Conspiracy against BBO?

[helene_t]

In the Netherlands, we have the BF (Bridge Federation) member's magazine "Bridge", aimed at a broad audience, and Jan van Clef's "IMP" aimed at advanced players. Both make frequently use of the BBO vugraph as a newssource. But there's a difference: while IMP frequently acknowledges BBO as its source, the BF magazine never does so. Last year there even was a screenshot from BBO printed in the magazine, handy edited in such a way that the name "BBO" was not visible.

 

Last months editorial was the height of absurdity. The chairman of the BF wrote about what a wonderful development for the Bridge sport it is that we can now follow almost all major events in real time, supplied with expert comments, "on the internet". He concluded the editorial by praising the Dutch BF's own online bridge site "StepBridge" for its contribution to this development. Maybe I'm paranoid but it looked to me as if the chairman had praised BBO in his original manuscript, but the editor changed it to praise StepBridge instead.

 

StepBridge also has it's own discussion forum like this one. Discussions about possible improvements of the StepBridge software naturally contains many references to BBO. But it's illegal to mention BBO by name on the StepBridge forum - if u do so, you will get edited by one of the moderators.

 

What kind of marketing ethics is this? The BF is an association whose primary objective is to pursue the interests of its members. I think it's questionable if they should shield their members against information about BBO in order to protect their own online bridge site. But if they really have to do so - maybe it was part of the agreement when StepBridge fused with the BF that the BF can't mention StepBridge's competitors in their publications - at least they could show the decency not to use a newssource whom they don't intend to acknowledge.

 

What do u think?

[pigpenz]

i would think that copyright wise they might need to ask for permission to use BBO screen shots and a little help for BBO is always appreciated.

[hotShot]

Well if you support a Bridge Playing Site, and your editorial work is almost always mentioning a different site, your customers might get the impression, that the other site might be better.

It is legally highly problematic to copy features of an existing software.

If you have to start your defence with: "Users asked us to copy the feature from BBO!", it is a bad start.

[helene_t]

It is legally highly problematic to copy features of an existing software.

If you have to start your defence with: "Users asked us to copy the feature from BBO!", it is a bad start.

I'm not implying that they actually copy BBO features. Since I haven't played at their site for years I wouldn't know.

 

But you see forum postings like

"At [a foreign bridge site, edited by moderator] blah blah blah"

"At this punny (lol) site which we are not allowed to mention here, it works like blah blah blah"

[fred]

During the past few years I have tried more than once to get the NBB interested in BBO. These efforts have involved e-mails and in-person discussions with high-ranking NBB staff who I am friendly with.

 

Given that I was asked for nothing more than publicity (ie no money) and that, in theory, any National Bridge Federation supposedly has a primary mission of promoting bridge in its respective country, you might think that the NBB would be eager to sign up for some kind of cooperative venture that would surely be appreciated by many Dutch players.

 

Unfortunately, as Helene's post implies, the NBB was not willing to get involved in any way. One of their officials had the courtesy to be straight with me by stating that Stepbridge was the "official site" of the NBB and that their policy was to stay clear of other sites. Apparently this policy is not in effect when it comes to producing vugraph broadcasts of NBB tournaments.

 

I have never even logged in to Stepbridge or (to the best of my knowledge) met the people who created this site. I am therefore not in a position to make any claims about the quality of this site or the service they provide. Several Dutch players have told me by e-mail that Stepbridge is OK, but they like BBO much better and wish that BBO had a greater presence in The Netherlands.

 

But regardless of how good or bad Stepbridge is compared to BBO, the NBB is making a serious mistake in my view. It is the same mistake that the ACBL made (and came to very much regret) when they made e-bridge their "official site". This happened several years ago. Fortunately the powers that be at the ACBL eventually realized that they had made a mistake. They got out of their deal with e-bridge and their present position is "the ACBL does not want to have an official site - we are happy to cooperate with any bridge site that can follow our rules."

 

This policy has not only been good for the ACBL (in terms of resulting in a lot more income from ACBL-sanctioned games running on several sites), it has also been good for ACBL members (because they now have a choice of where they can go to play ACBL games online).

 

It has also been good because, now that there is competition in this lucrative market, the competitors are under pressure to try to make their sites more attractive to consumers. Some sites (not BBO) have responded by dropping their prices. BBO has instead responded by spending more time and effort on improving our software.

 

The result is that (not surprisingly) this competition has been good for the consumer.

 

It is a real shame that apparently the NBB does not see this (or maybe they signed a stupid contract that they can't get out of). As I have written before, although The Netherlands is a small country, it is one of the most impressive and important bridge nations in the world. Furthermore, my experience suggests that Dutch players are not only highly skilled, but by and large they are among the most well-mannered, friendly, and ethical groups of bridge players in the world. Having a larger Dutch population on BBO would surely help to enrich our site.

 

My impression of the NBB over the years has been that this Federation deserves a lot of the credit for how well bridge has done in Holland. To me the NBB has seemed far less political and far more competent that most other National Bridge Federations that I have had dealings with.

