[jonottawa]

I'm starting to see the light. If we don't come down hard on the Venice Cup team, the next thing you know this sort of behavior will happen and we'll devolve into a state of anarchy:

Girls Punished for Hugging

[blackshoe]

Robert Heinlein, back about the middle of the last century, labelled the second half of that century "The Crazy Years". Seems he was right - except that they aren't over yet.

[hrothgar]

Henk Uijterwaal posted the following on rec.games.bridge. I make no claims regarding the veracity of the Volkskrant's account. (I'd go so far as to say that I don't believe it)

I think that it would be a mistake for the USBF to link itself to the ACBL by banning participation in ACBL events. It behoves the management of the USBF to maintain the "Chinese Wall" between the two organizations.

Moreover, the punishment seems way out of proportion to the supposed offense. As I noted before, if I were a pro and anyone tried to impose these types of sanctions on me, I'd sue them...

Quote

The Volkskrant (one of the Dutch newspapers with a well informed
author for their bridge news) has an item on it:

http://www.volkskran.../bericht/165269.  For those who don't
read Dutch, it says that the ACBL Grievance Panel (without a hearing of
the involved players) offered the following sentence to the 6 players and
NPC for their conduct during the closing ceremony:

  1. Suspension from any ACBL game for 1 year.  Suspension for the 2008
     Olympiad in Beijing.
  2. Probation for another year after 1, during which the players can
     enter ACBL events again.
  3. 200 hours of community service for all players, half of which must
     have been carried out before the probation period.
  4. The team has to write a letter of apology.  The ACBL will decide to
     publish the letter or not.
  5. The team has to write a document specifying all details of the incident.
     (Who had the idea, who made the sign, ...).  This document can be
     used as evidence in a court of law.


This is apparently a compromise, if the players don't accept it, more
severe punishment will follow.


Henk


--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---
Henk Uijterwaal       

[Echognome]

hrothgar, on Nov 13 2007, 11:20 AM, said:

Henk Uijterwaal posted the following on rec.games.bridge. I make no claims regarding the veracity of the Volkskrant's account. (I'd go so far as to say that I don't believe it)

I don't believe it either. You start banning them from ACBL events and you will start having a whole lot of lawsuits on your hands. Bridge is the livelihood of many (if not all) of these women and once you start denying them employment, you are going to have some serious litigation.

To me, it all sounds like speculative poppycock. In fact, if this person published this on his website *and* it is untrue, I would say it borders on libel.

[helene_t]

Kees Tammens is generally a reliable source, but this is hard to believe. I find this story very strange.

Some mistakes in Henk's translation:
- "court of law" is not to be found in the Dutch version. The letter they are supposed to write is intended for use in further USBF procedures.
- "before the probation period" must be "before the US team trials".
- ACBL greviance panel is not mentioned. Presumably the punishment was decided by the usbf greviance panel but that is not mentioned in Kees Tammens' text.
- The organisation that can select to publish the letter of apology is refered to as the American Bridge Federation". It's unclear to me if that means ABF or USBF, but probably not ACBL (my speculation).

[jonottawa]

Assuming this is true ...

That's why I was so disheartened to see people like Fred going over to the 'dark side.' I figured that would give the wingnuts political cover to make a reprehensible decision like this. This will not stand.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Nov 13 2007, 02:53 PM, said:

- The organisation that can select to publish the letter of apology is refered to as the American Bridge Federation". It's unclear to me if that means ABF or USBF, but probably not ACBL (my speculation).

To the best of my knowledge, there is no "American Bridge Federation". The United States Bridge Federation is, technically, the NBO for the United States. The American Contract Bridge League is, technically, the Zonal Authority for North America. There is also in the US the American Bridge Association. And that's it, at the national level.

Interesting. A Google search for "american bridge federation" brings up the ACBL, the WBF, the Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation (CACBF), the ABA, and a link to a UK site which refers to a review of Ron Klinger's The Power of Shape in "the American Bridge Federation Newsletter".

Jon: "Assuming this is true ..." would seem to be rash, at this point.

[fred]

Presumably at some point there was a conversation between the USBF's Punishment Committee and the Team or its representatives. Here is how I think the conversation should have gone:

USBF: We are very proud that you won the Gold Medal, but many of our members strongly disagreed with your actions at the closing ceremonies. They want us to make sure this does not happen again. Is that going to be a problem for you?

