Sorry, I do have to comment about a couple of things. However, I do have no comment relative to the whole issue, because, it is someone elses issue. But, if you look back at this, Bridge FA was drug into it by other peoples suppositions and interpretations of the decision. That leads to the other need to respond. Like some other posts of mine, this is a one and only, as I won't publicly debate Bridge FA policies or actions with anoymous people that I cannot be certain are members of Bridge FA.
Somewhere in this 14 pages is a couple of posts concerning the Bridge FA 92 Girls Red. Like the 92 Boys Red, this team is a U12 team that the "soccer" people determined were ready to play 11 v 11. When the team was formed, they played in the challenge league fall season. The "soccer" people again evaluated this team after those matches and determined that for the girls development needs, it would be best suited to play U13 Classic in the spring. When this decision was made, the DOS approached the board because some people, ie Greenacres and Coldhardtruth, could somehow question the intent. One of the best thing about the arrangement is dual board members, so both SSC and JIYSC are represented in the board, as would be any club that participated. Since there were no Girls U13 Classic teams fielded by either SSC or JIYSC, playing in the classic division would not put this team in competition with the member clubs.
So while some may want to cast organizational stones, this is a case of player development, and fits within the guidelines that both SSC and JIYSC agreed to.
Sorry to cut it off like this, but this is not currently Bridge FA issue. If someone disagrees with that, there is always the PM route.
