[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-September-28, 19:49, said:

Are you sure they didn't? He said he didn't know he had to turn them in. That could mean they didn't document them properly, or it could just as easily mean he didn't read the appropriate documents.

I've been going to NABCs for 20 years. I think I've occasionally glanced at the CoC's for some national events, but I certainly don't read them thoroughly every time I go.

Of course. If I were betting, I'd bet on both: they didn't document the requirements properly, and he didn't read the documents.

[Lovera]

barmar, on 2014-September-29, 09:43, said:

They decided that the Olympics were only for athletic sports, not mind sports.

Infact (how i' ve thinked) and this consideration (by IOC) may be better than expression of a tribunal, thanks.

[cherdano]

Trinidad, on 2014-September-28, 07:41, said:

Bridge is recognized by the IOC and played by its rules... That makes it a sport in my book.

I think it's enough for a major corrupt organization to decide the location of the Olympiad. We don't need to let them define the English language as well.

[rhm]

Why all the fuss?
The point is not whether Bridge is a sport, it is all about money.
Bridge as a rule is generally not played by the poor underclass
We need to pay taxes to support our societies and our institutions.
When I earn something I pay taxes and when I buy or consume something I pay taxes.
Why Bridge should be exempt escapes me as much as why sport events should be exempt.
Instead of lobbying for more loopholes reduce all these loopholes and you can lower the tax rates.
It is the rich not the poor, who profit from these loopholes.

Rainer Herrmann

[dicklont]

rhm, on 2014-September-30, 01:52, said:

Why all the fuss?
The point is not whether Bridge is a sport, it is all about money.
Bridge as a rule is generally not played by the poor underclass
We need to pay taxes to support our societies and our institutions.
When I earn something I pay taxes and when I buy or consume something I pay taxes.
Why Bridge should be exempt escapes me as much as why sport events should be exempt.
Instead of lobbying for more loopholes reduce all these loopholes and you can lower the tax rates.
It is the rich not the poor, who profit from these loopholes.

Rainer Herrmann

We have a high VAT rate for luxury goods and low rate for basic needs.
Sports are considered basic needs and don't we all agree about that?
This is not a loophole, but an attempt to make the basic needs accesible for all.
I agree with your thought on taxes. You should be happy to pay a lot of taxes because then you know you are wealthy and paying taxes contributes to a better society.

[rhm]

dicklont, on 2014-September-30, 02:07, said:

We have a high VAT rate for luxury goods and low rate for basic needs.
Sports are considered basic needs and don't we all agree about that?
This is not a loophole, but an attempt to make the basic needs accesible for all.
I agree with your thought on taxes. You should be happy to pay a lot of taxes because then you know you are wealthy and paying taxes contributes to a better society.

I pay taxes on many basic needs, for example food. (By far not the only case)
The point is, once you start with exemptions, basic need and all that, all you get in is a mess and there is no rational way to draw the line and everybody starts lobbying, why his product or activity is worthwhile to be exempt.
Though I am not familiar with UK tax law, my guess is that the premier soccer events are exempt from VAT while if you buy a bicycle you are not.
So much for basic needs. Dug a bit deeper and check what is myth and what is reality.
The ones who tend to be most successful in this game are the ones, which got the money and can easily afford to pay.
Think about that
And of course as 99.9% of all people, who take part in this game, I do not consider myself rich.

Rainer Herrmann

[Trinidad]

cherdano, on 2014-September-29, 17:20, said:

I think it's enough for a major corrupt organization to decide the location of the Olympiad. We don't need to let them define the English language as well.

Sorry, but I find this a very lame post. It is easy to score using one-liners, but they are cheap.

If I want to know what a boson is, I ask a physicist.
If I want to know what a catalyst is, I ask a chemist.
If I want to know what a GDP is, I ask an economist.
If I want to know what cognitive dissonance is, I ask a psychologist.
And If I want to know what a sport is, I ask the experts on that, e.g. the IOC.

But Cherdano will ask a judge, because he thinks judges are defining the English language...

Following his reasoning, IUPAP (the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics) can only decide where they hold their meetings. They should leave the definition of "boson" to judges and linguists...

I realize that there are large cultural differences. On one side, there is a country like the Netherlands, where bridge (and several other mind sports) are well organized, with a smooth running, well structured national competition, with participants of all ages, where it is easy to answer the question: "Who are the reigning champions?" and where you can find the bridge clubs in the city guide between the soccer, field hockey and korfbal clubs and not among the origami, quilting and model air plane building clubs. On the other side you have the USA where bridge is limited to club level + a few loose tournaments and where you regularly read stories about a police raid of a bridge club of retirees, because they were alleged to participate in illegal gambling. So, to me, being from the Netherlands, it is absolutely obvious that bridge is a sport. That may not be the case for bridge players from other countries.

