Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
Contract bridge - Wikipedia

Tribunal rules bridge is not a sport

by
25th Feb 2014
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

The English Bridge Union failed in its bid to reclaim VAT on £631,000 of tournament fees after a lower tier tax tribunal ruled that bridge was a game rather than a sport.

The EBU went to tribunal to appeal against HMRC’s refusal to repay VAT on competition entry fees it raised between 30 June 2008 and 31 December 2011. HMRC argued that under the Euroepan VAT directive and UK law, contract bridge was not a sport, so competition fees were not a VATable supply.

Dr John Petrie, the EBU treasurer, submitted correspondence to the tribunal from French, Dutch, Belgian, Irish and Polish bridge bodies explaining that VAT was not charged on entry fees in their countries. The union’s barrister also pointed out that bridge was recognised as a sport by the Olympic Committee.

He also cited HMRC’s VAT reference notice 701/45, which includes activities such as croquet, darts, billiards, flying and gliding, where physical activity plays second fiddle to mental skill. The natural meaning of “sport” is not limited to activities which principally involve physical skill or exertion, he argued.

HMRC countered that sport was something that involves physical activity or physical fitness and that the European article defining the exemption was intended to promote physical and mental health. The department’s barrister characterised the EBU’s arguments as trying to squeeze “what cannot get in through the front door in through the back”.

The arguments bore all the hallmarks of a classic British legal showdown and were likened by commentators to the great biscuit/cake debate at the centre of the 1991 United Biscuits Jaffa Cake case.

HMRC’s barrister turned to the Oxford English Dictionary to support its case and backed it with the Council for Europe’s sports charter which explains that “sport” encompasses all forms of physical activity that “aim at expressing or improving physical fitness and mental well being, forming social relationships or obtaining results in competition at all levels”.

This was the definition HMRC had adopted and it had been previously confirmed at a VAT tribunal in the Royal Pigeon Racing Association case [VDT 14006].

Further precedents were drawn from the European Court of Justice decision in Mesto Zamberk v Financni reditelstvi v Hradci Kralove [2013]EUECJ C-18/12, which related to VAT exemptions for a water park that included both areas for serious swimming and less serious activities such as a paddling pool and water slides.

A key objective of the VAT directive was to encourage physical activities in the public interest, when provided by non profit making organisations. The tribunal interpreted the CJEU’s ruling that the directive was designed not to promote wider public health, but to make sporting activities more accessible to a large section of the population. This was also the decision in Canterbury Hockey Club v HMRC Case C-253/07 [2008] STC 3351, the tribunal noted.

At the end of their deliberations, the judges sided with HMRC and concluded that the normal English meaning of “sport” involves a significant element of physical activity: “To our minds sport normally connotes a game with an athletic element rather than simply a game.”

Replies (80)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By evely
06th Mar 2014 00:13

>Have to be intelligent to

>Have to be intelligent to play bridge
>Intelligent is able to acquire and apply knowledge and skills
>Chimpanzees can acquire and apply knowledge and skills
>So chimpanzees can play bridge
>Hmmm never seen or heard of a chimpanzee playing bridge

>>>>>>I feel there could be a flaw in that grey logic.

 

'Apart from the unfortunates with mental deficiencies, all people are intelligent'.

I feel the term ' mental deficiencies' is an unfortunate turn of phrase. But yes there is a small % of the population with severe learning difficulties so leaving them to one side for a moment, let me pick a reading age of 8 as being the next cut off level.

So how many of the population have a reading age greater than a competent 8 year old reader? Oh dear just remembered the reading age for the Sun newspaper is 8 that cuts out a lot of people then.  

So very quickly you can end up with 'average intelligent' which is the majority of people (68% 1 standard deviation), but progress driven by the more intelligent (~15%) (using the term in its broadest sense and a bit foot loose with the figures). Future technology will be created by that 15%, and voted on by the average. Dare I say it - yes I will, average intelligence is not that bright.

I do feel that Old Greying Accountant has scored an own goal with 'patronise and infer a self-deluded superiority'.

Oops I expect I will be accused of something similar now, (yea tongue is still in cheek).

So how can a conversation about the Bridge, game or sport end up here? -  Hmm so is taking part is this conversation Sport or Game ---- no please don't answer that.

Thanks (0)
Replying to thomas34:
avatar
By User deleted
07th Mar 2014 16:11

Chimps

evely wrote:

Hmmm never seen or heard of a chimpanzee playing bridge

 

Are you sure?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
06th Mar 2014 10:11

Looks like ...

