"BRINGING A BRIDGE CLUB INTO DISREPUTE": WHAT THE BLUE BLAZES DOES THIS MEAN ?........ ( An article by Professor Hu Chi Ku Chi )
Of all the phrases found in Club Constitutions, this one represents an extremely nebulous, all purpose-thwacking rule. Because let's face it, there are so many difficult questions that need to be answered in order to clarify exactly what it means :
- What is the precise meaning then of the word " disrepute " ?
- How does one know what the undisclosed criteria is to establish the alleged offence ? 
- Who is best placed to fix a meaning to the rule ?
- Can a governing body rightfully claim that the club's status is important enough to justify a such a rule ?
- How does one prove that a club's image, reputation, status,  or standing in the community,  has been damaged and/or tarnished ?
- What evidence is required,  and what forms can it take ?
- Is proof just simply the fact that from the committee's point of view, the club's reputation has been converted from a positive one into negative one ? 
- Can breach of the rule be established by just proving one dishonourable act by a club member ?
- And does legitimate criticism, say of a committee,  cross the boundary of bringing The Club itself into disrepute ?
- Will telling the truth, or carrying out any morally justified act,  be allowed as an acceptable/ lawful defence to any alleged breach of the rule ?
- Is a possible to charge someone with bringing a club into disrepute, when it already has a direputable status ?
A bridge club by and large aims to be a voluntary association of good moral standing, with a good name, respectable law-abiding image, offering a friendly and social environment for people to come along and enjoy a game of cards. If  the "disrepute " charge flows from dishonouring or discrediting club/committee members and/or The Club itself, where there clearly is no justification for the attack or where the intent was perhaps malicious / mischievous, then such an allegation would of course be very well founded.
However I have many reservations over such a rule. It seems to me that the original wording   was deliberately designed to be vague and ill-defined. This of course gives the governing body, namely the committee, considerable discretion and leeway in its application. This may well be a good thing if the committee is made up of level-headed, fair open minded, non judgemental people. But on the other hand, if certain committee members have closed minds and are morally bankrupt, then the rule could be applied in many dangerous ways. For instance, legitimate criticisms about the way these members operate will simply be redefined as bringing the club into disrepute, because the committee here will perceive itself as " the club ". 
My nightmare vision is that a vengeful committee would interpret the rule is as follows : " We  want to punish a member who hasn't broken any specific rules, and so this requires us to punish him/her under a completely ambiguous rule covering anything and everything ". In contract law such an ambiguous, potential vindictive, term would be struck out as being totally unfair ( and therefore unenforceable ) , since it would fail the test of reasonableness as laid down in Unfair Contract Terms Act.