[pooltuna]

aguahombre, on Mar 18 2010, 12:20 PM, said:

hanp, on Mar 18 2010, 11:04 AM, said:

Phil, on Mar 18 2010, 10:34 AM, said:

One of my partners was involved in a first round Spingold match against Sutherlin and Gerard several years ago. Gerard had reached a grand missing the trump K with 3 out that was offside (Kx). Partner's partner was so nervous  that he ducked (!).

Sutherlin took Gerard aside and said "we don't want to win this way" so they conceded the trick and the grand.

I don't get this at all, is this supposed to be sportsmanship? I'm sure he meant it nicely but it seems very obnoxious to me.

I was thinking of a better word than "obnoxious". Maybe patronizing. Maybe, "you ain't gonna win anyway, so take that."

repeat the trump finesse

[TimG]

It seems to me that the spirit of the regulation is to make sure the opponents have available an adequate defense to methods that may be unfamiliar. I doubt very much that Meckstroth and Rodwell needed the printed defense in order to have access to an adequate defense -- I suspect that had a written defense been available, Meckstroth and Rodwell would not have used it or referred to it. Nor was this method unfamiliar to Meckstroth and Rodwell.

As such, it seems to me that the director call was not about protecting their rights or concern about handling the methods, but rather strictly about adherence to regulations. Whether this was done because they are frustrated by a common flaunting of the regulations, because people think they can act differently when they play against Rodwell and Meckstroth, or because they wanted to rattle the opponents, none of us appears to know (despite the speculation).

People "vilify" Meckstroth and Rodwell because they were not using the rule for the purpose for which it was intended. I think this is also the root of the "ungentlemanly" characterization.

[Phil]

hanp, on Mar 18 2010, 12:04 PM, said:

I don't get this at all, is this supposed to be sportsmanship? I'm sure he meant it nicely but it seems very obnoxious to me.

I suppose if he had dropped the K on the table since his hands were shaking uncontrollably and was forced to play it as a penalty card that the refusal of this would also be 'unsporting'?

[Siegmund]

The feature about Meckwell's behavior that sticks in my craw is that they waited until their opponent opened 2♦ and then protested -- surely at this level they looked at their opponents' convention cards at the start of the match (or the first time they were seated at this pair's table.)

There would have been nothing wrong with saying, as soon as they became aware that their opponents were playing a Multi, hey, we need a director, and either a written defence gets provided or the multi gets removed from the system card and the opps take a few moments to adjust the rest of their system accordingly.

To inspect the opponents' convention card, be aware that they are playing an illegal convention, and then sit back and save your director call as a "secret weapon" to wreck your opponents' system in mid-match when they don't have time to discuss alternatives, and quite possibly get a board thrown out and trade it for a favorable artificial score (ok, this is the ACBL, we don't have an "automatic 60/30" rule for illegal conventions like the EBU, but there is usually some kind of protection for the non-offending side)... I find that grossly unethical.

Disclaimers: yes, I am only 90% sure that's what they did, not 100% sure; yes, I have something of an axe to grind re Meckwell (a longstanding refusal to fully disclose their own system in years past); no, I wasn't there at the table and I don't have any personal experience of the involved players.

[jjbrr]

Siegmund, on Mar 18 2010, 02:42 PM, said:

surely at this level they looked at their opponents' convention cards at the start of the match (or the first time they were seated at this pair's table.)

I would not bet any money on this.

[billw55]

I think the key question here is: as professionals playing in an elite event, is it considered normal to exploit the rules for advantage, in any way that is legal? Or is there still an expectation of sportmanship above and beyond the letter of the laws? I don't know the answer to this question.

For example in professional tennis - if an opponents winner is called out by the line judge, in error, and the player can see that it was good - shall the player overrule the linesman, against himself? On rare occasion we see this happen, and the player is praised for his/her sportsmanship. But in reality, far more often the player simply accepts the ruling, and nobody really criticizes them. After all they are professionals, this is their livelihood, and these are the rules after all. Right? Or not?

From the replies here, there seems to be disgreement on how the game of bridge stands - a unforgiving contest of professionals, or a gentleman's game? I wonder.

[mrdct]

I was watching the vugraph when this incident occurred and I'd like to stress that what we saw on BBO is almost certainly not the complete picture of what transpired at the table. Accordingly, I will heavily disclaim my comments as being entirely based on what was reported by the operator at the time.

Coming from a country where the 2♦ multi is played routinely in Saturday afternoon duplicates at the Senior Citizens Centre, I find the ACBL system regulations a complete joke. However, this is an ACBL event played under ACBL rules and anybody who takes a passing interest in international bridge knows that the ACBL has extremely restrictive system regulations. Surely the Singaporeans new the rules.

