Would this rub the wrong way?

[CSGibson]

I'm thinking very strongly about offering a series of free beginning bridge lessons at my local library on Saturdays, but I'm hesitant because:

 

there are a number of local bridge teachers in the area who might see me as poaching on their territory

 

and

 

I am not an accredited ACBL teacher.

 

That being said, I have taught bridge before, and have had an education background. I am also a strong local player with solid fundamentals.

 

Are there any strong opinions about this plan?

[TimG]

Do it.

[Hanoi5]

Why don't you get accreditted? Are you charging for these classes?

 

And yeah, do it. We certainly need more people.

[TimG]

Are you charging for these classes?

I'm thinking very strongly about offering a series of free beginning bridge lessons

[Phil]

What would be your motivation to do this?

[jdonn]

I think you are picking a needless battle. I mean if done on a large scale under different settings (such as setting myself up outside Walmart and giving everyone all the free groceries they want) I don't even think it would be legal. If the goal is for as many people as possible to learn bridge then why start a contentious situation with the existing teachers? As for your credentials, they may well be true and I certainly don't have an opinion to whether or not they are, but it's exactly the kind of things a terrible teacher could claim to be true whether they are or not. I don't question the nature of your motivation, but I think you would be making a mistake.

 

Btw do you realize this post started another thread at almost the same time you started this one? Karma perhaps?

 

A group of highly acclaimed bridge teachers and I are increasingly concerned that everyone and his/her grandmother can now present themselves as bridge teachers. Let me first say that I do NOT claim to be an expert but after 11 years of teaching online, with accreditation by the ACBL (if that matters or not), I am confident about teaching novices/low intermediates with whom I love to work with. I am also proud that teachers with Bridge Forum (www.bridge-forum.com) are picked not only by me, but by my colleagues. Each has his/her own area of expertise, whether it be Larry Mori (larrymori) John Gowdy (Gowdy) or George Mittelman (mittmouse), all truly World Class players who can teach any level of bridge. But what about those who claim to be what they are not and lead students astray? How does the student know this? And does being a World Class player automatically make you a good teacher? Should there be some accreditation process?  I raise these questions, hoping for a fruitful discussion.

Caitlin

[mr1303]

My feeling is that if you want to do it, do it. If you consider more people knowing how to play bridge a virtuous thing that gives you an intrinsic good feeling, why shouldn't you do it.

 

If the teachers who charge for their services are good teachers, then their students will be happy to pay for the service.

 

If members of the public wouldn't come to a pay bridge session but would come to a free one, then you aren't stealing anyone's customers. Not that there's anything wrong with this in a free-market economy anyway.

[rogerclee]

I think you are picking a needless battle. I mean if done on a large scale under different settings (such as setting myself up outside Walmart and giving everyone all the free groceries they want) I don't even think it would be legal. If the goal is for as many people as possible to learn bridge then why start a contentious situation with the existing teachers? As for your credentials, they may well be true and I certainly don't have an opinion to whether or not they are, but it's exactly the kind of things a terrible teacher could claim to be true whether they are or not. I don't question the nature of your motivation, but I think you would be making a mistake.

Josh I am not sure I understand this post. Are you recommending that he not offer to give free lessons because he is just doing it out of spite? I don't get this feeling at all, and I support the endeavor. It seems to me like he just wants to help people out in his spare time and start building a local reputation, which both seem like good things to me. About his qualifications, I have no real idea, but I assume he is good enough to teach from the quality of his forum posts.

[jdonn]

Josh I am not sure I understand this post. Are you recommending that he not offer to give free lessons because he is just doing it out of spite?

I specifically said I didn't question his motivations. I only question what would result.

 

If he wants to build up his local reputation, or help the bridge playing public, or whatever, why not meet with some of the current teachers and discuss some options with them instead of undercutting their existing business? But I think you should be able to understand the feeling. How would you feel if you are a bridge teacher, earning part or all of your income that way, having gone to the trouble of getting certified by the ACBL, then someone who is uncertified starts giving free lessons and your students leave you?

 

Or maybe I should relate it better to you. You have played pro bridge before, right? Imagine you have a set client for local regionals. Then all of a sudden someone who has none of your playing credentials (but for all you know could be a fine player, though you can't prove it) tells your client he is just as good as you and he will play with them for free. Would you care that he is doing it for the love of the game?

[mr1303]

Or maybe I should relate it better to you. You have played pro bridge before, right? Imagine you have a set client for local regionals. Then all of a sudden someone who has none of your playing credentials (but for all you know could be a fine player, though you can't prove it) tells your client he is just as good as you and he will play with them for free. Would you care that he is doing it for the love of the game?

Well, that actually sounds perfectly reasonable? Why should a client pay money to play with person a when he could play with person b for free. Surely the client should realise when he actually plays with person b about his ability, and if he isn't as good as person a and he wants to play with someone who is as good as person a then he can start paying person a again.