To this judge, the physical aspect was important. He probably thinks that hot dog eating and beer drinking are sports, since they are physical activities performed competitively.

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

rhm, on 2014-September-30, 01:52, said:

Why all the fuss?
The point is not whether Bridge is a sport, it is all about money.
Bridge as a rule is generally not played by the poor underclass
We need to pay taxes to support our societies and our institutions.
When I earn something I pay taxes and when I buy or consume something I pay taxes.
Why Bridge should be exempt escapes me as much as why sport events should be exempt.
Instead of lobbying for more loopholes reduce all these loopholes and you can lower the tax rates.
It is the rich not the poor, who profit from these loopholes.

Rainer Herrmann

Sport is promoted because it's good for health and saves money on treating obesity.

There is a growing body of evidence that mindsports are good at delaying dementia among the elderly, so there may be a case for them to be supported too.

[beatrix45]

Trinidad, on 2014-September-30, 03:00, said:

On the other side you have the USA where bridge is limited to club level + a few loose tournaments and where you regularly read stories about a police raid of a bridge club of retirees, because they were alleged to participate in illegal gambling. So, to me, being from the Netherlands, it is absolutely obvious that bridge is a sport. That may not be the case for bridge players from other countries.

Rik

Thank heavens! Finally, the whistle has been blown on the bridge chaos that prevails below our southern border. The infamous ACBL cartel is the most evil, imo.

[barmar]

rhm, on 2014-September-30, 01:52, said:

Bridge as a rule is generally not played by the poor underclass

What about "dressage"? That's certainly a rich man's sport, but it's in the Olympics.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2014-September-30, 08:54, said:

What about "dressage"? That's certainly a rich man's sport, but it's in the Olympics.

I think rhm just doesn't see why sports, any sports (whether that includes bridge or not) should be treated favorably for tax purposes. To him it doesn't matter whether it is olympic or not: In his view, it is a hobby and, hence, a luxury and should be fully taxed.

That is a legitimate view. I don't agree with him, since I think that a government is allowed to stimulate what they think is good and hinder what they think is bad, as long as they do so in moderation. I think that taxing hobbies that they want to atimulate in a lower category is moderate enough.

Rik

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2014-September-30, 03:00, said:

On the other side you have the USA where bridge is limited to club level + a few loose tournaments

Is this a joke? I don't get it.

Seriously, of course, the USA (plus Canada, Mexico and Bermuda) hold the largest bridge tournaments in the world three times a year, plus lesser tournaments, still large and well-organised, which take place within reasonable driving distance (from the Eastern seaboard anyway) about once a month. A number of these regionals take place every weekend of the year, and some are longer. There are also smaller local tournaments (called Sectionals).

But, while the ACBL have the largest and most extensive tournament calendar of any country, members there do not have to face tax rates in excess of 20%, so bridge being recognised as a sport is less important there.

[jogs]

Why would the Olympics want bridge? Bridge draws few spectators. Most bridge players wouldn't be willing to sit thru a championship match. Non players wouldn't have a clue how to follow the action.

[billw55]

My opinion is that calling bridge a sport is utterly absurd. Ditto for chess, go, backgammon, settlers of catan, etc. There is a reason the language has another word, "game", to distinguish nonathletic passtimes and competitions from athletic ones.

And no, I don't care what the IOC says about it.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2014-September-30, 12:01, said:

Is this a joke? I don't get it.

Seriously, of course, the USA (plus Canada, Mexico and Bermuda) hold the largest bridge tournaments in the world three times a year, plus lesser tournaments, still large and well-organised, which take place within reasonable driving distance (from the Eastern seaboard anyway) about once a month. A number of these regionals take place every weekend of the year, and some are longer. There are also smaller local tournaments (called Sectionals).

But, while the ACBL have the largest and most extensive tournament calendar of any country, members there do not have to face tax rates in excess of 20%, so bridge being recognised as a sport is less important there.

No, it is not a joke.

The ACBL does not have a competition structure. It has three NABC tournaments, a string of regionals and sectionals, and play within clubs, but there is no league competition.

Contrast that to Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, or China, where there is a competition structure that is entirely comparable to that of their soccer associations (or the English FA or the American NHL). These are their most prestigious competitions.

Whereas the competition calendar of these bridge leagues resembles that of major sport competition calendars, the ACBL calendar is similar to the calendar of the North American Filatelistic Association or the American Union of Quilters (whatever these organisations may actually be called): Local circles, a string of regional meetings and a few national meetings. Normal quilters will go to their local circle, fanatic quilters will attend the regional meetings, and the diehards (and professionals) will be at the national meetings. You can replace the word "quilter" with "bridge player" and it describes the ACBL.

