[souren]

During Hindusthan Club Tournament at India, in a duplicate league match one of his team mate was found smoking during play at TOILET and was levied VP penalty to the team. Now their team captain has raised a legal point that for the foul of one player in a team how the entire team can suffer (alike for crime of one person you cannot punish fellow members unless they are in collution). His logic is the rule should be that convicted person should be either suspended for 3 consequtive matches or any pecuniary fines are to be levied but the entire team should not suffer as it is beyond juris prudence. Any idea of law and its interpretation?

[Ant590]

When I first read this, I thought "nonsense, the entire team should have a penalty if one player misbehaves."

However, on reflection I think for a non-bridge related misdemeanour the penalty should be for the player only. I guess there is a parallel to be shown here with the way the Pakistan cricket team was not fined, but the players suspended.

I would be highly surprised if the laws of bridge say anything on the matter. It seems to me that the Conditions of Contest for the event in question should stipulate such penalties for them to be legal.

[gwnn]

Pure silliness. The same nonsense is raised in football: how can you punish the team by sending off one of its players when only one of its players kicked an opponent in the face on purpose?

[helene_t]

Agree with Ant. Obviously PP always punish the whole team even if it was just a single player who behaved unethically, but this is different.

[Zelandakh]

I take an electronic device into a game with me. My mate in the vugraph audience buzzes me with vital information about the hand using it. Only I have misbehaved - why should the team be punished?

For a smoking offence I would personally expect a fine to be more appropriate than a VP penalty. However a team is responsible for the actions of its individuals. Like Ant I would think the CoC should provide answers.

[axman]

souren, on Sep 6 2010, 05:02 AM, said:

During Hindusthan Club Tournament at India, in a duplicate league match one of his team mate was found smoking during play at TOILET and was levied VP penalty to the team. Now their team captain has raised a legal point that for the foul of one player in a team how the entire team can suffer (alike for crime of one person you cannot punish fellow members unless they are in collution). His logic is the rule should be that convicted person should be either suspended for 3 consequtive matches or any pecuniary fines are to be levied but the entire team should not suffer as it is beyond juris prudence. Any idea of law and its interpretation?

The TD satisfies the rules or he does not. The rules are published in the conditions of contest. Without the text of the relevant rule others are not able to judge the efficacy of the the ruling. As such, the remedy for the player that considers a rule to be bad is to not enter the event.

[gordontd]

souren, on Sep 6 2010, 11:02 AM, said:

Now their team captain has raised a legal point that for the foul of one player in a team how the entire team can suffer (alike for crime of one person you cannot punish fellow members unless they are in collution).

In the same way that a player who gets fined for slow play, or late arrival, affects the team's score. Being part of a team means you are all in it together.

[campboy]

It is very common for the punishment for a "non-bridge related misdemeanour" to be a VP penalty for the team in both national and international events, since this is how having a mobile phone ring is normally penalised.

Laws 90A and 91A give the director the right to give procedural and disciplinary penalties respectively. The laws do not specify the exact penalty given. I would expect that either in the conditions of contest for this event or the general tournament regulations produced by the relevant national authority provide guidance for the TD on what penalty to give.

[hrothgar]

Here's a simple solution...

Expel the player in question from the tournament for violating the rules.
Then expel the entire team for not having enough players...

I'm sure this will make them much happier

[bluejak]

Consider the Laws. A TD may issue a PP or a DP either when the CoC requires it or when his own judgement tells him to. A PP or a DP is applied to a contestant, not to a player.

Now consider a case where a player is cheating, but in a way that does not involve other members of his team, for example the Welsh case of 1999. The authority takes action against the individual player, on that occasion a national and thus world-wide ban for ten years.

It is interesting that one person refers to a "non-bridge related misdemeanour" but how far is behaviour non-bridge related? The reason for antis-smoking rules initially was because of the effect of smoking on other players, not because of its effect on the player himself. So smoking is definitely bridge related.

The answer to the general question - which others have said in different ways - is that when you play bridge you do so under a set of rules, many said explicitly, some implied or inferred, and the authorities have the legal right to enforce them or punish for non-compliance. Whether they penalise the player himself or a contestant is a matter of rules where they are explicit, and a matter of judgement for the authority where they are not.

But it is certainly legal to punish a contestant for actions of one of its players.

Speaking personally, if my team was fined for a player smoking, I would be very angry with the player. and not at all with the authority.