[Echognome]

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. I think Josh's concerns are mainly unfounded. If you specifically sought to pick off a particular teacher's or teachers' students, then that would be one thing. Otheriwse, I'm sorry, but it's tough luck. It's like when Microsoft starting offering Internet Explorer for free (if you used their operating system), which basically ruined Netscape. Tough luck for the teachers if they are charging for a service in which someone else provides for free. That's assuming it's the same service. It's up to the teachers to differentiate their service and make sure that they are offering more than what is being offered for free.

 

What about a bridge-related analogy? How about OKBridge versus BBO? One charges and the other is free. How should OKBridge feel about it's rival that offers a similar (most think better) service and it doesn't charge? Shouldn't OKBridge be outraged?

[Phil]

While it may sound reasonable, I'm pretty sure that it won't endear you to the existing pros and teachers in the area. Even if they aren't pay-for-play, the good pairs are probably tight with those that are.

 

If this isn't important to you, then go for it, but I doubt that the local talent will look too highly on it.

 

Its a free country, but there can be fallout from your actions.

[jdonn]

It's like when Microsoft starting offering Internet Explorer for free (if you used their operating system), which basically ruined Netscape.

Wow I hope not!

January 22, 2002 -- Netscape Communications Corporation today announced it has filed suit in the United States Federal District Court in the District of Columbia against Microsoft Corporation to seek redress for Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct against Netscape, a subsidiary of America Online. This anticompetitive conduct also formed the basis of the government's antitrust case against Microsoft. A Federal District Court concluded on June 7, 2000, and the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed on June 28th, 2001, that Microsoft's behavior violated the antitrust laws and had harmed Netscape.

 

What about a bridge-related analogy?  How about OKBridge versus BBO?  One charges and the other is free.  How should OKBridge feel about it's rival that offers a similar (most think better) service and it doesn't charge?  Shouldn't OKBridge be outraged?

Yes they should. And that really is my main point. If you don't care about OKBridge (the other teachers) or what they will think of you, then go for it.

[Echognome]

It's like when Microsoft starting offering Internet Explorer for free (if you used their operating system), which basically ruined Netscape.

Wow I hope not!

January 22, 2002 -- Netscape Communications Corporation today announced it has filed suit in the United States Federal District Court in the District of Columbia against Microsoft Corporation to seek redress for Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct against Netscape, a subsidiary of America Online. This anticompetitive conduct also formed the basis of the government's antitrust case against Microsoft. A Federal District Court concluded on June 7, 2000, and the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed on June 28th, 2001, that Microsoft's behavior violated the antitrust laws and had harmed Netscape.

Wow. That's really telling only half a story!

On September 26, 2000, after Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact,[11] the plaintiffs (to save time) attempted to send Microsoft's appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal and sent the case to a federal appeals court.

 

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft. This was partly because the Appellate court had adopted a "drastically altered scope of liability" under which the Remedies could be taken, and also partly due to the embargoed interviews Judge Jackson had given to the news media while he was still hearing the case, in violation of the Code of Conduct for US Judges.[13] Judge Jackson did not attend the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals hearing, in which the appeals court judges accused him of unethical conduct and determined he should have recused himself from the case.[14]

 

Judge Jackson's response to this was that Microsoft's conduct itself was the cause of any "perceived bias"; Microsoft executives had "proved, time and time again, to be inaccurate, misleading, evasive, and transparently false. ... Microsoft is a company with an institutional disdain for both the truth and for rules of law that lesser entities must respect. It is also a company whose senior management is not averse to offering specious testimony to support spurious defenses to claims of its wrongdoing."[15]

 

However, the appeals court did not overturn the findings of fact. The D.C. Circuit remanded the case for consideration of a proper remedy under a more limited scope of liability. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly was chosen to hear the case.

 

The DOJ announced on September 6, 2001 that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty.

 

On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle the case. The proposed settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies and appoint a panel of three people who will have full access to Microsoft's systems, records, and source code for five years in order to ensure compliance. However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future. On August 5, 2002, Microsoft announced that it would make some concessions towards the proposed final settlement ahead of the judge's verdict. On November 1, 2002, Judge Kollar-Kotelly released a judgment accepting most of the proposed DOJ settlement. Nine states (California, Connecticut, Iowa, Florida, Kansas, Minnesota, Utah, Virginia and Massachusetts) and the District of Columbia (which had been pursuing the case together with the DOJ) did not agree with the settlement, arguing that it did not go far enough to curb Microsoft's anti-competitive business practices. On June 30, 2004, the U.S. appeals court unanimously approved the settlement with the Justice Department, rejecting objections from Massachusetts that the sanctions were inadequate.

The bold emphasis is my own. I'm not defending Microsoft, but your quotes are definitely only part of the story!

[jdonn]

Well that's part of a part as I believe they are now being sued in Europe for the exact same thing. Anyway it's surely my own ignorance if I left something out, I really didn't even know the outcome.

 

But I'm still pretty confident in my opinion here. Look at the title of the thread. If the question is whether this is legal or not, I'm sure it is.

[Echognome]

Well that's part of a part as I believe they are now being sued in Europe for the exact same thing. Anyway it's surely my own ignorance if I left something out, I really didn't even know the outcome.

