Smoking during the Play India
#1
Posted 2010-September-06, 04:02
#2
Posted 2010-September-06, 04:19
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.
#3
Posted 2010-September-06, 04:26
George Carlin
#4
Posted 2010-September-06, 04:33
#5
Posted 2010-September-06, 04:46
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.
#6
Posted 2010-September-06, 04:50
souren, on Sep 6 2010, 05:02 AM, said:
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.
#7
Posted 2010-September-06, 04:53
souren, on Sep 6 2010, 11:02 AM, said:
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.
London UK
#8
Posted 2010-September-06, 04:56
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.
#9
Posted 2010-September-06, 05:35
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
#10
Posted 2010-September-06, 05:53
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.
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#11
Posted 2010-September-06, 09:49
#12
Posted 2010-September-06, 11:06
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
#13
Posted 2010-September-06, 11:44
souren, on Sep 6 2010, 05:02 AM, said:
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?
#14
Posted 2010-September-06, 21:56
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.
#15
Posted 2010-September-07, 05:59
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.
#16
Posted 2010-September-10, 10:59
Unless explicitly stated, none of my views here can be taken to represent SCBA or any other organizations.
#17
Posted 2010-September-10, 11:58
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".
Practice Goodwill and Active Ethics
Director "Please"!
#18
Posted 2010-September-10, 12:24
#19
Posted 2010-September-10, 15:53
JoAnneM, on Sep 10 2010, 06:58 PM, said:
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.)
#20
Posted 2010-September-10, 16:29
pran, on Sep 10 2010, 02:53 PM, said:
(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.