[Trinidad]

jdonn, on Jul 11 2009, 04:32 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Jul 11 2009, 02:08 PM, said:

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]

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

[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]

Trinidad, on Jul 12 2009, 03:46 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 11 2009, 04:32 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Jul 11 2009, 02:08 PM, said:

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.

[bluejak]

Perhaps we could keep to consideration of the Laws. There are forums here where we can discuss whether players with special needs or wishes should play. Please use such forums for non-Laws discussions.

[Rossoneri]

I would think that if the player has informed the organizers/directors beforehand, this request should be accommodated. The spirit of the law is to prevent UI from reaching the other side of the screen, not to prevent a player who can't write his explanations for some reason from playing.

[Trinidad]

jdonn, on Jul 12 2009, 04:11 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Jul 12 2009, 03:46 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 11 2009, 04:32 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Jul 11 2009, 02:08 PM, said:

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.

Josh,

Don't even try to suggest that I have written that jewish players should not play bridge. And don't even try to suggest that I think it is ok to discriminate against jews. Either you are misunderstanding me completely or you are deliberately twisting my words. I will assume the former and therefore I will try to clarify the misunderstanding.

I have never written that religious people shouldn't participate in bridge to begin with. For me, people of every possible faith, skin color or shoe size are welcome to play bridge, on every day of the week, as long as they adhere to the rules of bridge.

I have written (or at least intended to write) that if a player's religion prohibits him from playing bridge with screens on the Sabbath then he shouldn't participate in a session of bridge with screens on the Sabbath (if he wants to adhere to his religion). I am not limiting this player's possibility to play bridge with screens in any way.

Now this player asks if we can bend the rules on the Sabbath to do him a favor. The formal position is: "Obviously not. Rules are rules." But my position (and that of most TD's) is: "Yes, we should do that, but in such a way that we follow the spirit of the regulations." (He suggested to walk away from the table. I say whisper the explanation in someone's ear, so that this person can write it down.) And I explained why walking away goes against the spirit of the regulations whereas whispering doesn't.

Tell me, how am I discriminating?

Rik

[cherdanno]

Rik and Josh - the IBLF used to be a place for constructive, on-topic and well-informed discussions about the law. Maybe we can all try to be nice and let them have those discussion here in their new home, too?
Of course, this thread did not get off to a good start with that at all. Bluejak - the poster who started this thread has a history of asking questions merely to provoke, or to generate discussion, not because he is interested in an answer. He was certainly not involved in the original incident.

[peachy]

cherdanno, on Jul 13 2009, 04:21 AM, said:

Rik and Josh - the IBLF used to be a place for constructive, on-topic and well-informed discussions about the law. Maybe we can all try to be nice and let them have those discussion here in their new home, too?

Good suggestion.

[bluejak]

cherdanno, on Jul 13 2009, 04:21 AM, said:

Bluejak - the poster who started this thread has a history of asking questions merely to provoke, or to generate discussion, not because he is interested in an answer.

I did think that was possible. But the question he asked is a good one, just the sort of question this forum is for. While thread drift is inevitable, who should and should not play bridge is not a matter for this forum.



Where's the spellchekka?

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on Jul 13 2009, 06:29 AM, said:

cherdanno, on Jul 13 2009, 04:21 AM, said:

Bluejak - the poster who started this thread has a history of asking questions merely to provoke, or to generate discussion, not because he is interested in an answer.

I did think that was possible. But the question he asked is a good one, just the sort of question this forum is for. While thread drift is inevitable, who should and should not play bridge is not a matter for this forum.

Ok. I will follow your suggestion and focus on the OP's question:

Quote

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?

My answer:
Yes, see law 80B2e and the relevant article(s) in the screen regulation.
Or to make it concrete, if the screen regulation mandates written explanations, then yes, there is a problem.

In practice, if I were the TD, I would solve this problem by asking a third person (screen mate, kibitzer, etc.) to write down the explanations. I would not allow the players to walk away from the table since it will transfer too much UI across the screen.

