US bridge team faces penalty for anti-Bush sign

The bridge world is in an absolute tizzy over the impromptu protest of the world champion U.S. women’s team, which held up a sign during its victory celebration last month that read: “We did not vote for Bush.” Other players have accused the group of “treason,” and the United States Bridge Federation—whatever the hell that is—has decided its authority trumps free speech, a value some people vaguely remember associating with America.

While there are many villains in this story, many of them predictably stodgy and full of themselves, the French players have heroically backed their American rivals who, they said, “were doing only what women of the world have always tried to do when opposing the folly of men who have lost their perspective of reality.”

The suggested punishment for these poor women, who say they were only responding to questions about torture and Iraq from their international colleagues, is beyond unreasonable, as you can read below.

While there’s something inherently humorous about a brouhaha of this magnitude over a bridge tournament, there’s also something truly appalling about an organization that claims to represent the United States in the eyes of the world seeking retribution over an act of dissent—particularly one that holds the majority opinion.

2) The VCW have in no way acknowledged that the action has created a serious problem for the USBF. They instead have chosen to go on the offensive by extremely aggressive defensive actions, rather than simply acknowledging, “We made a mistake. What can we do to rectify the situation?” In the vast majority of situations a party whose defined role is to represent another party has a fiduciary responsibility to represent the interests of the principal ahead of their own interests. In cases where an agent or other representative acts adversely to the interests of the principal, they may in fact be subject to legal action. Certainly, the principal has no obligation to allow said agents to represent them in the future.

3) Certain members of VCW have complained that the USBF apology to the WBF and the Chinese Contract Bridge Association for the VCW’s conduct was unwarranted. This reflects a complete disregard for the fact that the Chinese government, which does not exactly have a history of sympathetic views toward political dissent, provided the bulk of financial support for both the 2007 World Championship and the 2008 World Bridge Olympiad. Certainly, other sponsors such as Generali Group and Microsoft will not view as a positive development the hijacking of events which they supported financially as forums for political expression. Again, the VCW seem to view the interests of all other parties as entirely subordinate to their own, if they take them into account at all.

...

6) No principal can provide an agent with a laundry list enumerating every conceivable proscribed activity; the agent is presumed to be guided by common sense. When an agent damages a principal by ill judged actions, intentionally or negligently, adverse consequences for the agent should come as no surprise.

...

9) The USBF is quite cognizant of the fact that there are professional arrangements where a player or players are paid to play in events where the ultimate goal is to qualify to represent the United States in international competition. The fact that a player is dependent upon professional fees to earn a living is of no concern to the USBF, and any such arrangements are entirely incidental to any USBF event, outside the control, responsibility or concern of the USBF. The USBF has no obligation to coddle, foster, or protect any person’s ability to earn professional fees.

http://usbf.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=368&Itemid=167