JoAnneM Posted March 12, 2009 Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 Has anyone read the proposed changes to the ACBL Code of Disciplinary Changes that will come before the BOD at Houston? It is mostly boring but a couple are interesting. For instance, they are upping the penalties for just about everything. Also, I always thought that it was a crime to publicly accuse someone of cheating but according to this you could be put on suspension for 180 days for calling someone unethical. And that happens all the time online! www.acbl.org/assets/documents/about/bod/091HoustonMotions.doc - 2009-02-16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackenbush Posted March 12, 2009 Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 I didn't know a few of the actions are C/E violations, e.g. E10: Deliberately try to see from where an opponent plays his cards (90 days probation and up to 90 days suspension) I have better things to think about doing play than staring down opps' hands, but I do sometimes cycle the suits. I guess it's really not that much of a concern then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted March 12, 2009 Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 Well, according to Bobby Wolfe, almost everybody cheats, almost all the time, at least at high levels, so I suppose the sanctions that are already in the laws aren't good enough. Maybe we should just shoot anybody who appears at a disciplinary hearing, guilty or not. That'd fix 'em! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted March 12, 2009 Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 This is a link to the downloadable file Joanne mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted March 12, 2009 Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 Oh, this is good: Comment C7: This offense is quite serious and difficult to prove. Therefore the discipline suggested should be wider on the severe end. The difficulty in proving guilt means the punishment should be harsher? Or is there an implication here that if proving it is too hard, we should just go ahead and punish the accused anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shintaro Posted March 12, 2009 Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 ;) hi blackshoe your ultimate fix of summary execution instead of appeals has some merit :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 12, 2009 Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 Oh, this is good: Comment C7: This offense is quite serious and difficult to prove. Therefore the discipline suggested should be wider on the severe end. The difficulty in proving guilt means the punishment should be harsher? Or is there an implication here that if proving it is too hard, we should just go ahead and punish the accused anyway? I take that as, since it's difficult to prove (and thus there is more motivation to do it), punish him more severely if you have proven it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoAnneM Posted March 12, 2009 Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 I thought it meant there should be more latitude on the severe end since it was hard to prove, but then I have trouble reading most things ACBL writes, as proved by my being consistently corrected here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Joanne, everybody has trouble understanding the ACBL's writings. B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 I agree with JoAnne. The disciplinary committee should be allowed to give a lighter penalty if there's less evidence. On the other hand, if the evidence is overwhelming they can be harsh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Maybe. OTOH, either there's enough evidence to convict, or there isn't. I don't see how more than enough evidence makes the crime any worse. OTOH, if the evidence indicates deliberate intent, then perhaps a harsher penalty is warranted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 it seems to me that the ACBL is an organization that prides itself on writing un-enforceable, un-interpretable regulations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Does anyone else find this code of conduct as ludicrous as me? Looks at some of these offenses: C1 Poor personal hygiene or dress (CDR 3.7) Reprimand and or up to 30 days Probation E3 Unsportsmanlike and frivolous psyching (CDR 3.2 and 3.7) Reprimand 60 days Probation and or up to 30 days Suspension On the bright side, there's nothing in there about making political statements when you're up on a podium... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 E3 Unsportsmanlike and frivolous psyching (CDR 3.2 and 3.7) I love that. How many pages would it take us to discuss how to define "unsportsmanlike" and "frivolous" in this context? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Does anyone else find this code of conduct as ludicrous as me? Looks at some of these offenses: C1 Poor personal hygiene or dress (CDR 3.7) Reprimand and or up to 30 days Probation E3 Unsportsmanlike and frivolous psyching (CDR 3.2 and 3.7) Reprimand 60 days Probation and or up to 30 days Suspension On the bright side, there's nothing in there about making political statements when you're up on a podium... Well obviously the point of all of this is they will punish who they feel like, and ignore most of the rest. This way they make almost any behavior punishable just in case it suits them in a particular case. Probably the worst case of personal hygiene I have ever come across at the table was a very old feeble man, who sneezed and it pretty much went all over his face. He very slowly (as fast as he could move) wiped it on his hand, and used his hand to wipe it underneath the table. He then grabbed his cards and began to play. Disgusting? Very. But somehow I don't think either reprimanding him or 30 days of probation are the answer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 I like this: Intentionally change a score or any information that could result in awarding incorrect masterpoints It implies that if I intentionally change a score which could not result in incorrect masterpoints, there's no penalty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwery_hi Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 Presumably, coffee doesn't grant you information you're not entitled too. But a low-cut top does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babalu1997 Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 I played a session once with a female junior who had a rather low-cut top with an imposing cleavage. She said it gained her loads of matchpoints because oppo weren't concentrating on the bridge. I can confirm that this works. how low are your tops roger?can i borrow them? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 Well obviously the point of all of this is they will punish who they feel like, and ignore most of the rest. This way they make almost any behavior punishable just in case it suits them in a particular case. They just want to make sure that they can find excuses to keep reprimanding Blubaugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peachy Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 On the bright side, there's nothing in there about making political statements when you're up on a podium... There soon will be, I think I read some agenda or motion to that effect somewhere "reliable". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmcw Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 I think that a cofee cup also greatly enhances one's ability to cheat. Not only can one time their sips, non-sips, or cup adjustments, they could also turn the cup in many ways. Perhaps removal of the lid at certain points could be an indicator. Playing behind screens? Maybe a friendly kib walks over and says, "Hi. I just bought you a frapomochalate." The secret message being that a tricky slam is possible on board 21. If people are worried about one signaling with a phone call or IM, I'd think they'd be just as worried about adding a new cheating prop to the table. Determined cheats can not be stopped by allowing or denying certain items at the table. jmc <the above is all said a bit tongue in cheak>Could Upside Down cup signals could be the next rage. Latte discards? :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoAnneM Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 I do know that a male wearing gym shorts with no underwear and his "you know what" hanging out under the table is a "no-no". Seen by me at the San Francisco NABC, and since I didn't want to avoid looking at that table the entire session (I was n/s sitting at a nearby table) I reported it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothy Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 On the other hand, isn't there a (possibly apocryphal) story of a bridge expert whose concentration was so absolute that he didn't notice when a nude woman walked by the table? Unfortunately, barmar, that story was not apocryphal. ;) Unfortunately ( or fortunately, depending on your perspective ) the person sitting at the table when the nude woman walked by was me :rolleyes: (i did, however, severely reprimand my ex mother-in-law later, telling her that she should restrict her desire to walk naked in public to the privacy of her nudist asylum) The only reason that i didnt notice a woman in this state of undress was nothing to do with the hand in question (it was a simple trivial hand involving a backwash squeeze with an intricate preparatory elimination) but the fact was my gaze was fixated on two rather raunchy buxom blondes who were sat opposite me smothering each other with (semi-skimmed) cream and licking it off the other in a, i must say, rather ubersexual fashion. The opps denied having anything to do with having my ex mother-in-law stroll casually by OR with the 2 ladies in question. I, of course, reserve judgement. Alex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.