Rik

[Cascade]

Trinidad, on Jul 14 2009, 03:30 AM, said:

My answer:
Yes, see law 80B2e and the relevant article(s) in the screen regulation.
Or to make it concrete, if the screen regulation mandates written explanations, then yes, there is a problem.

In practice, if I were the TD, I would solve this problem by asking a third person (screen mate, kibitzer, etc.) to write down the explanations. I would not allow the players to walk away from the table since it will transfer too much UI across the screen.

Rik

Just how does the third party get the information to write down?

If they are going to be verbally transmitting information to a third party they may as well eliminate the third party. And for that matter the screen because it is inevitable that something will be heard.

[Phil]

Cascade, on Jul 13 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

If they are going to be verbally transmitting information to a third party they may as well eliminate the third party. And for that matter the screen because it is inevitable that something will be heard.

Its why you whisper a lot of the alerts. The written notes make up a record of the discussion, and a 3rd party could do this.

[barmar]

I think there's a simple way to answer the original question, which takes religion out of the discussion: what would you do to accomodate a player who is physically incapable of writing, due to injury or illness (considering the average age of bridge players, extreme arthritis seems like a likely problem)?

[jdonn]

barmar, on Jul 13 2009, 04:11 PM, said:

I think there's a simple way to answer the original question, which takes religion out of the discussion: what would you do to accomodate a player who is physically incapable of writing, due to injury or illness (considering the average age of bridge players, extreme arthritis seems like a likely problem)?

I think most of it could easily be done through pointing, to bidding cards and a few pre-written phrases. And then have the third party write what was explained.

[bluejak]

I do not think the mechanics of it matter. The principle is that TDs make every effort to allow for players with problems, whether it is caused by disability, religion, or whatever. Jurisdictions such as the EBU have an over-riding regulation giving the DIC the right to suspend regulations for cause in special circumstances subject to the TO approval - and when the EBU is the TO, that approval is given in the CoC.

• TD - Tournament Director
  
• EBU - English Bridge Union
  
• DIC - Director in Charge
  
• TO - Tournament Organiser
  
• CoC - Conditions of Contest

[mike777]

bluejak, on Jul 13 2009, 06:57 PM, said:

I do not think the mechanics of it matter. The principle is that TDs make every effort to allow for players with problems, whether it is caused by disability, religion, or whatever. Jurisdictions such as the EBU have an over-riding regulation giving the DIC the right to suspend regulations for cause in special circumstances subject to the TO approval - and when the EBU is the TO, that approval is given in the CoC.

• TD - Tournament Director
  
• EBU - English Bridge Union
  
• DIC - Director in Charge
  
• TO - Tournament Organiser
  
• CoC - Conditions of Contest

This makes a ton of common sense. I thought there must be some kind of overriding regulation I just wondered what it was.

This caused quite a conversation on the VUgraph and I had the impression that the TD had not been notified ahead of time of an issue. As far as I could tell the players at the table had no issue or any objection.

[ArtK78]

goodwintr, on Jul 12 2009, 08:07 AM, said:

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.

It is not true that Sandy Koufax did not pitch on Saturdays. At least, I have never heard that such was the case (and I am sure that I would have heard about it).

It is true that he did not pitch a game scheduled on Yom Kippur during the World Series.

Everyone chooses his own level of observance. Whether a particular level of observance is deemed hypocritical by others is an entirely different issue.

There is a difference between playing a game on the Sabbath and complying with one of the rules of the game that specifically deals with playing behind screens. Writing is specifically prohibited during the Sabbath. Playing cards is not prohibited. There is nothing about playing bridge that requires that one write (one does not have to keep score). Only when one is playing behind screens is there an obligation to provide a writing to one's opponents. That has nothing to do with playing the game of bridge - it only has something to do with playing bridge behind screens.

Surely, there should have been some kind of accommodation made.