... you've brought your own spades, keep using them.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
07th Mar 2014 12:27

Here is a topical example ...

... of mental deficiency

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-26464272

No bridge is not for me, too busy watching paint dry.

I think you need a new spade, think you've worn that one out, but watch the ground water, the water table is pretty high at the moment.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Harrison88:
avatar
By chEEK
07th Mar 2014 18:59

Spades

Old Greying Accountant wrote:

... of mental deficiency

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-26464272

No bridge is not for me, too busy watching paint dry.

I think you need a new spade, think you've worn that one out, but watch the ground water, the water table is pretty high at the moment.

Sorry to tell you mate - you're the one who's hit rock bottom and kept on digging. I notice that you've given up with your feeble attempt at pseudo-logic. Well done on that at least.

Oh and... I have no interest in reading anything in your link, so I've not bothered going there. I'm sure it will be as relevant to the discussion as your previous posts.

Good luck playing with your old greying accounts.

Goodbye.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
07th Mar 2014 15:47

Skill or luck?

Take noughts and crosses. The starting player, with little skill required, will never lose a game. Neither will his opponent. So, like chess, victory is dependent on one player making a mistake, not on being more skilful than the other. Not sure what question this addresses nor indeed if it provides any answer - just thought I'd toss it into the mix.

Thanks (0)
By Rick Deckard
07th Mar 2014 16:50

Why am I doing this?

I won't argue that at the highest level (pretty much of anything in sport) you are relying on an opponent making a mistake, and I don't want to be pedantic, but does the absence of a mistake not indicate skill?

When a footballer does something wrong does that not indicate a certain lack of skill, being in the wrong position, giving the ball away? And of course the mistake is only the start, you are then relying on the skill of the opponent(s) in exploiting the mistake. Is it a brilliant passing shot or a half court ball?

This is why people can enjoy playing at any level, at the lower end mistakes are not capitalised on, while at the other, mistakes are rarer but harshly punished.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
07th Mar 2014 17:08

But what is a mistake?

One snooker player sends the object ball the entire length of the table, and it goes straight into the middle of the pocket. Another tries the same shot and it's out by a couple of cm, wobbles in the jaws and comes back out. Did he make a mistake or is the first player more skilled? Or was it just plain bad luck because the second player got a nasty 'kick'?

Thanks (0)
By Rick Deckard
07th Mar 2014 17:39

Variables

There are indeed variables in most sports which can be attributed to luck, however I would contend that you would be mad not to put your money on the more skilled opponent, as quality usually tells, it being more constant.

Ronnie O'Sullivan with the bad kick, versus me with pot?

Chess has no variables, does luck play a part? We are told above that the same hands are played in certain bridge rules, in order to minimise luck and maximise skill.

It is too late, I basically agree there is a thing as luck, but skill is way more important.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By chEEK
07th Mar 2014 19:16

Agree

Rick Deckard wrote:

There are indeed variables in most sports which can be attributed to luck, however I would contend that you would be mad not to put your money on the more skilled opponent, as quality usually tells, it being more constant.

Ronnie O'Sullivan with the bad kick, versus me with pot?

Chess has no variables, does luck play a part? We are told above that the same hands are played in certain bridge rules, in order to minimise luck and maximise skill.

It is too late, I basically agree there is a thing as luck, but skill is way more important.

I agree with your posts very much. The "kick" in snooker thing alluded to by BKD is in fact an example of (bad) luck rather than a lack of skill. You can never eliminate luck entirely from anything - as I pointed out before, even in duplicate bridge you can play the toughest hand in a contract that is unmakeable... but you may be lucky enough to play it against a pair who are weaker then the average for the field and they fail to find the correct line of defence. That happens. Or you can take a 99% action and find that the 1% case is what's happening on this occasion. So that's not really luck, it's the laws of probability asserting themselves.

Skill is of course much more important - once you have minimised the luck, the skill can show though... over time. That's why most meaningful competitions in all sports are played over a fairly long series (7 games in basketball, 38 games n the football premier league etc). But usually the better teams end up at the top and the worst at the bottom.

Club bridge is played over 24-28 boards and often competitions are based on more than one such session over some weeks. More major events play 40-48 boards with the really big events playing much more. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
07th Mar 2014 19:17

But neither ...

... require intelligence - I cite Wayne Rooney!

