[Cyberyeti]

Gerben42, on 2011-July-19, 10:49, said:

Unlike other mind sports, Bridge has a huge image problem which hinders its recognition. The image of old ladies playing cards. In this sense, low-level chess is completely different from low-level bridge. But why should it be?

It also has the problem in some places that it uses instruments in playing cards that are inextricably linked to gambling.

Maybe 15 years ago I played bridge in the Isle of Man and got chatting with the locals, and they said they couldn't get it into schools because it used "the devil's picture book" ie a pack of cards.

[matmat]

All we need now is an appeals committee at the Olympics. Can you imagine that, with all the $$$ and national pride flying around? "The East German judge voted to reverse the director's ruling, while the French and English panelists wanted to uphold the verdict."

In my mind anything that relies on subjective scoring or on a subjective processes to arrive at a result in some way is not a sport. It is still probably a game or possibly an athletic competition, but not a sport (figure skating, gymnatics, diving, ski-jumping, I'm looking at you).

(at least i think ski-jumpers still get points for style?)

The Olympic motto is still "faster, higher, stronger," with no mention of "prettier, nicer, rhythmical," no "smarter" in there either...

[hrothgar]

matmat, on 2011-July-19, 12:09, said:

All we need now is an appeals committee at the Olympics. Can you imagine that, with all the $$$ and national pride flying around? "The East German judge voted to reverse the director's ruling, while the French and English panelists wanted to uphold the verdict."

In my mind anything that relies on subjective scoring or on a subjective processes to arrive at a result in some way is not a sport. It is still probably a game or possibly an athletic competition, but not a sport (figure skating, gymnatics, diving, ski-jumping, I'm looking at you).

(at least i think ski-jumpers still get points for style?)

The Olympic motto is still "faster, higher, stronger," with no mention of "prettier, nicer, rhythmical," no "smarter" in there either...

I don't disagree, but for me the real deal breaker is clients....

[matmat]

hrothgar, on 2011-July-19, 12:13, said:

I don't disagree, but for me the real deal breaker is clients....

do the Olymipcs still have horse athletes with sponsors?

[Aberlour10]

99,xx% of the world population knows absolutely nothing about the complexity of this mind game. They all would probably find it simply laughable to see bridge as a sport , olympic sport. This great game does not deserve it. This is not the way to develope and propagate it.

[hrothgar]

matmat, on 2011-July-19, 12:14, said:

do the Olymipcs still have horse athletes with sponsors?

I made the mistake of riding a horse one fine day in Iceland

Don't tell me this isn't a sport.

My legs and ass were sore for a week, not to mention what all the bouncing did to my GI tract

[Cascade]

Aberlour10, on 2011-July-19, 12:30, said:

99,xx% of the world population knows absolutely nothing about the complexity of this mind game. They all would probably find it simply laughable to see bridge as a sport , olympic sport. This great game does not deserve it. This is not the way to develope and propagate it.

This is a gross overbid.

I have been lucky enough to play in four APBF tournaments (Asia Pacific Bridge Federation) - formerly the PABF. The tournaments were in Shanghai, China; Bandung, Indonesia; Macau and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. At each of those tournaments there has been mention in the opening ceromony or tournament booklet of bridge as a sport. Sometimes the booklet has included a welcome from the Minister for Sport or equivalent or a welcome from a Mayor, Governor or the like referring to the players as sportsmen or even athletes.

In Bandung prior to the PABF we played a local tournament called the Geologi Cup. On the second day there was a luncheon attended by the Minister for Sport.

In Malaysia the event was held in the Malaysian Olympic Association Indoor Sports facilities.

My perception is that throughout Asia (which constitutes more than the remaining 0.yy% of the population) so called 'mind sports' are treated as "sports".

[helene_t]

depends how you define "sport". I vote "who cares?".

[nigel_k]

According to the ordinary meaning of the word 'sport' I would say that bridge is pretty clearly not a sport.

However, when the word 'sport' is used by the Olympics or a government that offers funding, the word need not be limited to its normal meaning. Probably those organisations just find it a convenient term for a range of activities where a completely accurate description of the activities covered would be too long and convoluted. In that case, bridge may well be a 'sport'. The proper test should be whether including bridge would further the goals of the Olympic movement or the government's goal in offering funding.

[1eyedjack]

helene_t, on 2011-July-19, 14:50, said:

I vote "who cares?".

I shall pass on to my octogenarian colleagues who can no longer mount the stairs to their club the lack of sympathy from forum members.

[gnasher]

1eyedjack, on 2011-July-19, 05:15, said:

That is quite interesting. I wonder if its recognition as a sport is restricted in any way depending on context (ie VAT)? Because Germany and UK are both (last time I checked) in the EU and ultimately governed by EU law. In matters of this nature there is *supposed* to be cross-border harmony, so that no country can provide "state aid" that is not available throuhout Europe and so provide a distorted market.

I think you're mistaken about what ultimately governs the UK.

Regarding disparities in VAT treatments, if you really think it's quite interesting, maybe you should try reading Council Directve 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax. I did find this:

2006/112/EC, Article 132 said:

Member States shall exempt the following transactions:
...
the supply of certain services closely linked to sport or physical education by non-profit-making organisations to persons taking part in sport or physical education;

There seems to be nothing to specify what constitutes a sport, so it's no surprise that interpretations vary across the EU.

