Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Melanie Manfield
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 73 74 75 76
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't it veering off into another category of unacceptable behavior when physical assault and destruction of property are mentioned?

Lance Armstrong was not an honorable competitor in bicycle racing. That doesn't mean that he stuck bamboo sticks in the spokes of the wheels of his competitors' bikes or destroyed their equipment (that I know of).

Time to actually go and play bridge . . . .
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The whole question of the responsibilities of team captains and sponsors (who may or may not be the same people), as well as other teammates, probably warrants a separate thread.

It is somewhat different than running a business. Here is an (imperfect) example. Not long ago, there was a tragic incident where an (American) football player at the University of Maryland died subsequent to having suffered heat stroke (I do not know all of the details). Eventually, there was a question as to whether the head coach was going to be fired as well as the assistant coach who was actually present that day.

Presumably, the head coach supervised the assistant coach. The head coach should have created an environment such that protocols were followed the moment the serious heat reaction occurred, and if they had been followed immediately, all of the medical experts agreed that this player would have survived.

After a political decision by a board earlier this fall not to fire the head coach, an outcry from citizens led to that coach being let go.

Tournament bridge is not exactly the same. A playing sponsor (full disclosure: I have been one) does not necessarily have the senior role in terms of bridge experience. I am not, of course, trying to say that a team captain or playing sponsor should not do everything in his or her power to have ethical teammates. A team captain or sponsor should make it clear that ethics is more important than anything else.

And, I'm not saying that there should not be further consequences for a team captain or sponsor if teammates are found to have engaged in unethical behavior (it goes without saying that any titles or placements should be renounced). I'm just pointing out that it's not exactly the same as in a business such as Max described or other types of employment, where the senior person is presumed to have the greater expertise.

Now, if knowledgeable persons have approached a team captain, sponsor, and/or other teammates with their concerns, and they are ignored, that would be another matter.
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
P.S. Are back-benchers allowed to call for a vote of “no-confidence”??
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed. Especially because young players new to the game may have played other card games (or other types of games) where behavior that is wrong in bridge is considered acceptable.
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Scarlet letters?
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps as a beginning to creating an environment where players don't even think about cheating, a person in charge of a major international bridge federation would have to choose between a friendship with a person found to have been a collusive cheater, and remaining head of that organization.
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael is using an analogy. Whether or not people agree with him about the appropriate (bridge) penalty for collusive cheaters, can people not see that he is using an analogy?

He is not saying that the crime of collusive cheating at bridge is morally equivalent to what happened at the consulate in Istanbul. He is not saying that collusive cheaters should go to prison.
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whether amateur or professional, or pro/student, it should be the case that a pair caught cheating collusively should never be able to play as a pair again. I think that most of us agree on that.
Dec. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is the same person who is in charge of the Appeals and Charges Committee also a representative to the WBF?
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the idea of disgorgement is thought to be impractical, what about the idea that Karen Walker suggested that the returning player pledge to never again play bridge professionally or be allowed to win prize money?

I understand the point that such a person may not voluntarily keep a pledge. But, the community is not that large. We learned on BW that Fantoni (if memory serves me correctly) went to Barcelona earlier this year, played in a tournament there, and won prize money. If he subsequently turned up playing with anyone who has ever been a playing sponsor, for example, then it should be relatively easy to figure that out.

Even if someone like, say, Massimo Lanzarotti made money playing with a student at a club, at least there would be assurances that he could not be hired for a tournament. That should not be allowed.
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really like the idea of requiring that a collusive cheater, if given a second chance, would have to pledge to never again profit financially, through being hired professionally or winning prize money.

There would be (and already are) opportunities to teach, coach privately, write – that seems more than fair.

If a “prize money” event were entered, there would have to be a prior agreement to donate the money to charity, and that would be handled by the bridge organization.

Of course, being caught again would mean permanent expulsion.
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Margaret,

I was referring to individual posts here on BW from members of the BoG that I, personally, have found informative. Steve Moese and Stuart Goodgold are two of the persons I am referring to.
Dec. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We're getting a lot of good information from members of the Board of Governors, and it costs the membership practically nothing. So, why abolish it?

If some changes are made as part of a comprehensive reform of the whole ACBL administrative structure – at some point – that would be different.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you very much for sharing your views. I agree with all of them!
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We know that Boye Brogeland was threatened after he led the (herculean) effort to clean up the high-level game.

We know from general knowledge that the Court of Arbitration for Sport is thought to be corrupt (from the attorney of the Russian athletes' whistleblower doctor, who has in-depth knowledge).

And, we know that one of the most egregious bridge offenders played in Barcelona earlier this year, and that it seems that at least one world-class Spanish expert was effectively told to shut up (not sure by whom) when he protested.

And now, we have the President of the WBF – whom “we” elected – smiling with one of the chief offenders???

Well – I would certainly understand if non-bridge players aren't thinking too highly of how high a priority ethics is in the international bridge community right about now.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We really have to think about what it means that the President of the WBF is pictured smiling with someone who cheated players at the highest levels of the game, over a period of many years, and then sued his way back in at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

How disheartening for all of the players who worked so hard to expose Fantoni and Nunes. How discouraging for all of the players who were cheated by them over a period of many years.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I intended to say that I could understand the French (in this brief exchange)!
Despite the fact that je ne parle qu'un petit peu de français.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While I am not familiar enough with the details of the “racecars” case to have an informed opinion about whether or not they should have been expelled for good from the ACBL (not that not having enough information ever stopped anyone before from voicing an opinion on BW), I am troubled by the way this readmittance is happening.

There really needs to be transparency about this. This is an extremely serious matter. This should not be something that can quietly be decided behind closed doors for unknown reasons.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would appear (although it's hard to say from the way the information is presented) that the appellants argued in the contents of their appeal that the comment was irrelevant. Then, that was taken at face value, no analysis of the validity of that statement occurred, and another poll was conducted omitting mention of the comment.

Not sure.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Je pouvais comprendre (???)
Dec. 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 73 74 75 76
.

Bottom Home Top