As the old adage goes "the more I practice, the luckier I get"

And as the Major General says to the Sargeant, "Yes, but you don't go"

 

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to SXGuy:
avatar
By chEEK
07th Mar 2014 19:30

At risk of... sleeping dogs (sigh)

Old Greying Accountant wrote:

... require intelligence - I cite Wayne Rooney!

As the old adage goes "the more I practice, the luckier I get"

And as the Major General says to the Sargeant, "Yes, but you don't go"

 

 

It's not an old adage, it's a Ben Hogan / Gary Player quote. The full Hogan quote is "Golf is a game of luck - the more I practice, the luckier I get".

The rest of your post is as impenetrable/incomprehensible as ever.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
07th Mar 2014 19:18

Tarantara...

..., tarantara !

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
08th Mar 2014 01:10

Tarantara...

... tarantara  

Actually, it is not a quote by Hogan/Player per se, other than by urban myth, they were just using an aphorism that had been around many years previously - the first known usage being no later than 1949.

Player himself heard it from fellow golfer Jerry Barber who he credits with the saying in a book Player wrote in 1962.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Brian Gooch:
avatar
By chEEK
08th Mar 2014 12:34

Bridge

Old Greying Accountant wrote:

... tarantara  

Actually, it is not a quote by Hogan/Player per se, other than by urban myth, they were just using an aphorism that had been around many years previously - the first known usage being no later than 1949.

Player himself heard it from fellow golfer Jerry Barber who he credits with the saying in a book Player wrote in 1962.

Barber is believed by some to have quoted Samuel Goldwyn who said (not being related to golf) "the harder I work, the luckier I get". The Hogan quote may have been a misquote in turn or may have been original, opinions vary. Either way, the point was not really about the attribution to individuals whose lifespan varies by only a few years, it's that the words are not an "old adage" because (a) it's relatively modern and (b) it's a quotation, not an adage.

Anyway, I've had enough of splitting old grey hairs with you. This is supposed to be about bridge, and that subject has been fully discussed now, despite your best efforts to muddy the waters and be as much of a nuisance as possible, so it's  time to draw a line under this.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
08th Mar 2014 23:44

But you're still here

An adage is a short, usually philosophical, but memorable saying which holds some important fact of experience that is considered true by many people, or that has gained some credibility through its long memetic use.

A Quotation is a group of words taken from a text or speech and repeated by someone other than the original author or speaker.

As the originator is unknown it is not a quotation, but the first of the two possible meaning describes the phrase exactly, although a minimum of 65 years is a reasonable length of time!

That said, this quote was ascribed to Coleman Cox in 1922

"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more of it I seem to have"

There were similar ideas expressed in the mid and late 1800's too.

Anyway, I am not the pedant who picked up on such a pointless part of a comment and started spliiting hairs, missing the point entirely with extremely poor punditry.

..., tarantara, tarantara! 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chEEK
09th Mar 2014 20:03

You are the pedant...

... who split hairs almost to the point of splitting the atom in relation to earlier words, which were simply recommending the game of bridge to (shock, horror) a subset of the population.

And you can split hairs as much as you like on the above point, while you Google your head off in the meantime, but the fact remains that you decided that you don't like the game of bridge and you did everything you could to foul this thread by taking exception to every tiny little thing you could possible find to get into a fight about.

I simply mentioned that bridge is an amazing game with depths that are beyond anything people would imagine and that's all I really want to say. Bridge will still be here long after any video game has been consigned to the dustbin after its 1-5 years of shelf life, so bridge can be a lifelong pastime,it just needs some time to get past the learning curve.

 

-------------------------- For those who may want to try the game --------------------------

People all seem to know that" bridge is complicated", but without the depth that "complexity" brings it wouldn't be as fascinating - people don't play much Snap for a reason.

For those thinking of taking up the game, unless you're very good at getting information from reading, think about joining a course of lessons with a teacher who is qualified via EBUTA. There are some very bad teachers out there, so try to get into some beginners lessons in a group in a decent size club, where the teacher is qualified, then you'll have the best chance to learn the game properly - the right start can make all the difference.

And you get to meet people and having a peer group of people in the same boat helps a lot. And as a beginner - be prepared to ask dumb questions!!!

When the time comes to advance, reading is your friend if you want to improve.

Hope this helps, Good luck.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By User deleted
10th Mar 2014 00:23

Pots and Kettles!

Please point out where I have said I don't like bridge, aside from one obvious facetious jibe I have not given a personal view of the game?

I have never played, it does not appeal to me, but many do and that is up to them.

I am totally neutral on bridge, as I am on chess, poker, snooker and a myriad other games.