(Please note that I know almost nothing about constitutional law, EU law, VAT law, or any other sort of law.)

[1eyedjack]

gnasher, on 2011-July-20, 01:25, said:

I think you're mistaken about what ultimately governs the UK.

Enlighten me then, please?

gnasher, on 2011-July-20, 01:25, said:

it's no surprise that interpretations vary across the EU.

That is so in respect of a considerable bulk of VAT legislation, by no means restricted to the definition of sport.
Nevertheless, where interpretations vary an appellant can (with a sufficiently deep pocket) apply to Brussels to have that variety eliminated in cases where they are placed at a commercial disadvantage in the EU market arising from that variety. I believe that this very process takes up a considerable proportion of the European court's time.

[gnasher]

1eyedjack, on 2011-July-20, 02:43, said:

Enlighten me then, please?

Isn't it Parliament? Or have I been reading the wrong newspapers?

[billw55]

matmat, on 2011-July-19, 12:09, said:

In my mind anything that relies on subjective scoring or on a subjective processes to arrive at a result in some way is not a sport.

Balls and strikes?

[Coelacanth]

billw55, on 2011-July-20, 07:07, said:

Balls and strikes?

The strike zone is defined objectively. The call on any particular pitch is subject to the discretion of the umpire, just as a safe/out or fair/foul ruling would be. This is not a situation where the umpire is assessing the pitch on its aesthetic merits or degree of difficulty. He is simply making a determination of ball or strike based on established, objective criteria.

This has very little relevance to the question of whether bridge is a sport. Count me in the "who cares" camp.

[Cyberyeti]

billw55, on 2011-July-20, 07:07, said:

Balls and strikes?

Coelacanth gets this right, but almost all team sports have this sort of call, was the ball over the line, did the defense jump or was it a false start etc, the rules are objective, but may require subjective human interpretation.

[helene_t]

1eyedjack, on 2011-July-20, 00:22, said:

I shall pass on to my octogenarian colleagues who can no longer mount the stairs to their club the lack of sympathy from forum members.

Are you saying that it is in the interest of the octogenarians that bridge is widely seen as a sport? Or the opposite? I don't see how anyone can have stakes in this discussion.

OK if the real issue is whether bridge clubs should receive subsidies from the government. I can understand why some (octogenarian or otherwise) would care about that.

[1eyedjack]

gnasher, on 2011-July-20, 02:49, said:

Isn't it Parliament? Or have I been reading the wrong newspapers?

I tend not to rely on newspapers.
From CCH, VAT guide, para 2-650:

Quote

The UK law on VAT derives from EC law, notably the sixth directive on VAT. Under the Treaty of Rome, the Government is obliged to enact the UK law in such a way as to implement the provisions contained in the European directives and regulations. Consequently, it is sometimes possible to refer to the EC legislation for guidance on the interpretation of the UK law. Furthermore, if the UK law fails to implement the EC law, the citizen is entitled to rely on the EC law where it has direct effect in the UK.

In fact it is not just limited to VAT. There was a recent Inheritance Tax case in which two elderly sisters who, having exhausted the appeals procedure in the UK (right the way to the House of Lords), took their appeal to Europe. They lost, but the point is that the appeals procedure to override the House of Lords (or now Supreme Court) is in place. Obviously they would not have appealed had there been no procedural possibility of a win. In that case the appeal was to the European Court of Human Rights
http://www.maturetimes.co.uk/node/5500

So yes, in a sense you are correct, it is Parliament, but it is the European parliament, not the UK one. By a referendum we could of course exit the EU entirely, so if you are really talking "ultimately" it is the UK citizenry. The option to offer a referendum would be made by a UK parliament, which in turn would have to be elected, again, by the UK citizenry (I can't see it happening without being expressed in a pre-election manifesto). My use of ultimate was perhaps sloppy.

[matmat]

billw55, on 2011-July-20, 07:07, said:

Balls and strikes?

not a sport.

[1eyedjack]

helene_t, on 2011-July-20, 09:03, said:

Are you saying that it is in the interest of the octogenarians that bridge is widely seen as a sport? Or the opposite? I don't see how anyone can have stakes in this discussion.

OK if the real issue is whether bridge clubs should receive subsidies from the government. I can understand why some (octogenarian or otherwise) would care about that.

What I am trying to say is that had it been a slightly different activity, such as crown green bowling or model aeroplane flying, then they would have been treated in a financially different manner. The reason that the financial incentives are available to crown green bowling and not to bridge has nothing to do with any careful consideration of the contrasted merits of each activity but hang on the particular turn of phrase which is a definition of "sport". This is a mere convenience to the legislative draftsmen and an arbitrary one at that - arbitrary in the sense that I do not believe that it would have been the intention of the original draftsmen or politicians to make the distinction, but it probably simply was not considered. The octogenarians have been financially disadvantaged by the accident that their activity happens to be bridge rather than flying model aeroplanes.

If you accept that as an injustice, and of course you are free not to, then in order to correct the injustice I can think of only two options: One is to classify bridge as a sport. The other is to change the legislation so that it no longer refers to "sport" as a qualifying activity but to extend it within the legislation to embrace other activities within the intent of the politicians who originally framed the law. Neither is likely to occur, but I have my own opinion of which would be the simpler to implement.