[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

fallacious Calcutta arguments

Posted By: Chuck Bower
Date: Wednesday, 4 May 2011, at 5:13 p.m.

In Response To: tournament rules and ethics--Sorry, I completely disagree with Falafel on this one (Phil Simborg)

Regardless of which side of this discussion (and there may be more than two) I agree with, I'm going to lay down the gauntlet against the use of Calcutta considerations in any rule/ruling which has a larger scope than Calcuttas. Some not completely related comments about Calcuttas worth considering:

1) Most backgammon events are conducted without Calcuttas. So, is the ruling conclusion allowed to be different then?

2) Whether or not backgammon play involving money (either as an entry fee or on a game-by-game basis) is legal anywhere or everywhere in the US, I'm pretty sure Calcutta auctions are illegal. I recall a court case in Colorado long ago where two golfers had a significant wager in a match against each other and this was taken to court (I think it was a civil case, but not sure). The ruling was that the wager was legal because the players themselves had a significant effect on the outcome. (The following was related to me by the Meeses.) There was a tournament directed by Kent Goulding a couple decades ago where a disgruntled player, banned from the tournament because of his reputation as a cheater, claimed he was going to the police to report illegal gambling -- specifically the backgammon event. KG cancelled the Calcutta auction for that weekend, but nothing else. (No authorities ever showed up.)

3) There is a movement (or at least a sentiment) afoot to do away with Calcuttas in the US. Those who try to tie backgammon play decisions to Calcutta responsibilities are aiding in that effort, willingly or not.

4) Some top US directors have argued that requiring an opponent to correct an illegal move which was (in the eyes of the offended) self-detrimental should not be allowed because of its effect on the Calcutta interests of others. I.e. the financial interests of others should be placed above one's own principles.

If the reason for a rule or ruling is so dependent upon its effects on Calcutta responsibilities that not using the Calcutta argument would significantly weaken its stance, then in must not be much of a stance to begin with.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.