The ACBL events are not tournaments: They are meetings. Yes, there are big tournaments held at these meetings, but there are also courses in TD-ing, lectures for beginners, courses on how to be a club manager, sale of bridge books, etc... in other words: They are like quilt events, where you can buy quilt supplies, learn how to quilt, learn how to organize a quilt circle, etc...

If it looks like quilting, it will be classified as quilting: a hobby.

If it looks like soccer, basketball or hockey, it will be classified like those: a sport.

Rik

[dicklont]

Trinidad, on 2014-October-03, 12:06, said:

[snip]

If it looks like quilting, it will be classified as quilting: a hobby.

If it looks like soccer, basketball or hockey, it will be classified like those: a sport.

Rik

Watch out where you go Rik.
Some say quilting is an art and they have a fair point too. But it's most certainly not a sport.

[Trinidad]

billw55, on 2014-October-03, 10:14, said:

My opinion is that calling bridge a sport is utterly absurd. Ditto for chess, go, backgammon, settlers of catan, etc. There is a reason the language has another word, "game", to distinguish nonathletic passtimes and competitions from athletic ones.

And no, I don't care what the IOC says about it.

Sure, bridge and chess are games. So are soccer, american football and baseball.

If you ask a friend: "Wanna go to a game tonight?" I don't think that (s)he will think you are talking about chess, bridge or go. That place where you get peanuts and crackerjacks is a ball game. And every four years there are the Olympic games. So, "game" is not really contrasting with "sport".

The difference between games and sports is that sports are a subset of games. A sport is a game that is played competitively, with well defined rules, in organized competition. Some games are physical in nature (e.g. football and leapfrog), others are not (e.g. chess and halma). Whether a game is physical or not is irrelevant to the question whether they are sports. Football is, leapfrog is not; chess is, halma is not. The relevant characteristic of a sport is the competition with a high degree of organization.

This is also why "sport" is culturally determined. Some cultures have organized competitions, others don't. If they have a well organized leapfrog competition in Malawi or a halma competition on Sri Lanka, then these would be sports there. In the Netherlands, rodeo is not a sport. In Arizona it is.

Rik

[Trinidad]

dicklont, on 2014-October-03, 12:16, said:

Watch out where you go Rik.
Some say quilting is an art and they have a fair point too. But it's most certainly not a sport.

I am fine with calling quilting an art... just as much as painting is an art. That means that some quilt (paint) work is art and other quilt (paint) work is .. well err .. not.

Rik

[billw55]

Trinidad, on 2014-October-03, 12:34, said:

Sure, bridge and chess are games. So are soccer, american football and baseball.

If you ask a friend: "Wanna go to a game tonight?" I don't think that (s)he will think you are talking about chess, bridge or go. That place where you get peanuts and crackerjacks is a ball game. And every four years there are the Olympic games. So, "game" is not really contrasting with "sport".

This is another problem of the English language, that the same word can have multiple meanings. "Game" can refer to a single event, or to a type of entertainment/competition. IMO these concepts ought to have separate words. Having a football "match" is better, but then we overlap with small firemaking devices ... and so on. It is the way it is.

And yes, there are grey areas as far as the amount of athleticism involved. Rodeo, bowling, auto racing - sports or not? It can be a debate. But bridge is not in this grey area, not close to it. It just is not a sport, period. If IOC wants to call it a sport, they can. Similarly, I could say the sky is green and the grass blue, but that wouldn't make it true.

Trinidad, on 2014-October-03, 12:06, said:

Whereas the competition calendar of these bridge leagues resembles that of major sport competition calendars, the ACBL calendar is similar to the calendar of professional tennis or golf the North American Filatelistic Association or the American Union of Quilters

fixed

[billw55]

Trinidad, on 2014-October-03, 12:34, said:

The difference between games and sports is that sports are a subset of games. A sport is a game that is played competitively, with well defined rules, in organized competition. Some games are physical in nature (e.g. football and leapfrog), others are not (e.g. chess and halma). Whether a game is physical or not is irrelevant to the question whether they are sports. Football is, leapfrog is not; chess is, halma is not. The relevant characteristic of a sport is the competition with a high degree of organization.

Arguing semantics feels a little silly. Nevertheless, I do very much disagree with this. In American usage at least, the inclusion of at least some level of athleticism or physical action is the defining difference.

All this really means is that we have different personal meanings of the word "sport." Which is not really an important issue.