[1eyedjack]

Bridge punters in the UK may be following with some trepidation a case currently progressing through the courts here. Some details are available in a report in the UK Times, 11 January 2007, page 11 (there is probably a Times Online link but I don't subscribe).

The Gutshot Club, a private member's club dedicated to Poker, is being prosecuted for breach of the Gambling Act 1968 (having no licence to undertake gaming). The club is a pay-to-enter club where the club takes a rake on the winnings.

If the report is accurate, the case centres on the extent by which success in the game is dependent on skill v chance; the element of chance allegedly (according to the prosecution) bringing the game into the jurisdiction of the Act. In evidence from Henry Kirkup, and inspector from the Gaming Commission, "If there is an element of chance, I am satisfied that it is gaming".

Well, there is obviously "an element" of chance, but whether the court is persuaded of the conclusion put forward by Kirkup as a result of that remains to be seen. Personally I am of the opinion that in the short term there is a high element of chance, in both poker and bridge, but that in the long term the skilful player will win at either discipline against the less skilful. The extent to which the distinction between long term and short term gain is relevant is not reported in the article but would hopefully be considered by the court.

I am no lawyer, but I suppose it could have a knock-on effect for the online community in both bridge and poker, should the prosecution succeed in this case.

[blackshoe]

Somebody is upset, either because other people are having a good time, or because he is not getting a (big enough?) piece of the action.

[FrancesHinden]

I may be totally off base here, because I'm talking from a vague memory of hearsay, but I believe that there is UK legal precedent that bridge is not a game of chance, and rubber bridge clubs do not need a licence.

I also understand there is UK legal precedent that poker clubs do, and that the Gutshot knew that but decided they couldn't be bothered/wouldn't be reported/might win anyway. But that is only gossip.

[mrdct]

There is a precedent for the way the UK courts assess the chance versus skill issue in relation to pinball machines. In the UK success at pinball in considered to be predominantly based on the luck of how the ball bounces around, so where pinball machines are in commercial use and offer prizes (including replay credits) they need to be modified with an extra couple of buttons to briefly raise posts from the playfield in front of the drain areas which (to the gaming authorities satisfaction) apparently tips the luck/skill element sufficiently over to skill.

I play a lot of pinball (I own a Bram Stoker's Dracula) and I'm not particularly good at it, but I consistently beat my wife and my daughter and I'm neck and neck with my son. Does that mean my son and I are more skilled or more lucky? If you go to a pinball tournament the champion players are absolutely amazing in how long they can keep a ball alive.

[Gerben42]

It is clear that the governments don't care how loud you shout that some games are games of skill and will do as they please.

My personal opinion is that they should keep their hands off the games and allow people to play what they like, where they like. As a citizen I want to be informed that something is addictive but to be left the choice of getting involved.

It gets different if what gives you pleasure damages others, for example if you drink and drive I think there should be no hesitation to take away the driver's licence.

[mrdct]

For those who want to learn more about the way UK gaming laws have affected pinball design for machines in that market, refer http://www.pinballne...rn/ukposts.html

[blackshoe]

Drinking and driving does not, per se, damage others. It does, of course, have great potential to do so, but that's another kettle of fish.

I'm a libertarian: to me, the golden rule is as some Wiccans express it: "an' it harm none, do what thou wilt." I would add the corrolary that if you what you do does harm someone, you make reparations to that person, and not to the State.

[geller]

Decision of California Court (Bridge=game of skill)

Quote

The only California case I have found that squarely addresses the issue of skill versus chance in a card game is In re Allen, 59 Cal.2d 5, 377 P.2d 280, which held that the game of bridge is a game of skill, not a game of chance.  Neither the California Constitution nor the California Penal Code was in question in this case.