[peachy]

I find it completely normal that a team or a pair is penalized if one of the members of the team or a pair is in violation of rules that specify PP or DPs, or if the TD uses his authority to assign such for any reason. It would IMO be silly to have individuals carry their PPs or DPs "in their pocket", so to speak, and the team or pair to remain unaffected. What is the point of that?

[aguahombre]

Even as an unrepentant smoker, this deliberate violation of the (apparent) conditions warrants the team's being appropriately penalized.

I do hope it doesn't open up a can of worms where "monitors" for the opposing team, with measuring tapes, look for a member lighting up 24 feet from the exit.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2010-September-06, 11:21

[olegru]

souren, on Sep 6 2010, 05:02 AM, said:

During Hindusthan Club Tournament at India, in a duplicate league match

Sorry, I am a little confused here. Did penalty for smoking was mentioned in condition of contests?
If yes - what is your question?
If not - where did penalty come from?

[MBV53]

Everybody knows that TD never makes the rules! He follows COC/scoc made by Technical committee.Many are comparing Bridge with Football,Foot ball Game continues even two/ three players are suspended, where as in bridge is it possible?many teams are four member teams,if one player is off what is the fate of the team?In this Game it is quite evident that ,if a player commits an offence in an Individual event He only gets punishment, In Pair event it reflects on that pair, In team event reflects on the team.I beleve that[in a team event] when the teams play uncommon Boards,Open room players are permitted to have a mini Break, But in any case Closed room players are not allowed to go out till the results are handed over.
One thing is clear! Nobody is above LAW, If any player does not respect/abide the rules/laws, Laws will not spare him.Teams have to suffer for having such an indiscipline player in the team.
MBVSubrahmanyam.
India.

[Free]

This is ridiculous. Suspending a player isn't considered punishing the entire team? What if the team only contains 4 players?

If you compete, then your team is considered 1 entity. Same with pairs: 1 entity. So if anyone misbehaves, then the entire entity will be punished. If the team's captain wants to punish an individual in his team, he can no longer select them, or let them sign a contract which will give the team a financial compensation in such case.

[Rossoneri]

I do know in Singapore you can get fined VPs for offences like handphones ringing during play or being late for a match. Surely the actions of one person affects the whole team as well here?

[JoAnneM]

I'm curious, was the smoking in the restroom ban a hotel rule or was it specific to the conditions of contest. I am not an expert on national events but do they really ban smoking in the restrooms in the CC's?

If the player was just breaking a hotel rule I think the penalty was severe, if a CC rule then, yes, that player is part of the team and should have thought of himself as one of the "unit".

[aguahombre]

Sounds like this was an event held at a club. I would think club rules (posted) would be sufficient and would not need to be repeated in the CC's for a special tourney.

[pran]

JoAnneM, on Sep 10 2010, 06:58 PM, said:

I'm curious, was the smoking in the restroom ban a hotel rule or was it specific to the conditions of contest.  I am not an expert on national events but do they really ban smoking in the restrooms in the CC's?

If the player was just breaking a hotel rule I think the penalty was severe, if a CC rule then, yes, that player is part of the team and should have thought of himself as one of the "unit".

In Norway we ban smoking anywhere indoors both by national law and also repeated in CoC.

(In CoC we also ban the consumption of beverages containing alcohol by any person present in the playrooms during sessions, and by the players themselves during or between same day sessions regardless of where they drink.)

[Echognome]

pran, on Sep 10 2010, 02:53 PM, said:

In Norway we ban smoking anywhere indoors both by national law and also repeated in CoC.

(In CoC we also ban the consumption of beverages containing alcohol by any person present in the playrooms during sessions, and by the players themselves during or between same day sessions regardless of where they drink.)

Sounds like they should be called the "No Fun in Norway" rules. It seems a really silly rule to ban drinking between same sessions. Way too much big brother. The rule implies I can drink before a session and after a session, but not in between. I cannot imagine how awkward it would be for a TD to give a fine to a player for drinking at a hotel bar at a lunch or dinner break. As an alternative rule, it would make sense for there to be a rule that a player found to be intoxicated during a session would be kicked out of the event with possible further disciplinary fines.

It also sounds like a midnight speedball game where drinking is welcomed (such as in Brighton or the zip KO's in the ACBL) would be unheard of. That's a shame as those can be very fun.