 

But I'm still pretty confident in my opinion here. Look at the title of the thread. If the question is whether this is legal or not, I'm sure it is.

That's fair enough. I guess I got off on a tangent. Oops.

 

Yeah, I can imagine it might rub some people the wrong way. However, I wasn't meaning whether it was legal, I was interpreting it as whether it was ethical (which I obviously believe it is). I see, however, that wasn't the question being asked, so mea culpa.

[the hog]

I understand Josh's concerns and share them. To give you an example.

I teach English here in Vientiane and get paid for it; it is my living. How do you think I would feel if a volunteer came along and taught for free at the schools where I teach? Schools here have little money and they would jump at the chance to get free tuition and now suddenly my livelihood is undercut. Maybe the volunteers do a good job, but maybe they don't, but my means of making a living is being hampered. I would not be happy.

[sireenb]

Going back to the main question, and giving an opinion from the other side of the world, but people fundamentally behave the same way everywhere when it comes to such situations...

 

A big problem with free bridge lessons for beginners is that many people tend to join them for the simple reason that they are free, rather than from any serious interest to learn the game.

 

A few lessons later, and as they realize that there is quite a lot of work involved learning even elementary bridge, people start dropping out and you will be lucky to end up with 10% attendance at the end. I have seen this at every single free beginners' course given here even by excellent teachers. When people do not pay, there is no commitment!

 

So you may end up generating all the animosity that other posters mention for nothing. The students will go away and the hard feelings will stay.

[TimG]

I'm really surprised. The people who take free bridge lessons at he local library are not the same people who will pay for bridge lessons. But, they might turn into people who will pay for bridge lessons (or people who will eventually find their way into a bridge club). If I was making some money from teaching bridge lessons, I would welcome the guy doing the free job at the library. I'd expect those that stuck with the lesson series and took some interest in the game to find their way to my lessons (or into my club) before long.

[Stephen Tu]

I agree with TimG. I think people complaining about free competition are lame. If you can't provide a service that people are willing to pay for, that isn't worth more than the free version, then maybe you are overpriced & deserve to go out of business. Find some other occupation. The existence of free public schools certainly hasn't prevented private schools & tutoring services from being formed & making money.

[matmat]

Or maybe I should relate it better to you. You have played pro bridge before, right? Imagine you have a set client for local regionals. Then all of a sudden someone who has none of your playing credentials (but for all you know could be a fine player, though you can't prove it) tells your client he is just as good as you and he will play with them for free. Would you care that he is doing it for the love of the game?

I really don't see a problem here.

[jdonn]

Not that I mind being disagreed with here, but I'll say it again:

 

Look at the title of the thread.

 

I am not trying to argue that teaching bridge for free would not be economically efficient, or would be "wrong". The reason I pose the 'how would you feel' question is because that is what's being asked, or at least so I think.

 

"Would teaching bridge free rub people the wrong way?"

"Yes, local bridge teachers."

"But I think there is nothing wrong with that."

Ok. So what?

 

Tim is the only one who has made an on-topic argument in favor of doing this. Maybe Phil is stating it better than I am, the point being that if you care what the bridge teachers in the area think, then you are (arguably?) making a big mistake.

[matmat]

Look at the title of the thread.

yeah. point taken.

 

otoh, if it rubs them the wrong way, it's their problem, as it shouldn't. it is a business in a free market and all that.

[Trinidad]

Do I understand that your goal is to get more bridge players in the area?

 

Then why don't you start free introduction lessons at the library in cooperation with the existing bridge teachers? It could go like this: You give lessons one evening a week. You will teach lesson 1 and 2. In lesson 3, you will introduce bridge teachers X, Y and Z, they will help out with the lesson. They will applaud your initiative, but they will also get the chance to express why they are better teachers in the long run. (After all, this accreditation must be good for something and these teachers should know what it is good for.)

 

Then, you take care of lesson 4 through N. The week before teacher X starts a new class, you invite him over again. You encourage your students to take X's course. Some of your students will go on with X. And you will be closer to reaching your goal of having new bridge players in the area. With the other students you go on, until Y starts his course, etc.

 

In return for your cooperation (the free advertising), the existing bridge teachers might encourage some of their students to visit your bridge club.

 

With a little communication, coordination and cooperation this has the potential for an "everybody wins" scenario. And winners are never rubbed the wrong way.

 

Rik

[P_Marlowe]

I'm really surprised.  The people who take free bridge lessons at he local library are not the same people who will pay for bridge lessons.  But, they might turn into people who will pay for bridge lessons (or people who will eventually find their way into a bridge club).  If I was making some money from teaching bridge lessons, I would welcome the guy doing the free job at the library.  I'd expect those that stuck with the lesson series and took some interest in the game to find their way to my lessons (or into my club) before long.

I agree.

 

And there is a different between someone, who gives

free lessons and someone, who gets paid:

 

If someone provides free lessons, the participants

need to be willing to come to predefined times, at

a predefied location.

The guy, who provides the lessons may be willing

to discuss different times, but it is restricted to his

spare time.

 

Add. the materials will be less professional / less shiny,

because the guy does it for free.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe