[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

[mike777]

mtvesuvius, on Jul 10 2009, 10:28 PM, said:

Stop teasing Matt Granovetter

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]

blackshoe, on Jul 10 2009, 11:13 PM, said:

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

[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]

Jlall, on Jul 11 2009, 01:09 AM, said:

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]

RMB1, on Jul 11 2009, 02:52 PM, said:

This regulation is regularly flouted at European events, anyway.

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

[jdonn]

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?

[matmat]

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?

Exactly.

[peachy]

RMB1, on Jul 11 2009, 02:52 PM, said:

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]

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

[cherdanno]

RMB1, on Jul 11 2009, 02:52 PM, said:

Don't you people have diversity training!?

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