Personally I am not a fan of games, they do not interest me - I prefer to read or write. occassionally I may do a jig-saw, that makes me happy, what others do to relax is of no concern to me as long as it in consensual, legal and respectful of others.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chEEK
10th Mar 2014 20:44

Pay attention

I didn't say that you said anything, I inferred it.

 

There are only 2 possibilities:

 

1. You don't like the game.

2, You are the kind of person who picks fights over nothing, for no good reason.

 

I at least gave you credit for not being the latter - it seems I was wrong, You now say that you have chosen to become embroiled in all of this... on a subject that you say is of no interest to you at all. So, sadly, it seems,that option 2 is in fact what you are.

I feel rather sorry for you.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Ian McTernan CTA:
avatar
By User deleted
11th Mar 2014 08:52

Erm ...

chEEK wrote:

I didn't say that you said anything, I inferred it.

... If it looks like duck and sounds like a duck ...

chEEK wrote:

...  "but the fact remains that you decided that you don't like the game of bridge" ...

looks like a statement to me rather than an inference! - quack quack

A statement which is untrue to boot.

My remark, as I have clarified, was about the type of personalities it may bring you in to contact with, not the game itself.

Nothing subsequent has altered that perception.

I think we need to agree to disagree on whom the "fight" was picked by. I prefer sparring with those who have out grown playground taunts and personal insults as a discussion tactic.

Tarantara! 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Chris.Mann:
avatar
By chEEK
12th Mar 2014 21:35

You could partner Marge or Bart

Old Greying Accountant wrote:

chEEK wrote:

...  "but the fact remains that you decided that you don't like the game of bridge" ...

looks like a statement to me rather than an inference! - quack quack

Of course it's a statement... a statement following conclusions based on drawing an inference - as I said. How hard is that concept, really? You don't have the brains you were born with man - I hope I never use your accountancy services if that's an example of your mental abilities.

Quote:

A statement which is untrue to boot.

My remark, as I have clarified, was about the type of personalities it may bring you in to contact with, not the game itself.

Aha. But just one post ago you said that you had never played bridge - now you know all about the personalities it brings you into contact with. Caught in a lie.

I suppose you'll try to claim that you were only referring to me, that your assessment was based on a massive statistical sample of... one. And then I'll just have to disbelieve you, since that would be very much in the 'clutching at straws' bracket.

 

I don't think I'll spend any more time arguing with someone with logical capabilities on a par with Homer Simpson.

 

Thanks (0)
By mwngiol
11th Mar 2014 16:18

Regardless of how enjoyable Bridge is, or how charming (or not) the people who play it, the fact remains that sitting on your posterior playing cards is not a sport. Snap is more of a sport than Bridge as it at least has an element of physical skill (handspeed and coordination).

Thanks (0)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
avatar
By chEEK
12th Mar 2014 22:21

Watch this space

mwngiol wrote:

Regardless of how enjoyable Bridge is, or how charming (or not) the people who play it, the fact remains that sitting on your posterior playing cards is not a sport. Snap is more of a sport than Bridge as it at least has an element of physical skill (handspeed and coordination).

1. There is no legal definition of sport. The word has changed its meaning over the years - in days of yore "sport" was simply a word meaning "fun" - any kind of fun. Even tormenting someone was "having sport with them" - for the sad folks who enjoy that kind of thing.

 

2. The judge's remarks suggest that he rather made up a definition based on a personal, subjective assessment, rather like you did, when he said that sport "normally" constitutes a physical element. Who gets to say what's normal in such a subjective manner?

Expect an appeal on that basis alone.

 

3. There's no reason why physical activities should have preferential tax treatment over mental activities. The judge also seemed to surmise the intention of the legislation yet there is nothing suggesting that he had properly researched Hansard to establish the will or Parliament (which is what he should do). Health benefits can be shown for both mental and physical activity.

 

These lower level tribunals often produce rulings that are overturned on appeal. This will have some way to run.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tim Vane:
By mwngiol
14th Mar 2014 13:08

Sport

Granted there may be no legal definition of the word 'sport' but the point is that under no definition would anyone class Bridge as one. The fact is that the only reason the English Bridge League (or whatever they're called) are trying to get Bridge classed as a sport is because they've seen a potential tax advantage. If it wasn't for that then nobody in the Bridge world would ever consider themselves as sportpersons. But there's a tax advantage so they're trying to wriggle around trying to define the word in a way that fits them.

