Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Kamil
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ha - and I brought it up as a joke!
Sept. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You know, they used to discuss whether America should be allowed to send two teams. Apparently Europe needs twenty.
Sept. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not a fan of the flagging system (of course this is “off-topic” so you might flag it)
Sept. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ha - Mother Teresa…make that 2 words! Only problem is that Eugene likely isn't awake yet. :)
Sept. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Remember the show Name That Tune ? I bet from my household we could say something and get tossed…… in 5 words!
Sept. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh come on fellows - let's get those flags out…nothing's been censored here in over a day!
Sept. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yup Matthew, Beaver's mom :)
Sept. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alan, This part I don't understand. They created a rule which discussed moving up and vacated titles specifically. What has occurred to cause that to be changed retroactively?
Sept. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eric, Of course nothing here will be the worst thing I ever heard. I sure hope not anyway! :)

It's not because I agree or disagree with your ideas about moving up. I understand various reasons for wanting a “fix” in these special circumstances.

The reason I'm so staunch in my stance is this:

The league has rules. If something occurs and then the league does not use the applicable rule it means that no rule carries any weight.

I can't get past the fact that the league (nor any league) must not be allowed to pick and choose which existing rules it will follow.
Sept. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Randy, that's a good one…Gabby showed me this quite a while back which I really liked.

(she's great with music)

:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5axlwCBXC8

Sept. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think I'll leave the discussion here, since no one has explained to me how we simply disregard SPECIFIC rules on the books the second they occur…I sure hope they retroactively change the National Swiss I just played in to BAM…Pretty sure my team had a better score that way.
Sept. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm not saying they don't change old rules. That's perfectly fine - that's the right of any league. What I'm saying is that it's crazy to have a rule, have an occurrence which is directly correlated to that rule and simply disregard it. As for how the rules were created, that's irrelevant. It might be relevant to throw out those who made them, but as long as the rules are on the books, those are the rules we play by.
Sept. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg - I can't understand “weighing” anything.

1 - Our organization makes rules.

2 - We implicitly agree to play by those rules and also implicitly agree to accept what those rules state regarding punishments, changes in masterpoints, placing, etc.

3 - Something occurred NOW which is SPECIFICALLY addressed in the rule book.

4 - There is now a wish to DISREGARD this rule.

I would suggest that if one can disregard A rule, one can disregard ANY rule. What follows from that is some mess.

We simply cannot make decisions on what some members NOW want. No organization can do that - it IS like throwing the rule book away.

(sorry for all the caps…I can't figure out how to italicize)
Sept. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Right JoAnna - I see no change prior to the finding of cheating which just occurred (unless I missed it). Once again, how in the world can you change it RETROACTIVELY? This would make every single rule useless and I ask again…why is this rule on the books if the second the specific incident actually occurs, we simply disregard it? Makes zero sense to me.
Sept. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By the way,…doesn't seem like a “crisis” not to have a winner in each event. One might deem it unjust, thus the organization might want to consider changing the rules for next time.
Sept. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Marty - I commented there
Sept. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have still not heard a cogent argument for throwing the rule book away.

Can anyone explain why the ACBL has a rule on the books that should be discarded retroactively? Isn't this what this specific rule was for? While you're doing this, please tell me just which rules can be disregarded and which actually count.


I'm sorry but I think this is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

The only SENSIBLE thing to do is follow the rules as they are. Go ahead and fix them for the next time.



Sept. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eric, This is not about “fairness”, it's about the ACBL laws. I know this is getting old now (I've stated it elsewhere), but how can anyone argue that it's OK to change the law retroactively?

This case is specifically cited in the CDR (after the “E” disciplinary section)

“If a committee imposes a suspension, then it should also disqualify the pair or team from the event. This will mean the pair or team will lose its place in the event, any masterpoints earned in the event and any other benefits it may have earned from playing in the event. Should this disqualification take place after the correction period for the event has expired, other pairs and teams do not move up - the place formerly held by the disqualified contestant (pair or team) remains vacant.”

Retroactive change? We might as well discard the rule book. It would be “making up the rules as we go along”.
Sept. 21, 2015
Michael Kamil edited this comment Sept. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, the CDR states the following (after all of the disciplinary measures - the “E” section):

“If a committee imposes a suspension, then it should also disqualify the pair or
team from the event. This will mean the pair or team will lose its place in the event, any
masterpoints earned in the event and any other benefits it may have earned from playing
in the event. Should this disqualification take place after the correction period for the
event has expired, other pairs and teams do not move up - the place formerly held by the
disqualified contestant (pair or team) remains vacant.”

Unless I'm missing something, and I wouldn't be shocked by that, this seems pretty clear.
Sept. 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Edit add: Incidentally I believe Ellis also pointed out that the Lynch team was able to move up because the cheating was found (might not be the right word) prior to the correction period.
Sept. 21, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top