Team: No.

USBF: Good. We would like you to write letters of apology to the USBF, the WBF, the CCBA, etc. Is that going to be a problem for you?

Team: No.

USBF: Thanks.

Team: Thanks.

*** End of conversation ***

If the USBF Punishment Committee had already made up their minds that a harsh penalty was in order regardless of the remorse shown by the Team, then perhaps the temporary collective insanity that the Team experienced in Shanghai is contagious.

If the Team failed to show remorse, then it is hard for me to feel too sorry for them. I can understand why the USBF Punishment Committee would feel they had to take whatever steps were necessary to ensure that this never happens again.

That being said, it is hard for me to imagine that the actual punishment (if indeed the report is accurate) is a good way to accomplish this goal. IMO it would have been much better for the Punishment Committee to say nothing more than:

USBF: You cannot represent the USBF until you promise it won't happen again.

It sounds to me that the punishment reported is outrageous regardless of how the conversation actually went and regardless of what confusion may exist with respect to ACBL/USBF, but I don't know anywhere close to all the facts.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jonottawa]

blackshoe, on Nov 13 2007, 08:37 PM, said:

Jon: "Assuming this is true ..." would seem to be rash, at this point.

We'll see ... It seems more likely to me that someone merely mistranslated the name of the USBF than that someone is sitting around inventing rulings that never happened. I defer to Helene on the reliability of the source. If it is true, hopefully we can find a few prominent and respected members of the US bridge community with enough class, common sense and cajones to start a petition against the ruling. Where do I sign?

Does this mean that the Women's teams in Beijing next year will be USA II and USA III ?

And what's up with China being the host every year, anyway? (Ya, I know, some mind sports olympics thing, but what's the advantage of lumping bridge in with that?)

[hrothgar]

Here's a second positng on the same topic which claims to be a quote from the USBF's lawyer to the Team members. This contains some significant differences from the Dutch article. (Note the distinction between ACBL and USBF events)

Quote

It should therefore come as no surprise that the USBF Board of
Directors unanimously agrees that a significant disciplinary sanction
is appropriate. The Board was adamant that nothing short of a
suspension, which would preclude you from playing internationally for
at least one full year, would suffice as a mark of the seriousness of
the situation-provided it were agreed upon, and then duly approved by
the Hearing Panel of the Grievance and Appeals Committee (which has
sole authority to determine the appropriate discipline), without the
necessity of a hearing. I am instructed to press for a greater
sanction against anyone who rejects this compromise offer.
You therefore have an opportunity to accept the following discipline,
subject to approval of the Hearing Panel:
1. A one year suspension, during which you will be ineligible to
participate in USBF-sponsored events in any capacity, specifically
including the World Bridge Olympiad in Beijing, PRC;
2. One year of probation, to begin after the conclusion of the one
year suspension, during which you will be fully eligible to
participate in USBF-sponsored events subject to condition #3;
3. Two hundred (200) hours of "community service", to be performed
during the probationary period, of which 100 hours must be completed
before the USWBC in 2009 in order for you to be eligible to compete;
4. A signed, written apology in a form drafted by myself, which the
USBF may publish or disseminate as it chooses;
5. A detailed written statement truthfully reporting the facts of the
incident (who broached the idea of displaying the sign, when the idea
was adopted, etc.), subject to my approval as to form and content,
which may be used in evidence at any hearing of this matter involving
other respondents, and, if required by me, your participation as
witnesses at the GAC hearings currently scheduled to be held in San
Francisco, or at such other place and time for which the hearings may
be adjourned or continued.

[david_c]

I totally agree with what Fred wrote. An apology was needed, but the punishment reported here (the second version seems more believable) is disproportionate.

[JanM]

If I attempted to respond to every incorrect rumor about this matter that is flying around, I would have even less time than I do at the moment for anything else. However, I do think it is important to correct the false impression that any sanction (or punishment if you prefer that word) has been imposed in this matter.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Hearing Panel of the USBF Grievance & Appeals Committee has scheduled a hearing in this matter to start at 9:00 am on Thursday, Nov. 29th in San Francisco. Unless some settlement is reached between the USBF Board, as Charging Party, and one or more of the members of the USA1 Venice Cup team between now and then, and that settlement is approved by the Hearing Panel, no resolution will be reached until after the conclusion of that hearing. Any settlement discussions that do not result in an agreed-upon settlement will not be considered by the Hearing Panel.

