[fred]

The editorial in the December 2007 issue of The Bridge World (TBW) offered what I thought was a very thoughtful evaluation of the "Shanghai Incident". Jeff Rubens, the Editor of TBW, gave me permission to post a copy of his editorial in Forums (thanks!).

As I have said before, I consider TBW to be must-read material for anyone who is serious about bridge. You can find out more about my clearly favorite bridge magazine and become a subscriber through:

Link to The Bridge World web site

They have a special offer now whereby new subsribers get a free (hardcover) copy of "Bridge Master: The Best of Edgar Kaplan" - a great book about a truly remarkable man.

If you are already a subscriber or think that TBW is too advanced for you, please consider buying a subscription for a friend for Christmas. I have no personal financial interest here, but IMO Jeff and his magazine deserve our support!

A copy of the editorial follows:

Sign of the Times

At the victory banquet of the world championships in Shanghai, a member of the winning American team in the Venice Cup held up a sign, ostensibly representing a sentiment of all the players on the team, announcing that they had not voted for President Bush. Was this an appropriate explanation to residents of other countries or an inappropriate intrusion of one domain on the territory of another?

We’d say not exactly either. Unlike, for example, the black-power salutes at the 1968 Olympic Games, the sign was not a specific socio-political announcement; but it alluded to activities not specific to bridge. We interpret the message not as an aggressive political statement but as a defensive personal disclaimer, one aimed at deflecting any thoughts that the individuals involved might bear responsibility for actions that have made America a bête noire on the world stage.

However one classifies it, the Shanghai sign was a sad commentary on our inability to keep political matters out of other affairs, both organizational and personal. We’d prefer that even such mild external references did not appear unless they directly involve bridge. What we should be saying to politics is, “Stay in your own backyard!” That message can be sent more powerfully if we stay in ours. Do you remember when narrowminded governments precluded their representatives from meeting another country in a world championship, and those representatives at their peril played a symbolic, unofficial match against the shunned team? That kind of commentary on external interference and anouncement of personal inclination s welcome. When the context is general, we must trust that people of good will can distinguish between governments and constituents.

[hrothgar]

Thanks for posting this editorial

(I renewed my subscription simply to be able to watch the debate unfold in TBW)

[keylime]

I confess, the more I think about this topic, the more I am keen to reconsider strong sanction, not because of the action itself, but for the limitation of damage it would inflict on the game potentially.

It is no secret that I strongly disagreed with what occurred, but, I also feel need to take a step back from the emotions and at times, virulence, that has happened as a result.

What I feel is the majority view, that even under the best of auspices (which I privately doubt occurred here unless there was something said or acted while there), imposing one's belief structure and philosophical views is fundamentally wrong and disrespectful when a guest of another country

The core issue I have wrestled with, is that determining the degree of punishment, for lack of better words, has caused more consternation and passion, than the actual act itself. Does it benefit the game of bridge and its primary component, people, to "lay wood" to the team for a year's suspension from all bridge events, solely on the premise of what appears currently to be an indiscretion and exercising of poor judgment? Or, does it hurt the game by not by decisive action reaffirming the neutrality that is desired by the sponsoring organization? Will the choice rendered by the USBF cause a positive or negative effect at tournaments or other mediums?

I feel it is no longer the issue of right and wrong, but of the goal of mending and progression. It is the method of such which I am torn. I can only imagine what was discussed at the Baltimore and Richmond sectionals this weekend.

[mikeh]

keylime, on Nov 19 2007, 12:39 PM, said:

I confess, the more I think about this topic, the more I am keen to reconsider strong sanction, not because of the action itself, but for the limitation of damage it would inflict on the game potentially.

It is no secret that I strongly disagreed with what occurred, but, I also feel need to take a step back from the emotions and at times, virulence, that has happened as a result.

What I feel is the majority view, that even under the best of auspices (which I privately doubt occurred here unless there was something said or acted while there), imposing one's belief structure and philosophical views is fundamentally wrong and disrespectful when a guest of another country

The core issue I have wrestled with, is that determining the degree of punishment, for lack of better words, has caused more consternation and passion, than the actual act itself. Does it benefit the game of bridge and its primary component, people, to "lay wood" to the team for a year's suspension from all bridge events, solely on the premise of what appears currently to be an indiscretion and exercising of poor judgment? Or, does it hurt the game by not by decisive action reaffirming the neutrality that is desired by the sponsoring organization? Will the choice rendered by the USBF cause a positive or negative effect at tournaments or other mediums?

I feel it is no longer the issue of right and wrong, but of the goal of mending and progression. It is the method of such which I am torn. I can only imagine what was discussed at the Baltimore and Richmond sectionals this weekend.

I didn't think that the proffered plea bargain included being barred from all bridge events for any time whatsoever. I doubt that the USBF has that power, anyway, and I very much doubt that even the most rabid prosecutor (and I am NOT suggesting that Alan Falk is remotely in that category) would propose such a severe sanction.

But losing the right to participate in USBF events would be a valid sanction, as I understand the powers that the USBF has.

Whether it is appropriate is, of course, open to debate.

I have personally set out my thoughts, but I want to stress what I think should apply to all of us who have posted here, with our views on what should or should not be done. None of us has ALL the evidence. None of us have heard the full details.

I am not casting aspersions on Debbie Rosenberg (whose posts I have read with sympathy and interest) when I say this. Even granting that the viewpoint of any one participant is all-encompassing (which, as a trial lawyer, I do not accept is ever the case), it would be impossible for any one poster to provide all of the detail that a disciplinary board should require before determining culpability or, should culpability be found, the appropriate sanction.

I remain of the view that, based on what I have read, some sanction has to be imposed, else we end up with a system that essentially says: we only enforce rules against the unpopular. And that is no way to operate. Now, if my understanding is incomplete on some aspect critical to a finding of wrong-doing, I would be personally delighted if no sanction were imposed, because (while I am not an American and thus have perhaps no 'right' to an opinion) I empathize with the sign. But if what they did was wrong, and I think it likely was, then I cannot support a whitewash.

[bid_em_up]

mikeh, on Nov 19 2007, 01:13 PM, said:

I didn't think that the proffered plea bargain included being barred from all bridge events for any time whatsoever. I doubt that the USBF has that power, anyway, and I very much doubt that even the most rabid prosecutor (and I am NOT suggesting that Alan Falk is remotely in that category) would propose such a severe sanction.

But losing the right to participate in USBF events would be a valid sanction, as I understand the powers that the USBF has.

Mike,

I am reasonably certain that buried somewhere in the ACBL's Conditions of Eligibility (or charter, or "one of them umpteen documents"), you will find that one of the requirements of participation in such events is that you be a member in good standing in any other bridge affiliation/organization to which you may belong, in order to participate in their events. I found such wording a few days ago, but can't seem to relocate it again at the moment to quote it directly (but I will keep looking). I suspect (but could easily be mistaken) that most other NBO's would have wording of similar nature in their charters.

Given that the "proferred" plea bargain stated as its initial sanction, "one year suspension from the USBF", this, to me, means once you are suspended from the USBF, you are no longer a member in good standing of a bridge organization to which you belong, which makes you ineligible to participate in any bridge events (ACBL, USBF or other NBO's). Or, I suppose it is possible that you are still eligible to participate in such events but you are not entitled to receive any masterpoints, awards, etc. should you achieve any.

However, I am certain you are more versed in the law than I am, so I suppose it is also open to interpretation.

[1eyedjack]

I felt at the outset that the episode was a more than a little cringeworthy and expected it to constitute a breach of some regulation. Or at least, I had every confidence in the officials finding a regulation of which it was a breach, if they were minded to do so. There is after all a history of bridge officials "interpreting" rules to suit their personal preferences, although usually that is in relation to a technical argument with some relevance to the laws of the game.

That said, I thought that the proposed sanction was totally over the top, and that got me to thinking, why? So far, the objections that I have read have centred on the simple fact that such an extreme reaction fans the flames and becomes of more embarrassment than the original offence, which is true as far as it goes. But can it just have been poor judgement on the part of the BoD (on a par with the poor judgement of displaying the offending placard)?

Then I read an article that suggested that the requested sanction is at the instigation of one or two highly influential individuals within the organisation who just might be Bush supporters (names were named but shall not be repeated here), who were perhaps more incensed by the specifics of the message in the placard than the fact that a placard had been displayed. There is a lot of speculation in that, but I have to say that it has a ring of truth. It is easier by far to believe that the prosecuters have a political agenda of their own to pursue than that they can have been so incompetent as to trump up such an extreme sanction supposedly for the good of the game. Now I wonder whether the team would have incurred such wrath had the message been supportive of Bush, and I suspect not to the same degree.

If it can be established that the plaintiff is politically biased and motivated accordingly then I suspect that it drives a bit of a coach and horses through their case. Pots and black kettles spring to mind. And it could be an own goal (leaving aside the ramifications of the incident on the game as a whole), simply because in my experience if you get caught out overstating your case in the courts you end up losing the entire pot, or at least more than if you had made a sensible claim at the outset.

Anyway, I cannot see how any blame attaches to Alan Falk. He is just a lawyer representing his client's interests in accordance with his client's instructions, and I would expect no less than that he do so as "rabidly" as is within his capability.

I have now read Jeff Rubens' editorial a couple of times and still remain a little unsure where he stands. Everything he says sounds sensible, but in the final analysis all he seems to be saying is that it would have been better if the ladies had not displayed the sign. Well, give the man a cigar. If he thinks that the act was inappropriate then perhaps he also has in mind what would be an appropriate sanction. Bit of a shame he did not go so far as to suggest that.

[mikeh]

bid_em_up, on Nov 19 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

mikeh, on Nov 19 2007, 01:13 PM, said:

I didn't think that the proffered plea bargain included being barred from all bridge events for any time whatsoever. I doubt that the USBF has that power, anyway, and I very much doubt that even the most rabid prosecutor (and I am NOT suggesting that Alan Falk is remotely in that category) would propose such a severe sanction.

But losing the right to participate in USBF events would be a valid sanction, as I understand the powers that the USBF has.

Mike,

I am reasonably certain that buried somewhere in the ACBL's Conditions of Eligibility (or charter, or "one of them umpteen documents"), you will find that one of the requirements of participation in such events is that you be a member in good standing in any other bridge affiliation/organization to which you may belong, in order to participate in their events. I found such wording a few days ago, but can't seem to relocate it again at the moment to quote it directly (but I will keep looking). I suspect (but could easily be mistaken) that most other NBO's would have wording of similar nature in their charters.

Given that the "proferred" plea bargain stated as its initial sanction, "one year suspension from the USBF", this, to me, means once you are suspended from the USBF, you are no longer a member in good standing of a bridge organization to which you belong, which makes you ineligible to participate in any bridge events (ACBL, USBF or other NBO's). Or, I suppose it is possible that you are still eligible to participate in such events but you are not entitled to receive any masterpoints, awards, etc. should you achieve any.

However, I am certain you are more versed in the law than I am, so I suppose it is also open to interpretation.

I visited the ACBL website, but their bylaws make no reference to the rule you mentioned, nor does their Handbook, from what I gleaned. That doesn't mean the rule doesn't exist

If such a rule exists then I hope the USBF panel learns of it and takes it into account if they convict and sanction.

I don't think that this should be a problem. If the USBF wants to suspend the VCT, or any members of it, from the next WC, it can do so without significantly impacting other bridge activities. It could, for example, make the suspension coincide with the next team trials, plus (if it chose to) declare that some or all of the VCT would be ineligible to be added to any USBF-sponsored team as add-ons or sustitutes in 2008.

Please note that I am NOT expressing, here, any view as to what should be done, only addressing a valid issue that you raised.

[Al_U_Card]

Has anyone mentioned double-secret probation?

When a team wins a qualifier and it becomes the "best" representative, is anything other than performance at stake? What is the goal of the governing body? To have polite, clean, handsome players? Or to send the best bridge players?

A slap on the wrist for a piddling issue. Nuff said.

[bid_em_up]

mikeh, on Nov 19 2007, 03:52 PM, said:

Please note that I am NOT expressing, here, any view as to what should be done, only addressing a valid issue that you raised.

I did not think you were expressing a view on what should be done, nor am I. I am simply stating that I believe that suspension from the USBF could indeed impact the ladies ability to play in other non-USBF events.

For now, all I can find are the following:

http://web2.acbl.org/codification/CHAPTER%...Section%20k.pdf

(which should make Al_U_Card happy as well by insuring that we have clean, well-dressed players, see item 7 below)

Quote

Eligibility for WBF Championships (022-116) (023-90)

A. An ACBL NBO is encouraged to nominate a player for invitation to play in all WBF Championships only if he or she:

1. is a citizen or a resident of the United States according to ACBL Management criteria or a citizen or resident of Canada, or Mexico, as appropriate,
2. is a member of good standing of the USBF, CBF or Mexican Bridge Federation,
3. meets WBF criteria and/or conditions for nomination, ignoring participation in multinational events,
4. will not, at the time of the event, be under ACBL suspension,
5. will not, at the time of the event, be under ACBL probation where the period of such probation was more than 90 days,
6. has not been specifically excluded from playing in such an event by an appropriate disciplinary body under ACBL jurisdiction,
7. has not been refused nomination by the Board of Directors for reasons of personal hygiene, dress, deportment or ethics
8. has not played in events in more than one NBO, in which he or she was eligible for qualification to represent that NBO in the same WBF Championship (same event and year),
9. has submitted a signed and dated certification statement, provided by management of the applicable NBO concerning the use of illegal drugs and inappropriate behavior during the course of any event requiring nomination and approval by the applicable NBO credential committee.

Item 2 makes it clear that if you are not a member in good standing of the USBF, you probably will not be nominated by the ACBL BoD for participation in the World Championships.

Which I agree is not the same thing as prohibiting one from being able to participate in any bridge event. However, similar wording can be found in the CoC for most National events (that you must be a member in good standing to participate).

Life Master Pairs:

http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...her-NAP_CoC.pdf

Quote

5. Only ACBL members in good standing may participate. Ineligible pairs playing to fill out the movement will receive any session awards (no overall awards) won but may not qualify to the next stage of the event. If the ineligible pair includes one or two players with more masterpoints than permitted in the flight they are filling in, duplicate masterpoint awards will be issued by ACBL.

Additionally,

http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/Handb..._Chapter-01.pdf

Quote

SECTION ONE: MEMBERSHIP

I. ELIGIBILITY

Any person may apply for membership in ACBL. ACBL may grant such application unless there is cause to refer the application to the ACBL Board of Directors. Causes for referral include, but are not limited to, previous expulsion from ACBL or previous expulsion or suspension from another bridge organization.

I suspect that one can agree/infer that this says any person's membership in the ACBL can be referred to the ACBL BoD, who from what is currently being said, some members are already seeking blood and might certainly be apt to suspend said players from the ACBL, once they have been suspended from the USBF.

As always,

jmoo, which could be entirely mistaken with no basis in fact whatsoever.

[mikeh]

bid_em_up, on Nov 19 2007, 04:47 PM, said:

I am simply stating that I believe that suspension from the USBF could indeed impact the ladies ability to play in other non-USBF events.

For now, all I can find are the following:

http://web2.acbl.org/codification/CHAPTER%...Section%20k.pdf

(which should make Al_U_Card happy as well by insuring that we have clean, well-dressed players, see item 7 below)

Quote

Eligibility for WBF Championships (022-116) (023-90)

A. An ACBL NBO is encouraged to nominate a player for invitation to play in all WBF Championships only if he or she:

1. is a citizen or a resident of the United States according to ACBL Management criteria or a citizen or resident of Canada, or Mexico, as appropriate,
2. is a member of good standing of the USBF, CBF or Mexican Bridge Federation,
3. meets WBF criteria and/or conditions for nomination, ignoring participation in multinational events,
4. will not, at the time of the event, be under ACBL suspension,
5. will not, at the time of the event, be under ACBL probation where the period of such probation was more than 90 days,
6. has not been specifically excluded from playing in such an event by an appropriate disciplinary body under ACBL jurisdiction,
7. has not been refused nomination by the Board of Directors for reasons of personal hygiene, dress, deportment or ethics
8. has not played in events in more than one NBO, in which he or she was eligible for qualification to represent that NBO in the same WBF Championship (same event and year),
9. has submitted a signed and dated certification statement, provided by management of the applicable NBO concerning the use of illegal drugs and inappropriate behavior during the course of any event requiring nomination and approval by the applicable NBO credential committee.

Item 2 makes it clear that if you are not a member in good standing of the USBF, you probably will not be nominated by the ACBL BoD for participation in the World Championships.

Which I agree is not the same thing as prohibiting one from being able to participate in any bridge event. However, similar wording can be found in the CoC for most National events (that you must be a member in good standing to participate).

Life Master Pairs:

http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...her-NAP_CoC.pdf

Quote

5. Only ACBL members in good standing may participate. Ineligible pairs playing to fill out the movement will receive any session awards (no overall awards) won but may not qualify to the next stage of the event. If the ineligible pair includes one or two players with more masterpoints than permitted in the flight they are filling in, duplicate masterpoint awards will be issued by ACBL.

Additionally,

http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/Handb..._Chapter-01.pdf

Quote

SECTION ONE: MEMBERSHIP

I. ELIGIBILITY

Any person may apply for membership in ACBL. ACBL may grant such application unless there is cause to refer the application to the ACBL Board of Directors. Causes for referral include, but are not limited to, previous expulsion from ACBL or previous expulsion or suspension from another bridge organization.

I suspect that one can agree/infer that this says any person's membership in the ACBL can be referred to the ACBL BoD, who from what is currently being said, some members are already seeking blood and might certainly be apt to suspend said players from the ACBL, once they have been suspended from the USBF.

As always,

jmoo, which could be entirely mistaken with no basis in fact whatsoever.

I recognize your concern... which, if I am correct, is essentially that the ACBL might take it upon itself, perhaps initiated by some outraged dignitary, to inflict ACBL sanctions on the VCT if the USBF suspends the team or any member(s) thereof.

However, if that happens, it will be a separate ACBL matter. I don't see anything, in what you posted, that IN ANY WAY makes such an outcome mandatory.

If it is true that the current USBF action arises from the moral outrage of some diehard Bushites... for partisan political reasons rather than dispassionate reaction to foolish and (possibly) improper conduct, then that is regrettable, altho, since I suspect that some or all of the team members know the USBF far better than I do, it probably shouldn't have surprised them.

And if the ACBL appears to react in such a manner, then it is time for ACBL members to react. Until then, I don't think that there is ANY basis for the ACBL to get involved. The team was a USBF team, and the ACBL should abide by whatever sanction that organization metes out.

[han]

Mike, it is my impression that you continue to look at the whole situation only from your perspective as a trial lawyer. I think that is too bad.

[mikeh]

Hannie, on Nov 19 2007, 05:19 PM, said:

Mike, it is my impression that you continue to look at the whole situation only from your perspective as a trial lawyer. I think that is too bad.

In what way?

I can't pretend that my life experiences, which include 30+ years as a litigator, have not influenced my perspective. I would not beleive anyone who suggested that their experiences don't influence their perspective.

But my view of the VCT is not (I think) a purely legalistic one. Were it so, I would be saying that they are innocent until proven guilty and I might well be advocating that they take a narrow approach to whether they did anything wrong.

Instead, my position is that, based on the limited info I have, it appears that they broke the rules. My personal view, as opposed to the advice I might give a client, is that when I am caught, having broken a rule, I acknowledge it and I pay the consequences without protest. Of course, the worst I have been caught at is speeding! I am morally certain that I could have beaten a few of the tickets I got in my youth (when I drove a purple Porsche 911 at speeds that scare me looking back), if only because sometimes the police officer can't make it for the trial date. And it wouldn't have cost me a dime to act for myself. But I did the crime, and it goes against my personal belief system to fight those things. That would never influence the advice I give clients. So in that sense, I take entirely different views of things, depending on whether I am acting as a lawyer or as me.

And it doesn't mean that I wouldn't, were I a member of the VCT (say, the NPC), want to argue the extent of the punishment. Further, it might well be that, were I a member of the VCT, I'd know of some facts or circumstances that would suggest I didn't break a rule and so shouldn't be punished.

But these are personal views, not trial lawyer views. As a trial lawyer, I'd be far more inclined to want to know all of the relevant facts, research the rules, and try to craft an argument that, while acknowledging the clearly proven facts and circumstances, still left open the possiblity of acquittal and, if nothing else, minimal sanction.

In short, I have tried to express my personal take, while pointing out that, based, yes, on my experience as a trial lawyer, it is highly unlikely that anyone posting here actually knows all there is to know about the situation. Thus our opinions are perhaps limited by that reality.

[debrose]

mikeh, on Nov 19 2007, 01:13 PM, said:

[
I have personally set out my thoughts, but I want to stress what I think should apply to all of us who have posted here, with our views on what should or should not be done. None of us has ALL the evidence. None of us have heard the full details.

I am not casting aspersions on Debbie Rosenberg (whose posts I have read with sympathy and interest) when I say this. Even granting that the viewpoint of any one participant is all-encompassing (which, as a trial lawyer, I do not accept is ever the case), it would be impossible for any one poster to provide all of the detail that a disciplinary board should require before determining culpability or, should culpability be found, the appropriate sanction.

I'd just like to clarify that my posts were in no way an attempt to provide an all-encompassing viewpoint, or even particularly a viewpoint at all. I was not attempting to present a version of "the story", with or without detail, or to answer all the questions I thought people might have.
What I was doing was responding to certain errors and speculations that I found myself reading over and over, which I believed I could shed some light on, so chose to do so.

[barmar]

bid_em_up, on Nov 19 2007, 05:47 PM, said:

Which I agree is not the same thing as prohibiting one from being able to participate in any bridge event. However, similar wording can be found in the CoC for most National events (that you must be a member in good standing to participate).

Life Master Pairs:

http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...her-NAP_CoC.pdf

Quote

5. Only ACBL members in good standing may participate. Ineligible pairs playing to fill out the movement will receive any session awards (no overall awards) won but may not qualify to the next stage of the event. If the ineligible pair includes one or two players with more masterpoints than permitted in the flight they are filling in, duplicate masterpoint awards will be issued by ACBL.

Additionally,

http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/Handb..._Chapter-01.pdf

Quote

SECTION ONE: MEMBERSHIP

I. ELIGIBILITY

Any person may apply for membership in ACBL. ACBL may grant such application unless there is cause to refer the application to the ACBL Board of Directors. Causes for referral include, but are not limited to, previous expulsion from ACBL or previous expulsion or suspension from another bridge organization.

That says that suspension from another bridge organization may impact your ability to JOIN the ACBL. But once you're a member, you stay a member as long as you pay your fees and ACBL does not explicitly revoke your membership. And you're a "member in good standing" as long as you pay your fees and have not been suspended by the Conduct and Ethics Committee.

While it's possible that they might do that in response to disciplinary action by another bridge organization, it's not mandatory, and I don't think it's even automatic that they'd consider it.

[mikeh]

debrose, on Nov 19 2007, 10:22 PM, said:

mikeh, on Nov 19 2007, 01:13 PM, said:

[
I have personally set out my thoughts, but I want to stress what I think should apply to all of us who have posted here, with our views on what should or should not be done. None of us has ALL the evidence. None of us have heard the full details.

I am not casting aspersions on Debbie Rosenberg (whose posts I have read with sympathy and interest) when I say this. Even granting that the viewpoint of any one participant is all-encompassing (which, as a trial lawyer, I do not accept is ever the case), it would be impossible for any one poster to provide all of the detail that a disciplinary board should require before determining culpability or, should culpability be found, the appropriate sanction.

I'd just like to clarify that my posts were in no way an attempt to provide an all-encompassing viewpoint, or even particularly a viewpoint at all. I was not attempting to present a version of "the story", with or without detail, or to answer all the questions I thought people might have.
What I was doing was responding to certain errors and speculations that I found myself reading over and over, which I believed I could shed some light on, so chose to do so.

I want to stress that I did not take Debbie's posts as an effort to present 'all the facts'... I took them exactly as she says that she intended them to be.

And I repeat that I read her posts with sympathy... altho I remain of the view that if the conduct in question is found to be a violation of relevant rules or codes of conduct, some sanction is in order. The fact that I and the majority of posters here (and, apparently, the majority of Americans) share the sentiments reflected by the sign should not be a factor in the determination of guilt or innocence.

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Nov 20 2007, 12:05 PM, said:

The fact that I and the majority of posters here (and, apparently, the majority of Americans) share the sentiments reflected by the sign should not be a factor in the determination of guilt or innocence.

Likewise, the fact that one or a small number of people in power in the ACBL strongly disagree with the sentiments on the sign shouldn't be a factor either. And yet...