It's a lilttle bit like turning up with an alumnium bat when the conditions of contest say you can only use a wooden bat.

I don't think the Singaporeans have anyone to blame except themselves, but I still think that for a pair like Meckwell who surely have their own sophisticated defence to a multi 2♦ and would've been preped by their coach on the Singaporean methods beforehand; it was kind of pathetic to try to gain an advantage through a technicality like this. Pathetic, but not illegal or unethical in my books.

[TimG]

mrdct, on Mar 18 2010, 03:46 PM, said:

It's a lilttle bit like turning up with an alumnium bat when the conditions of contest say you can only use a wooden bat.

There are two ways this could be handled:

1) When you went to the plate with an aluminum bat, the pitcher would say "hey, he can't use that" and the umpire would send you back to the dugout to get a regulation bat; or

2) The opposing team could pitch to you and then protest if you put the ball in play.

In MLB, it seems that the opposing team always waits until the batter is successful in situations like this (pine tar or corked bat, for instance). In a non-professional setting I think the first approach would be by far the more common. So, I guess you have hit upon an excellent example.

[Cyberyeti]

billw55, on Mar 18 2010, 03:18 PM, said:

I think the key question here is: as professionals playing in an elite event, is it considered normal to exploit the rules for advantage, in any way that is legal? Or is there still an expectation of sportmanship above and beyond the letter of the laws? I don't know the answer to this question.

For example in professional tennis - if an opponents winner is called out by the line judge, in error, and the player can see that it was good - shall the player overrule the linesman, against himself? On rare occasion we see this happen, and the player is praised for his/her sportsmanship. But in reality, far more often the player simply accepts the ruling, and nobody really criticizes them. After all they are professionals, this is their livelihood, and these are the rules after all. Right? Or not?

From the replies here, there seems to be disgreement on how the game of bridge stands - a unforgiving contest of professionals, or a gentleman's game? I wonder.

This varies from sport to sport.

Snooker and golf it is routine to call penalties on yourself and would be viewed extremely dimly if you didn't.

Soccer is very much the opposite, and cricket is going that way having been much more of a gentleman's game in years gone by.

Cricket and tennis are going the same way, you can't rely on the players any more so technology is coming in.

I can only echo your last paragraph, I'd like to see bridge stay a reasonably gentlemanly game, but fear it's going the other way.

[the hog]

Phil, on Mar 18 2010, 10:34 PM, said:

One of my partners was involved in a first round Spingold match against Sutherlin and Gerard several years ago. Gerard had reached a grand missing the trump K with 3 out that was offside (Kx). Partner's partner was so nervous  that he ducked (!).

Sutherlin took Gerard aside and said "we don't want to win this way" so they conceded the trick and the grand.

Now this is what I call sportsmanship. I also find it sad that one poster refers to this action as "obnoxious". However I guess that is a reflection of the times in which we live. There are also numerous examples where Kaplan and Kay acted in gentlemanly fashion. I guess times have changed and you try to milk the regulations for what you can.

[nige1]

mrdct, on Mar 18 2010, 03:46 PM, said:

... Pathetic, but not illegal or unethical ...

Meckstroth wrote the defence that that their opponents forgot to bring? Agree with mrdct!

[hanp]

Phil, on Mar 18 2010, 01:40 PM, said:

hanp, on Mar 18 2010, 12:04 PM, said:

I don't get this at all, is this supposed to be sportsmanship? I'm sure he meant it nicely but it seems very obnoxious to me.

I suppose if he had dropped the K on the table since his hands were shaking uncontrollably and was forced to play it as a penalty card that the refusal of this would also be 'unsporting'?

I suppose that if your partner responded incorrectly to RKC because of his nerves and you bid 7H missing the ace of trumps, the gentlemen should allow you to score 6H because clearly that's what you would have reached had your partner not been as bad nervous?

Was this the Spingold or was Sutherlin visiting you in kindergarten?

[Phil]

hanp, on Mar 19 2010, 12:53 PM, said:

Phil, on Mar 18 2010, 01:40 PM, said:

hanp, on Mar 18 2010, 12:04 PM, said:

I don't get this at all, is this supposed to be sportsmanship? I'm sure he meant it nicely but it seems very obnoxious to me.

I suppose if he had dropped the K on the table since his hands were shaking uncontrollably and was forced to play it as a penalty card that the refusal of this would also be 'unsporting'?

I suppose that if your partner responded incorrectly to RKC because of his nerves and you bid 7H missing the ace of trumps, the gentlemen should allow you to score 6H because clearly that's what you would have reached had your partner not been as bad nervous?

Was this the Spingold or was Sutherlin visiting you in kindergarten?

Han if you can't see the differences between my example and yours I won't bother to explain them.

[Rossoneri]

Siegmund, on Mar 18 2010, 07:42 PM, said:

The feature about Meckwell's behavior that sticks in my craw is that they waited until their opponent opened 2♦ and then protested -- surely at this level they looked at their opponents' convention cards at the start of the match (or the first time they were seated at this pair's table.)

There would have been nothing wrong with saying, as soon as they became aware that their opponents were playing a Multi, hey, we need a director, and either a written defence gets provided or the multi gets removed from the system card and the opps take a few moments to adjust the rest of their system accordingly.

To inspect the opponents' convention card, be aware that they are playing an illegal convention, and then sit back and save your director call as a "secret weapon" to wreck your opponents' system in mid-match when they don't have time to discuss alternatives, and quite possibly get a board thrown out and trade it for a favorable artificial score (ok, this is the ACBL, we don't have an "automatic 60/30" rule for illegal conventions like the EBU, but there is usually some kind of protection for the non-offending side)... I find that grossly unethical.

Disclaimers: yes, I am only 90% sure that's what they did, not 100% sure; yes, I have something of an axe to grind re Meckwell (a longstanding refusal to fully disclose their own system in years past); no, I wasn't there at the table and I don't have any personal experience of the involved players.

All I can say is: Close, but not exactly what happened.

And the pair in question were not disadvantaged in the end as they switched to normal weak 2s.

[raist]

ok. instead of speculating and/or forming opinions based on what little facts we have, i hope this information helps.

here is what i've heard from someone who was there.

1. before Ng-Tan played the first quarter against Nickell-Katz, they mentioned that they play multi. and Nickell said "it's ok we have a defense"

2. later, Meckwell took over from Nickell-Katz and Ng-Tan informed them about multi and they said "let's see how it goes"

3. then when Ng opened multi 2D, Meckstroth called the TD and suggested that a procedural penalty be imposed as Ng-Tan did not provide printed defence. Ng showed a handwritten defence copied from the internet and Meckstroth said "can't read it" (not sure if it was really illegible)

4. eventually director ruled that Ng-Tan had to give up multi 2d opening. not sure if procedural penalty was imposed, but i believe not

[the hog]

Well if what Raist said happened is accurate, then what can I say? behaviour like this is reprehensible.
I would love to hear from someone who was there or knows for sure> Dave? Rossoneri?

[Hanoi5]

The only weird thing would be:

Quote

Ng showed a handwritten defence copied from the internet and Meckstroth said "can't read it" (not sure if it was really illegible)

But it depends whether it was readable or not. Also the Director's behaviour is not adequate, I think.

[Fluffy]

The_Hog, on Mar 20 2010, 11:32 AM, said:

Well if what Raist said happened is accurate, then what can I say? behaviour like this is reprehensible.

you are being very soft with them if this is true , what comes to my mind is what a pair of ass*** mot****ers. But only if that was true, I am sure it is being exagerated by someone who doesn't like M-R much.

[Rossoneri]

raist, on Mar 20 2010, 11:18 AM, said:

ok. instead of speculating and/or forming opinions based on what little facts we have, i hope this information helps.

here is what i've heard from someone who was there.

1. before Ng-Tan played the first quarter against Nickell-Katz, they mentioned that they play multi. and Nickell said "it's ok we have a defense"

2. later, Meckwell took over from Nickell-Katz and Ng-Tan informed them about multi and they said "let's see how it goes"

3. then when Ng opened multi 2D, Meckstroth called the TD and suggested that a procedural penalty be imposed as Ng-Tan did not provide printed defence. Ng showed a handwritten defence copied from the internet and Meckstroth said "can't read it" (not sure if it was really illegible)

4. eventually director ruled that Ng-Tan had to give up multi 2d opening. not sure if procedural penalty was imposed, but i believe not

We probably both heard from the same source, but yes, this is correct.

[mrdct]

As far as I can work out from the ACBL website, if you play a Multi 2♦ in a "NABC+" event that permits such methods, you need to do three things:

1. Give a description of your "SuperChart" method to the director-in-charge they day before you intend to use them. I believe this needs to be in writing and must include suggested defences (plural).

2. Pre-alert you opponents at the start of each segment.

3. Give a copy of the same stuff you gave the director-in-charge to your opponents who will be allowed to refer to same during the bidding.

The relevant regulations are silent as to whether the material submitted in writing needs to be printed or hand written, but I think it is fairly implied that it need to be legible. Given the fairly messy hand written convention card that Meckwell used at the last USBF trials, Ng-Tan's notes must have been pretty bad if that satisfies the ACBL's legibility threshold.

Again, unless you were actually there and have the real facts none of us here really know what happened; but if raist's report is accurate Meckstroth should be immediately referred to the Intergalactic BDIU Committee (google it).