Jan Martel
President, USBF

(once again, please disregard my normal signature, which is usually applicable to posts on these forums)

[david_c]

Hmm ... I don't like it ... even if all the rumours were false, everything we've heard from official sources suggests they are taking it far more seriously than I think is appropriate.

[hrothgar]

JanM, on Nov 14 2007, 12:53 AM, said:

If I attempted to respond to every incorrect rumor about this matter that is flying around, I would have even less time than I do at the moment for anything else. However, I do think it is important to correct the false impression that any sanction (or punishment if you prefer that word) has been imposed in this matter.

Hi Jan

Nothing that I've read suggests that the USBF has imposed any sanctions. (The Dutch newpaper article could be interpreted this way, but I assume that this is a function of translating from English to Dutch and then from Dutch back into the English)

With this said and done, there are a number of write ups that claim to represent the USBF's "opening salvo" during the negotiations.

"Here is what we are willing to offer" +
"Its only going to get worse if you reject this gracious compromise offer"

I believe that most of the comments aren't directed at a hypothetical final settlement, but rather, what has been represented as being the USBF's initial offer.

For what its worth, I'm sorry to have added to the workload.

[bid_em_up]

hrothgar, on Nov 13 2007, 02:20 PM, said:

Henk Uijterwaal posted the following on rec.games.bridge.  I make no claims regarding the veracity of the Volkskrant's account.  (I'd go so far as to say that I don't believe it)

I think that it would be a mistake for the USBF to link itself to the ACBL by banning participation in ACBL events.  It behoves the management of the USBF to maintain the "Chinese Wall" between the two organizations.

Moreover, the punishment seems way out of proportion to the supposed offense.  As I noted before, if I were a pro and anyone tried to impose these types of sanctions on me, I'd sue them... 

Quote

The Volkskrant (one of the Dutch newspapers with a well informed
author for their bridge news) has an item on it:

http://www.volkskran.../bericht/165269.  For those who don't read Dutch, it says that the ACBL Grievance Panel (without a hearing of the involved players) offered the following sentence to the 6 players and NPC for their conduct during the closing ceremony:

  1. Suspension from any ACBL game for 1 year.  Suspension for the 2008 Olympiad in Beijing.
  2. Probation for another year after 1, during which the players can enter ACBL events again.
  3. 200 hours of community service for all players, half of which must have been carried out before the probation period.
  4. The team has to write a letter of apology.  The ACBL will decide to publish the letter or not.
  5. The team has to write a document specifying all details of the incident.   (Who had the idea, who made the sign, ...).  This document  can be used as evidence in a court of law.

This is apparently a compromise, if the players don't accept it, more severe punishment will follow.

Henk

--------------------------------------------------------------------­---
Henk Uijterwaal       

To the best of my knowledge, the USBF has no authority regarding the ACBL. So the majority of this letter is in error (assuming it actually meant the ACBL and not the USBF, and was not simply an error in translation).

The players could be warned, suspended, barred or whatever else from playing in USBF events.

Now....if the ACBL has something within its by-laws about you must be a member in good standing of any other organization which you are affiliated with, thats a different story.

Furthermore, as Jan points out, the USBF discplinary committee has not met yet, and this isn't a "court" procedure. Again, to the best of my knowledge, offering a "plea bargain" is not part of the USBF procedures. The committee meets, the players will be given an opportunity to present their case, the committee then decides, what actions (if any) are warranted.

Anybody posting information such as this is simply blowing smoke out their ass, imo.

EDIT: I stand corrected. Someone who would know for certain has since emailed me and informed me that "Hrothgar's 4:15 post on page 30 (of BBO forums) contains an accurate excerpt from a letter sent to some members of the Venice Cup team, signed by Allan Falk who is representing the USBF in this matter. Thank you for doing so.

[bid_em_up]

Jan,

I stated this before, and I will do so again.

If I read the procedures for the disciplinary committee correctly, the committee can consist of up to 15 members of the USBF.