The case involved  “a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a defendant who was arrested and charged with a violation of section 22 of article 2 of Los Angeles County Gambling Ordinance No. 461.  The section provided: ‘A person shall not knowingly permit any game prohibited by this ordinance to be played, conducted, or dealt, in any house or other premises, owned by, rented by, or in the lawful possession of such person.’  Section 21 of article 2 provides, in part: ‘A person shall not deal, play, carry on, open, cause to be opened, or conduct any game of chance played with cards, dice, or other device for money, checks, credits, or other thing of value.’

The Court had no difficulty in finding bridge was widely recognized as predominantly a game of skill.  The Court said: “The term ‘game of chance’ has an accepted meaning established by numerous adjudications.  Although different language is used in some of the cases in defining the term, the definitions are substantially the same….  It is the character of the game rather than a particular player's skill or lack of it that determines whether the game is one of chance or skill. The test is not whether the game contains an element of chance or an element of skill but which of them is the dominating factor in determining the result of the game.  Id at 6. [3]

-Bob

[Halo]

The poker club case has been decided - guilty - and a fine with costs is expected.

There is no suggestion that similar steps could be taken against Bridge clubs.

This is around licencing which I guess would affect the clubs' business model. Another poker club has said it will close immediately.

[Winstonm]

Here in the U.S., a professional named Billie Baxter some years ago challenged the IRS, who at that time had the annoying habit of coming into the World Series of Poker and thaking their rake of the winning directy from the cash on the table.

Baxter challenged that poker was not gambling - miraculously, he won. So accourding to the IRS, poker is a game of skill.

[ArcLight]

Time for an off topic rant

>Drinking and driving does not, per se, damage others. It does, of course, have great potential to do so, but that's another kettle of fish.

>I'm a libertarian: to me, the golden rule is as some Wiccans express it: "an' it harm none, do what thou wilt." I would add the corrolary that if you what you do does harm someone, you make reparations to that person, and not to the State.

So if you get drunk and kill my child what "reparations" do I get?

I will be satisfied if I am allowed to kill all your family members while you watch.
Baring that, no reparations will satisfy me.


I don't think that makes for a workable society that anyone can do what ever they want as long as they don't harm anyone. The problem is they will ahrm people, and what will you do then?

I want to be able to drive my Hummer at 100 MPH I'm a good driver. If I kill you, what can be done?

I want to keep a Tiger as a pet. Or more than one. They are so cute and I think they are tame. My babies would never harm anyone. So what if they do? Your child is dead. What can we do to make that up to you?


The problem is too many people are not responsible, and not held accountable.
I want to own fire arms.
I leave them loaded and unlocked around my house where my kids and their friends play.

I'm a good driver, I can talk on the cell phone while reading a newspaper and drive at the same time.


>Here in the U.S., a professional named Billie Baxter some years ago challenged the IRS, who at that time had the annoying habit of coming into the World Series of Poker and thaking their rake of the winning directy from the cash on the table.

>Baxter challenged that poker was not gambling - miraculously, he won. So accourding to the IRS, poker is a game of skill.

In a sense, it doesn't amtter. You are supposed to pay taxes on your net gambling winnings, not the amount you win on one hand, without counting what you lose on the next. So you are paying taxes on your winnings at that moment, rather than April 15th. (yes there is the time value of money, but the tax rate is the same)

[jtfanclub]

ArcLight, on Jan 18 2007, 09:50 AM, said:

In a sense, it doesn't amtter. You are supposed to pay taxes on your net gambling winnings, not the amount you win on one hand, without counting what you lose on the next. So you are paying taxes on your winnings at that moment, rather than April 15th. (yes there is the time value of money, but the tax rate is the same)

If you win $600 or more in a single gambling event, the taxes on the winning have to be with-held immediately. You may end up getting some or all of it back after you deduct your losses and expenses, but the IRS gets that money now and you have to wait until you fill out the forms to get it back. If it's not gambling, then the agency awarding the prize has to fill out a number of IRS forms but does not have to with-hold the money.

Why yes, I am researching having bridge games with cash prizes. Why do you ask?

[blackshoe]

I am not going to contribute to a potentially long off topic rant here. Arclight and I disagree; let's leave it at that.