Help
lamford, on 2012-March-05, 09:14, said:
When you buy a car, you voluntarily agree to abide by the rules specified by the government. However, there have been plenty of cases where someone has replied to a request from a speeding camera operator to name the driver and provided what is called a "PACE defence" (essentially the owner says he will not reply as he has not been cautioned), and so far there has not been a single successful prosecution when the owner has elected to be silent. I know, for I was that driver ... The fact that you enter a bridge tournament voluntarily is irrelevant. And any rules and regulations can be overruled by the law of the land. The Court of Arbitration in Sport would be the ultimate authority, now that bridge has been deemed a sport. I am sure that taking something that far would be OTT.
I think there are two issues being confused here.
1. Yes, the laws of the land override the rules of a game. A court can determine that the rules violate the law, and declare them unenforceable. For example, this was apparently the basis for taking the Reese/Shapiro cheating accusation to court, I think they were claiming it was libelous, and players don't give up their rights against libel by entering a game.
2. No, the principles of common law do NOT automatically extend to the game. For example, standards of proof required in court cases are different (generally higher) from those employed in bridge directing; it's more practical, and the stakes are lower in a game.
So there's no general principle you can use in the laws vs. rules issue, you have to address them on a case by case basis to see whether there may be a conflict.