 

But they seem to have dropped the ball here. Even if they think it is smart to keep Stepbridge as their official site, their apparent campaign of censorship against the mention of other sites can only hurt their members. If the NBB was a business then I might understand, but given that the NBB is supposedly all about serving their members and promoting bridge, the actions that Helene describes are truly reprehensible.

 

If the NBB thinks that other sites have something to offer to their members, they should tell their members about those other sites and let their members decide where they want to play. If Stepbridge is really so good that it is worthy of being the official site of the NBB, it will succeed on its own merits.

 

Trying to prevent NBB members from finding out about BBO (and presumably other sites that are not Stepbridge) represents a disservice to NBB members and to bridge in The Netherlands. That really sucks. This sort of behavior would not suprise me if it came from some National Bridge Federations, but I would have expected better from the NBB.

 

If any Dutch players out there are feeling inclined to do something about this, I suggest you e-mail the NBB yourself. Feel free to send them a copy of this post or to suggest they e-mail me (fred@bridgebase.com) if and when they see the light.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[1eyedjack]

To some extent I see similar problems with developments in the UK, although I am pleased to say that there is no "passing off" or plagiarism (that I have noticed), and some of the historical aspects perhaps pre-date the onset of BBO.

 

A few years ago (and I forget exactly when), the officials of UK bridge "got into bed" with the site Bridge Club Live. I think it may have been called Bridge Player Live in those days. This was at a time when they only really had a choice between Bridge Club Live and OKbridge, and OKbridge had only recently started charging individual membership (which Bridge Club Live had been doing from the outset). I had a look at Bridge Club Live at the time, and my observation was that Bridge Club Live arguably had a friendlier atmosphere (about the only thing going for it), but in my view had a much inferior interface and software structure (compared with OKB, remember) and had a lot fewer players. In proportion it had more UK players as a ratio to others (a negative aspect in my view, but that is a personal view), but in absolute terms still far fewer UK players than in OKB, and playing there you denied yourself the unique opportunity to play against some of the world's best players, only (then) to be found on OKB.

 

The English Bridge Union produces a 2-monthly magazine to its members, on which it devoted 2 full page spreads devoted to BCL (rather less these days), with anecdotes extolling its virtues. Frankly, these pages were pure advertisement for BCL dressed up as independent "reporting". No mention of any special relationship between BCL and EBU was ever hinted at in these articles - rival software sites were simply never mentioned. This included references in the letters page. Not that I read too much into that: The quality of published members' letters is generally diabolical, which raises the question whether the quality of members letters submitted is diabolical, or whether they are rendered more diabolical by the editorial process. If intelligent debate is submitted by letters from the members and filtered out by the editors we would never know. A newcomer to internet bridge, on reading the EBU magazine, and relying exclusively on that publication as a source of informed comment, would receive a highly distorted view of the services on offer.

 

Anyway, the long and the short of it was: The officers of the EBU, perhaps with the noblest of motives, entered into an exclusive (but in my view inappropriate) "arrangement" with BCL. Doubtless they thought that they were acting in the best interests of the membership, but the detail of any such arrangement is shrouded in secrecy. Looked at purely from the vantage point of services supplied to the members, it looks like a bum deal, and the failure to provide an avenue for debate on the matter stinks, as does the failure to publish the details of the arrangement or of reasons behind it, and the overt attempt to dress up an advertisement as independent commentary.

 

At the time, I wrote some of the above criticisms on a usenet newsgroup and immediately received a vitriolic attack in response, by an individual who I now realise was a high ranking official in the EBU (but who did not disclose that interest in his response).

 

All of the above pre-dated the arrival on the scene of BBO. Virtually no mention of BBO has appeared in the EBU magazines since the birth of BBO (I have not found a single instance of its being mentioned, but I would hesitate to say that there has been absolutely none - I might have missed a passing reference). All I can say is that anyone with half an ounce of internet experience will see through the facade that is printed in the magazines, which I cannot imagine has a positive effect.

[Aberlour10]

It would be very difficult to find a single polish bridge site (private or official PBU) without BBO logo >>> a direct link for download <_<

 

Robert

[hrothgar]

Is anyone really surprised that some of the National organizations are trying to create their own little walled gardens?

 

The newer online clubs like HomeBase provide a level of service that the more traditional providers don't bother to match. If the EBU creates an exclusive relationship with Bridge Play Live or the NBB partners with StepBridge they get to shield themselves from competition. Many of the organizations seem to believe that this is a more effective way to compete than focusing on member service.

[paulg]

I think the EBU's more recent actions speak louder than words. It has been using BBO Vugraph increasingly over the last couple of years and the amount of space given to BCL in the magazine is decreasing.

 

Although the EBU has clearly made some mistakes, it appears to be reasonably ambivalent now.

 

It is easy to criticise a national federation's initial foray into the on-line world, but I imagine that the NBB/EBU/ACBL were very keen to protect their 'brand' initially and have a lot of control over the small providers that existed at that time. I expect they were also very short of people with Internet skills and knowledge and handicapped by lack of budget, so their strategy would be dominated by one or two people.

 

A lot has changed over the last few years and the on-line world has matured.