As of now, I think the listed committee stands at 6 members, three of which serve on the BoD of the USBF. Is that correct? Given that the BoD's chose to proceed with the disciplinary hearing by a unanimous vote, it is hard for me to see how these ladies can get a fair and impartial hearing.

It is my belief that regarding an issue of this nature, it would be in the USBF's best interest to have a full 15 member panel so that it will be clear that any action taken by the committee is not the "opinion" or "decision" of a select few who disagreed with the actions of the Venice Cup team and chose to punish them. And if the full 15 member panel chose to impose no punishment, then so be it.

I also think that you, as president of the USBF, probably have the authority to mandate this as well (or at least some number greater than 5 or 6, I can't seem to determine if Ms. Meltzer is on the committee or not), although I could be mistaken or you may not wish to do so. I hate to add more to your plate, so to speak, but given that any action taken by the disciplinary committee appears to be final, its seems to me that it would be the right thing to do.

jmoo.

P.S. (I can't tell if the players have the right to appeal or not. In one place in the USBF bylaws, it says any decision is final, and in another place, it says an action by a Tournament Conducts and Ethics committeee is appealable?)

[kenrexford]

http://www.iht.com/a...erica/cards.php

http://nytimes.com/2...4brid.html?8dpc

It is starting to heat up, and outside of the bridge world.

[kenrexford]

A few nuggets from the USBF site:

"After the Oct. 25 meeting, the USBF Board retained attorney Allan Falk to represent it before the Hearing Panel. Subsequently, the USBF Board has conferred at length with Mr. Falk, by conference calls and e-mail exchanges. Mr. Falk has moved rapidly to amass evidentiary materials and recruit witnesses, to research, analyze and resolve various potential defenses to the disciplinary charge, to formulate opening and closing statements, to outline the USBF’s position as to sanctions, and otherwise to prepare for the hearings and any contingencies that may arise. In his preparation, Mr. Falk reviewed the USBF and WBF Conditions of Contest and the Olympic Charter, which the WBF Conditions of Contest require participants in WBF events to abide by. The Olympic Charter provides “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues, or other areas.”

This looks like it covers the sign.

"The Hearing Panel has scheduled hearings to start on Thursday, Nov. 29th at the Marriott Hotel in San Francisco, and to continue each of the next two mornings as necessary."

I have had very few jury trials in felony cases that lasted that long.

"Meanwhile, the USBF Board, through Mr. Falk, offered three of the respondents—those who had submitted a prompt written apology before disciplinary proceedings were commenced—an opportunity to accept discipline and resolve the charge short of a hearing, subject to the approval of the Hearing Panel as to the sanction proposed. The Board later offered the remaining four respondents an opportunity to accept discipline and resolve this matter. No respondent has accepted the settlement offers."

More vague than the growing number of newspaper articles.

J.H.C. == just go there and read it. There's a book over on the USBF site now.

[jonottawa]

I'll just quote Zia:

"The bridge world is full of interesting guys. A lot of them are idiots, a lot of them are, you know, autistic — deformed mentally. They’re complete nuts. They wouldn’t even fit into the trailer of a movie of life."

Now the USBF is determined that the Venice Cup team be judged by a group of these guys. Apparently the nuttier the better.

Didn't we just lose a giant of the game? Shouldn't that have been a wake-up call for everyone that life is too short for this *****?

The USBF 'offer' is a disgrace. Whoever drafted it should be sent to his room where he can go back to tearing wings off flies and smelling his own armpits.

I'd sooner see the ACBL and USBF bankrupted than see these courageous women be victimized by this kangaroo court.

[JanM]

bid_em_up, on Nov 13 2007, 09:59 PM, said:

As of now, I think the listed committee stands at 6 members, three of which serve on the BoD of the USBF.  Is that correct?  Given that the BoD's chose to proceed with the disciplinary hearing by a unanimous vote, it is hard for me to see how these ladies can get a fair and impartial hearing. 

The USBF Grievance and Appeals Committee, from which Hearing Committees are selected to hear individual matters can have (and does) 15 members. Hearing Panels usually have 3 or 5 members, because a larger panel is unwieldy. In this case, the Hearing Panel has 5 members, none of whom is a member of the USBF Board.