be made available for free. I don't think that it is reasonable for the EBU to burn resources fielding calls from unaffiliated clubs.

I suspect that most of my contemporaries feel precisely the same...

Care to try again?

[helene_t]

There could be three concerns, AFAICS:
- Most EBU members have not studied economics at MIT so we have to cater for the possibility that they don't understand what Richard is saying and would react irrationally to the possibility that free-riders download the OB that they payed for.
- Some people may think "I have to become an EBU member because I need the OB". So the policy boost memberships.
- If everyone had an OB, EBU would be stormed by calls from non-members about OB interpretation so they would have to ask all callers for their membership number and rejecting lots of calls.

FWIW I think all 3 concerns are misguided but I suppose I could be wrong, or there could be additional concerns.

Then again, almost everyone who knows about the existence of the OB and/or would be able to read it (let alone: would be interested in reading it), is already an EBU member. So it doesn't really matter. I appreciate Richard's concern, though. The OB is a model for how such documents ought to be written everywhere so for foreign bridge politicians it is a big shame if it is not accessible.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on Apr 15 2010, 11:38 AM, said:

FWIW I think all 3 concerns are misguided but I suppose I could be wrong, or there could be additional concerns.

I think that these concerns are not only misguided but also pretty far-fetched. And the question of who has or has not paid for the White Book (and the Orange Book, too, though I can't imagine that access to the latter would be limited in the same way) raises the question of what our EBU overlords have paid for it. I would be curious as to the intellectual property implications for work that has been undertaken by a volunteer.

A bigger question is why this is being done now. When EBU membership was a choice, none of its publications were kept exclusively for members. Now under "universal membership" access is being restricted. Part of the whole "universal membership" argument was that value would be added to EBU membership. It seems that this is to be done by subtracting "value" from non-EBU members. It reminds me of the introduction of Oyster Cards, when it was claimed that you would save money by using it for tube journeys. This was true only because the cash prices of tube journeys were raised to astronomical levels at the same time.

I really don't see how this secretive, paranoid, and, frankly, spiteful approach is going to encourage more clubs to enter the fold.

I am disgusted that the EBU have chosen to promote and benefit not bridge, but the EBU.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Apr 15 2010, 06:38 AM, said:

Then again, almost everyone who knows about the existence of the OB and/or would be able to read it (let alone: would be interested in reading it), is already an EBU member. So it doesn't really matter. I appreciate Richard's concern, though. The OB is a model for how such documents ought to be written everywhere so for foreign bridge politicians it is a big shame if it is not accessible.

I know about it, I would be interested in reading it (how else am I going to know how to answer people's questions here?) I am not an EBU member. Okay, one swallow doesn't make a summer, but still…

I'm not a "bridge politician" either. I don't do politics.

[TMorris]

Password protecting the Orange book is not going to stop anyone currently (Ie before Pay2play came in) playing in England seeing it if they want to as they will know someone who is an EBU member who will let them have a copy.

All it will do is a) stop non-UK people from seeing it and make them less likely to want to play in English tournaments and reduce the chances of some of the new people thinking of joining the EBU from doing so as they are less likely to want to join an organisation without knowing the rules by which it's events are governed.

I see no upside and some, albeit limited, downside to this.

[Rossoneri]

This whole thing makes me sick. It just reeks of the people in charge at the EBU trying to take revenge on non-affiliated clubs by cutting them off from this resource.

Which seems childish and silly for reasons mentioned by so many others above.

For a while I was starting to look past the objections of those against P2P, but with such attitudes, I am beginning to think again.

[jeremy69]

Quote

This whole thing makes me sick. It just reeks of the people in charge at the EBU trying to take revenge on non-affiliated clubs by cutting them off from this resource.

Maybe some thought needs to be given to what affiliated means. I think it means joining the organsation. If you don't then you don't get the benefits. You may want to characterise this as "revenge" but as far as I'm aware any club that decided not to affiliate and changes it's mind now or in the future is only too welcome but it is a given that membership benefits are for members.

[StevenG]

Can I take it then that the EBU would prefer it if unaffiliated clubs did not adopt EBU regulations?

