Senior finals

[mike777]

1) Assume after sundown on the Sabbath and one player is forbidden from writing due to religion.

2) With screens Player A alerts his partner's bids.

3) Opp asks and Player A requests he and OPP. leave the table so he can explain.

 

 

Any law issues?

[mtvesuvius]

Stop teasing Matt Granovetter :P

[mike777]

Stop teasing Matt Granovetter :P

I have been paying Matt money for what......20 or more years? Longer than some posters alive. :)

 

See all of his Roth Stone articles or Obvious shifts articles/etc...blame him....

 

btw I thought this was real life/at the table/.. issue.

[blackshoe]

If there are religious objections to writing things down because it's the Sabbath, there are probably religious objections to playing a card game at all.

[mike777]

If there are religious objections to writing things down because it's the Sabbath, there are probably religious objections to playing a card game at all.

?

 

 

It seems NO!

 

again I just ask what law issues this raises at the table in real life/real table?

 

"As a general rule, if you can't decide where something should go, put it in "Laws and Rulings". We'll move it if necessary."

[mtvesuvius]

This is a legitimate problem technically, since AFAIK Judaism has no problem with card playing of most sorts outside a synagogue. I believe that a procedural penalty may be awarded? Not sure though :P

[Jlall]

What about getting paid (a lot) of money to play on the sabbath? Not familiar with the Jewish laws, how is that thought about? Isn't it similar to working, especially when bridge is your source of income?

 

If you are choosing to obey some laws and not others, does that affect the answer to OPs question or is it irrelevant? Personally I would be a little annoyed if someone did this and I was opposing them. It would seem hypocritical to me, and self serving.

[mike777]

What about getting paid (a lot) of money to play on the sabbath? Not familiar with the Jewish laws, how is that thought about? Isn't it similar to working, especially when bridge is your source of income?

 

If you are choosing to obey some laws and not others, does that affect the answer to OPs question or is it irrelevant? Personally I would be a little annoyed if someone did this and I was opposing them. It would seem hypocritical to me, and self serving.

for this thread I assume:

1) we try and obey all bridge laws

2) we try and obey religion laws.

3) we try ....full/100% disclosure per bridge laws /bridge ethics

[Jlall]

Personally if I was trying to obey a law to not work, I wouldn't work. If I did then choose to work I wouldn't say that I am incapable of WRITING because my religion prohibits working. If I suspected my opp of doing this I might LOL before repeating my request to know what the bid means, and reminding them that they cannot talk behind screens. If they spoke or didn't tell me I would call the director and have a penalty enforced.

[EricK]

In Judaism, saving a life trumps pretty much all other religious laws. So if you were to threaten to kill his partner unless he writes an explanation down, then he is allowed to write his explanation. Or perhaps that should be the job of the director.

[blackshoe]

I know what I said, Mike, and yes, this is the appropriate place for this question. So, back to the original question: "any law issues?"

 

No, I don't think there are. I might suggest to the opponent that he write down the explanation, so there's a written record of it, in case there's a problem later.

[Trinidad]

If the screen regulations require that explanations are written down (which is pretty common) then the player should have realized that his religion prohibited him from playing bridge according to the laws (80B2e + the relevant screen regulation). Therefore, the player shouldn't have participated to begin with.

 

Unfortunately, the player decided to participate anyway, but refused to play according to the laws and regulations. That is a violation of law 90B8 for which the TD will award a PP. When the player still refuses to write down the explanation, the TD can suspend the player for the duration of the session (91A) and, if necessary, he can expell the player if the organization allows him to do that. I expect that the player in question will accept these consequences with grace and maybe even pride since it will solidify his religious basis.

 

Of course, in practice, I would be willing to look for a compromise between the laws and regulations on the one hand and the religious restrictions of the player on the other hand. However, I wouldn't allow them to walk away from the table to do the explaining elsewhere, since the shuffling with chairs, etc. would give tons of UI to the other side of the table. And presumably this event was played with screens to prevent precisely this sort of UI.

 

But I could certainly think of other compromises. I could suggest that the player would get someone to do his writing for him. He could whisper the meaning in the secretary's ear and the secretary would write it down. I could imagine that the screen mate or a kibitzer would act as the secretary. Given the fact that the player is playing with a partner and two opponents who are required to write down explanations and fill out score cards, I can't imagine that there would be a religious reason that would ban him from getting a third person to do the writing. But, then again, I am a TD and not a rabbi.

 

Rik

[Phil]

What if the player had a "goy" do the writing?

 

This would seem to be in concert with both the bridge and religious laws :)

[RMB1]

Don't you people have diversity training!?

If the regulations prevent people playing bridge because of their religion, I would be worried about contravening human rights legislation, just as if the player were disabled.

 

I would expect to treat this player the same way we treat disabled players in the EBU. This basically gives the TD the authority to modify any regulation if considered appropriate to accommodate a player with a disability. I think "modify" can be read as "disregard".

 

I would suspend the regulation for written explanations on this side of the screen. This regulation is regularly flouted at European events, anyway.

 

I would have expected the player to have anticipated the problem and to have informed the tournament organiser in advance (or did play extend beyond sundown unexpectedly?).

 

Robin (was RMB on bridgetalk)

[blackshoe]

This regulation is regularly flouted at European events, anyway.

Yeah, sure, that's a great reason for "suspending" it.

[jdonn]

If the screen regulations require that explanations are written down (which is pretty common) then the player should have realized that his religion prohibited him from playing bridge according to the laws (80B2e + the relevant screen regulation). Therefore, the player shouldn't have participated to begin with.