 

I wonder if anyone has even offered to write a column on life in BBO for the EBU, or offered to run/organise EBU masterpoint tournaments on BBO like BCL have? That is, invest a similar amount of time and money to run authorised tournaments?

 

Paul

[jikl]

Theoretically it seems Australia is a StepBridge nation also, offering Australian Bridge Federation master points. I have no idea how many people play there as I have never used it.

 

However, I was allowed to provide a one and a half page interview with Fred about BBO in the ABF Newsletter about a year and a half ago. Curiously, the hyperlinks I provided seemed to have been omitted ^_^

 

Sean

[helene_t]

In South Australia StepBridge is a partner of the South Australian Bridge Federation (SABF) in Internet state club matches.

So only South Australia is StepBridge Land.

[jikl]

http://www.abf.com.au/newsletter/Sept06a.pdf

 

Page 10

 

Sean

[Walddk]

In my position as our vugraph coordinator, I am in touch with most NCBO's worldwide. We have a couple of Scandinavian countries that seem to avoid BBO at any cost because they have personal interests in supporting a competitor.

 

Although we would like to have everyone under our wings, I think we are all doing a pretty good job. It would be naive to think that no NCBO will recommend a different bridge site.

 

This is not the end of the world. For a start, BBO has the support of all major organizations, and as our vugraph presentations reflect, we have loads of minor NCBO's to add to the total.

 

It wasn't always like that, I know, but with a little bit of work (and luck) you are able to change matters. Let me take England and the EBU as an example.

 

Max Bavin, who is in charge of the EBU secretariat, and I are friends and both keen cricket and football (soccer) fans. Back in 2002 I asked him why the EBU seemed to avoid BBO and recommend other bridge sites. "It is a matter of tradition and difficult to change", was his answer.

 

You don't change traditions in England overnight, but there is no law against trying.

 

During the European Championships in Malmö, Sweden, in 2004, Max, one of EBL's chief tournament directors, and I sat down one day in order to have a serious chat about it (Max loves a beer or two, so we had a couple on BBO!). I told him how the EBU members would benefit if BBO became their new "home".

 

Max Bavin promised to give it try, and I think you all know what happened since. Max, Roger Bryant, Anna Gudge, Michael Clark and Steve Eginton actively supported the idea, and today BBO is virtually the only bridge site that appeals to the EBU members as well as English bridge players who are not members.

 

We have the evidence, because one page on the EBU web site is dedicated to vugraph broadcasts on BBO, and they have been plenty as some of you know. They also have our logo there for everyone to click on.

 

"Why didn't we think about this before", is what we now hear from the HQ of the EBU. Better late than never strikes again.

 

Maybe Uday can tell us how the number of members from England (some with the Union Jack instead of the St George's Cross in their profiles) have increased significantly over the past 2-3 years.

 

This is just one example. I could give you many more, and I sincerely think that BBO is in a healthy position regarding *the* bridge site on the internet. We have competition, sure, but that applies to all aspects of life.

 

However, BBO offers a much better product, and it's even free of charge. Let's not be naive and think that we can gather every bridge player in the world. Less will do, and in the years to come many more will realise what a fantastic site we have here.

 

Roland

[Gerben42]

Now that you mention it, I've not been seeing any VG from Sweden (except the European championships but that was really EBL). I've been a member of StepBridge from the very beginning when there was almost nothing there and it was and still is the official online Bridge club of the Dutch Bridge Federation.

 

Members of StepBridge are members of the NBB which means they receive money from this. Having people (like me!) run to BBO instead is bad for them. I don't know what StepBridge is like now but given the Dutch crowd in BBO my guess is that the level has gone down with the IMP (advanced+) crowd slowly moving here.

[Free]

It's all about the money...

[GeeGee]

Maybe Uday can tell us how the number of members from England (some with the Union Jack instead of the St George's Cross in their profiles) have increased significantly over the past 2-3 years.

 

Roland

Well, I'm one of them :)

 

But this was through the other bridge magazines we have in the UK. In particular, a free magazine called 'Bridge' available from http://www.mrbridge.co.uk/ ran a series by Stephen Cashmore which compared online bridge sites, including BBO. I don't recall Stepbridge getting a mention.

 

Geoff

[Finch]

And members of Surrey County bridge association (the largest UK county association) got a few pages extolling BBO Vugraph a few months ago....

 

The feeling I get from talking to people at my local club is that if they play online it is usually as individuals (if they have a partner it's often for f2f bridge), and they positively want to find people to play with, and against, who have the same bridge background. They want to play Acol weak NT against other people who play Acol weak NT with the same sorts of things alerted.

 

There are obviously many around (often the more junior sort of players) who are keen to meet and play with other nationalities, but I think they are actually the minority of the total bridge-playing population, who want to stay in their comfort zone.

 

Hence, the EBU - and probably other NCBOs - think they are doing the right thing by promoting an in-country site with support in their own language from their own TDs. They were forced to choose who to promote from the options available at the time, and I don't think BBO Private clubs existed then. Having made a decision, it's then fair enough to promote it heavily because how good a site is depends on how many people use it.

 

Censoring references to other sites is silly, of course.