Virtually the only source of new players we have in my area is the unaffiliated clubs. Players play kitchen bridge, then play at an unaffiliated club. A small number of these then start playing at an affiliated club (often because they build a partnership with an EBU member at the unaffiliated club); quite a few still fall by the wayside because they find the more serious bridge too stressful.

Clearly, if they have to handle unfamiliar alerting procedures, some will find it even more stressful and fail to return. Bridge is dying in my area and anything that reduces our meagre influx of new players will only kill it off even quicker. (There is absolutely nothing in P2P that will encourage new players.)

Thank you EBU.

[campboy]

Quote

Maybe some thought needs to be given to what affiliated means. I think it means joining the organsation. If you don't then you don't get the benefits. You may want to characterise this as "revenge" but as far as I'm aware any club that decided not to affiliate and changes it's mind now or in the future is only too welcome but it is a given that membership benefits are for members.

Oh come on. We know from earlier posts in this thread that at least two clubs which wanted to affiliate have been told that they are not welcome.

It is of course a given that membership benefits are for members; the question is whether OB access should be a "membership benefit". If everything the EBU does becomes membership-exclusive then it will have no chance of achieving charitable status.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Oh come on. We know from earlier posts in this thread that at least two clubs which wanted to affiliate have been told that they are not welcome.

Well, it's true that currently to be an affiliated club you must a. play duplicate bridge and b. meet at least once per fortnight (slightly less if you are a university club which doesn't meet much in the exam term). I don't think that onerous for a real bridge club but issues like this will be discussed because it is probable that some things will be adjusted for P2P when a few months experience has been gained.

[campboy]

Out of interest, how does affiliation work for counties? Since they organise duplicate bridge competitions but do not hold meetings as such, they seem to closely resemble the clubs discussed which have been refused affiliation.

[jeremy69]

Counties are constituent parts of the EBU. They do not affiliate.

[mjj29]

campboy, on Apr 17 2010, 06:18 AM, said:

It is of course a given that membership benefits are for members; the question is whether OB access should be a "membership benefit". If everything the EBU does becomes membership-exclusive then it will have no chance of achieving charitable status.

I concur strongly with this sentiment, which I note jeremy omitted in his reply to your post. OB and WB are not 'membership benefits', they are things which the EBU should be producing and publishing openly in it's role as a Regional Authority delegated by the WBF.

[Rossoneri]

jeremy69, on Apr 17 2010, 11:03 AM, said:

Quote

This whole thing makes me sick. It just reeks of the people in charge at the EBU trying to take revenge on non-affiliated clubs by cutting them off from this resource.

Maybe some thought needs to be given to what affiliated means. I think it means joining the organsation. If you don't then you don't get the benefits. You may want to characterise this as "revenge" but as far as I'm aware any club that decided not to affiliate and changes it's mind now or in the future is only too welcome but it is a given that membership benefits are for members.

Maybe some thought needs to be given to what "benefit" means. If a publication concerning laws and regulations is a "benefit", then something is seriously wrong.

Besides, if non-affiliated clubs are not looking at the White Book or Orange Book in practice, how is this "benefitting" them?

Name me another NBO which restricts publications regarding laws/regulations in effect to their own members only.

[jeremy69]

Quote

I concur strongly with this sentiment, which I note jeremy omitted in his reply to your post. OB and WB are not 'membership benefits', they are things which the EBU should be producing and publishing openly in it's role as a Regional Authority delegated by the WBF.

You are, I think, saying that the OB (regulations) and WB (commentary on the laws) are not membership benefits but they are. It is not a requirement to produce either and many countries do not. You may have an opinion that they should be published in the way that they have been but that does not mean that they must be or will be.

Quote

Maybe some thought needs to be given to what "benefit" means. If a publication concerning laws and regulations is a "benefit", then something is seriously wrong.

I agree. What is seriously wrong is that some people believe that they can have something for nothing. The laws are available and whether you want to buy them or download them you can. The White Book is an attempt at a helpful commentary so if unaffiliated clubs want this then they should contribute. Peronally I would have no problem if the book was available but at a charge which covered the printing and work involved. That way the member clubs see a benefit (useful book produced and available to them free) and the unaffiliated clubs that wish to have this pay a sum to make a contribution to the cost.