And if he can't walk and has to use a wheelchair, and the game takes place in a building with stairs to get inside, then he is also prevented from playing bridge according to the laws so he shouldn't participate to begin with?

[matmat]

If the screen regulations require that explanations are written down (which is pretty common) then the player should have realized that his religion prohibited him from playing bridge according to the laws (80B2e + the relevant screen regulation). Therefore, the player shouldn't have participated to begin with.

And if he can't walk and has to use a wheelchair, and the game takes place in a building with stairs to get inside, then he is also prevented from playing bridge according to the laws so he shouldn't participate to begin with?

Exactly.

[peachy]

Don't you people have diversity training!?

If the regulations prevent people playing bridge because of their religion, I would be worried about contravening human rights legislation, just as if the player were disabled.

 

I would expect to treat this player the same way we treat disabled players in the EBU. This basically gives the TD the authority to modify any regulation if considered appropriate to accommodate a player with a disability. I think "modify" can be read as "disregard".

 

I would suspend the regulation for written explanations on this side of the screen. This regulation is regularly flouted at European events, anyway.

 

I would have expected the player to have anticipated the problem and to have informed the tournament organiser in advance (or did play extend beyond sundown unexpectedly?).

 

Robin (was RMB on bridgetalk)

I agree with Robin. The accommodation for not writing due to religious reason is pretty simple to do, but surely the player needed to inform the TD's or whathavewe about the need for this accommodation, before play began; and the opposing players deserved an advance notice of this, as a courtesy anyway even if/when/as they had no problem with it.

[Oof Arted]

:huh:

 

Regarding robin's reply and other then scathing responses

 

As TD's I always thought we were there for the 'Benefit' of the players and we should always try to accomodate their needs NOT OURS

 

:rolleyes:

[cherdanno]

Don't you people have diversity training!?

I hope this doesn't shock you but I have never had diversity training.

[Trinidad]

If the screen regulations require that explanations are written down (which is pretty common) then the player should have realized that his religion prohibited him from playing bridge according to the laws (80B2e + the relevant screen regulation). Therefore, the player shouldn't have participated to begin with.

And if he can't walk and has to use a wheelchair, and the game takes place in a building with stairs to get inside, then he is also prevented from playing bridge according to the laws so he shouldn't participate to begin with?

 

I find the comparison with disabled people sick. Disabled people never choose to be disabled. But religious people make a deliberate, free and conscious choice. And in your example, there is nothing in the laws that bars us from getting a few people to carry the wheel chair up the stairs.

 

The OP's question was: Are there any laws issues? The simple answer is: Yes. And I referred to some of the relevant laws (whereas most posters before me acted as if there were no issues with the laws).

 

I also went on to explain that I would try to find a working compromise between the laws and the religion and I wrote how I would do that (since the suggested walking away from the table doesn't work). So, I am very accomodating to religious people.

 

End of part 1.

____________________

 

 

Apart from part 1, the real question is how we (as society and as bridge community) deal with religion.

 

In this case, the religion is trying to impose itself on the other players. These other players do not ask for that. Where are we going to draw the line with religion interfering with bridge? How do we deal with:

- players who only want to play against women if they wear a vail?

- players who demand that their same sex opponents assure them that they are not a married gay couple?

- players who hand their opponents a copy of their convention card together with a copy of the Watchtower while quoting "some inspiring words"?

 

Are we going to get a scarf from somewhere or are we going to state the likely: "No, we are not a married gay couple?" After all, it would be easy to accommodate. In fact, it is hardly any trouble at all. And it's not even really an infraction of the bridge laws, is it? Or are we going to say anyway that people's religious believes should stay outside the world of bridge and are we asking the religious players to refrain from "spreading the message"?

 

Religion is fine with me, but it comes with consequences. And these consequences are for the religious and not for the rest of the world. The rest of the world can be asked politely to be accommodating, but that's the limit. One cannot demand that they will be accomodating, certainly not when it would violate the rules that we all (the religious included) agreed to (see the laws that I referred to).

 

Rik

[Oof Arted]

:rolleyes:

 

I would get really worried if an amply endowed nubile of the female sex was told to cover her cleavage up so as to stop distracting opponents :huh:

[goodwintr]

Recall that for religious reasons, Sandy Koufax declined to pitch on Saturdays, even in the World Series.

 

I am having a little difficulty, though, in seeing a distinction between playing a game (bridge) on the Sabbath, and complying with one of the rules of that same game (writing a message on a pad) on the same Sabbath. I concede, though, that I am by no means an expert on Torah.

[bluejak]

I agree with Robin. The player is clearly in the wrong if he failed to inform the authorities in advance, but once he has done so, surely it would be normal to make special arrangements. While the regulation being often flouted in certain jurisdictions does not mean the authorities should accept that generally, it might be ocnsidered an acceptable compromise to allow verbal answers if played in a jurisdiction where in practice most of the answers are verbal.

[jdonn]

If the screen regulations require that explanations are written down (which is pretty common) then the player should have realized that his religion prohibited him from playing bridge according to the laws (80B2e + the relevant screen regulation). Therefore, the player shouldn't have participated to begin with.

And if he can't walk and has to use a wheelchair, and the game takes place in a building with stairs to get inside, then he is also prevented from playing bridge according to the laws so he shouldn't participate to begin with?

 

I find the comparison with disabled people sick.

It's very much like your comment that religious people shouldn't participate to begin with, which I find reprehensible. Saying later that you are very accomodating to such people may help you sleep at night, but it's obviously not true if you don't even think they should play. But I'm glad to see you took the opportunity to rationalize away your statement by saying people can choose their religion, and then using that to imply it's ok to discriminate against them. Maybe that sick feeling you have came from typing that part of your response instead of from my comparison.