Admittedly I may have a narrow view on what constitutes a sport (I wouldn't call a lot of the events in the Winter Olympics 'sport') but even under a broad definition Bridge just does not fit.

A purely mental activity does not make a sport. Should mathematicians and physicists be called sportspeople rather than scientists? I suggest that particle physics takes much more mental dexterity than Bridge, does that mean Brian Cox or Stephen Hawking should be contenders for Sports Personality of the Year?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tim Vane:
avatar
By chEEK
16th Mar 2014 13:55

Already covered this point

mwngiol wrote:

Granted there may be no legal definition of the word 'sport' but the point is that under no definition would anyone class Bridge as one.

I already gave you a definition whereby bridge is within the definition of a sport - the original meaning of the word. Re-read earlier post re original meaning. And... as long as there's no legal definition then anyone can have their own definition. Also, the EBU case pointed out that other countries include "mind sports" in the definition of those who can enjoy such tax advantages.

And please don't tell me that wishing to benefit from the tax advantages is in some way wrong - it's perfectly normal/reasonable to do that and should be no surprise to anyone.

As I said, if parliament wanted to include some recreational activities and exclude others then they needed to use clearer language. That's a phrase that's been used before by senior judges and seems very apt in this case.

Most bridge clubs are run on a non-profit basis for the local community's benefit and as such qualify for charitable status. For HMRC to be their usual greedy money-grabbing selves over VAT is as unreasonable as it is unsurprising.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
14th Mar 2014 13:14

Is there an echo ...

... I am sure that has been said somewhere before.

But you're still here! I've had enough of the slapping of chests and singing, can you hurry up and get to the going to glory and the grave bit please, your demented ravings are giving me a headache, you cannot get a fact from an inference, only an opinion - oh, unless of course you write for the Daily Mail.

Quite obviously though I do have the brains I was born with or I would be dead - Doh!

I suggest you stop trying to shoe-horn phrases from your school boys book of hackneyed phrases in to your comments and invest in a good dictionary - then look up satire. Don't get confused with satyr though, although from the inchoate gibberings you spout I wouldn't be surprised if you were not one yourself.

On the topic of sport, "a sport" refers to an animal or plant that is a random and sudden mutation from the norm, hmm, food for thought there!

chEEK wrote:

There is no legal definition of sport. The word has changed its meaning over the years - in days of yore sport was simply a word meaning;fun; - any kind of fun. Even tormenting someone was having sport with them

Finally, talking of discharging ballistic weaponry at ones own leg extremity, which we probably weren't, I think the first rules bridge out from being a sport, as for the second, nulla excusatio!

Thanks (0)
Replying to MichaelRoss78:
avatar
By chEEK
14th Mar 2014 19:46

Boring

Old Greying Accountant wrote:

Quite obviously though I do have the brains I was born with or I would be dead - Doh!

Good grief. Is that all you can dream up - yet more stupid little word games?

You were caught in a lie, following endless twaddle and all you can do is write more twaddle. I'm not wasting any more time reading your utter drivel. Get lost.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
14th Mar 2014 21:48

Pray tell ...

... what untruth did I divulge, other than one imagined in that anomalous maelstrom that passes for your mind.

Yes, I enjoy word play.

You like playing with bits of wood pulp inscribed with coloured shapes and pictures; I like playing with the written and spoken representations of language - quite similar really, except you can play word games with no hands.

Tarantara tarantara ...

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wanderer:
avatar
By chEEK
16th Mar 2014 13:52

I wish I had time to hear more of this

Old Greying Accountant wrote:

... what untruth did I divulge, other than one imagined in that anomalous maelstrom that passes for your mind.

Feeble. Schoolboy debating tactics again - wait a couple of posts and claim ignorance of your previous failings. It's there in black and white for all to see.

Quote:

Yes, I enjoy word play.

Really? You'd think you'd be better at it then.

The rest of your drooling greying gibberish was a waste of cyber-space.

Time to call a halt. You've fouled an interestng discussion and I doubt that anyone else is even reading this any more. You can have the last word, there are some folk who are dumb enough to believe that whoever has the last word must be right, so feel free to pander to them.

I won't even waste time typing my opinion of you - it must be obvious.

Goodbye? Nah, just get lost.

End. I'll be closing the window and reading no further.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
16th Mar 2014 22:20

I think you ...

... need to learn the difference between discussion and diatribe, but as they both start withthe same two letters you lrobably get confused after that!

I think you are muddling your saws though, he who laughs last ...

Thanks (0)

Pages