[kfay]

mrdct, on Mar 20 2010, 07:45 AM, said:

"SuperChart"

Midchart


Anyway if that's the real story it's pretty disgusting, imo.

If I were a director and a player asked me to dish out a PP for informing them the play a midchart convention and providing a written defense (legible or illegible) I'd slap a double PP on them so fast it would make their heads spin.

Can't read it, wtf? I'd like to see them give a written defense in Malay. If that is the true story, it's unbelievably... wow.

[aguahombre]

mrdct, on Mar 20 2010, 06:45 AM, said:

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.

http://usbf.org/docs/2009usbc/acblcards/Me...rothRodwell.jpg

(You might have to fill in the ...'s to use this link)


At first glance, my reaction was the same to their hand-written CC; and I wondered why one of them couldn't afford a computor to generate something clearer.

But, then, as I started reading it ---I conluded that it was quite clear, though not asthetically pleasing. And, for instance, in the section for attitude, count, and suit preference--the hand written (large) numbers 1,2,and 3 to indicate priority probably would not be as clear if a computor was used to type a number where an "x" normally appears.

[ArtK78]

Is there something to prevent a pair from generating a clear computer-printed convention card and then adding a few clearly printed notes on those few areas that need clarification?

Really, this is a pretty silly discussion. It is not difficult for a pair to produce an easy to read convention card, whether hand written or computer generated or both. And for a pair at this level of competition to throw something together that looks like crap is hard to understand.

[Winstonm]

If you ever read Bob Hamman's book, "At the Table" you would understand what transpired. This wasn't the Dallas Regional or a club game - this was in the Vanderbilt, "and we play hardball, there", according to Hamman.

[Rossoneri]

kfay, on Mar 20 2010, 02:25 PM, said:

mrdct, on Mar 20 2010, 07:45 AM, said:

"SuperChart"

Midchart


Anyway if that's the real story it's pretty disgusting, imo.

If I were a director and a player asked me to dish out a PP for informing them the play a midchart convention and providing a written defense (legible or illegible) I'd slap a double PP on them so fast it would make their heads spin.

Can't read it, wtf? I'd like to see them give a written defense in Malay. If that is the true story, it's unbelievably... wow.

I was told they spent half an hour writing out the defence.

In any case, I don't think any of the four in the team know Malay, probably a better chance of asking them to write it in Chinese.

[the hog]

Fluffy, on Mar 20 2010, 07:00 PM, said:

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.

Wow Fluffy, tell me what you really think.

[the hog]

ArtK78, on Mar 20 2010, 11:02 PM, said:

Is there something to prevent a pair from generating a clear computer-printed convention card and then adding a few clearly printed notes on those few areas that need clarification?

Really, this is a pretty silly discussion.  It is not difficult for a pair to produce an easy to read convention card, whether hand written or computer generated or both.  And for a pair at this level of competition to throw something together that looks like crap is hard to understand.

I think you are bending over backwards to be an apologist Art. Fwiw I looked at their, (M/R), convention card on line. It really is full of obfuscation and took me about 15 minutes to work out what bids might mean.

[ArtK78]

The_Hog, on Mar 20 2010, 08:17 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Mar 20 2010, 11:02 PM, said:

Is there something to prevent a pair from generating a clear computer-printed convention card and then adding a few clearly printed notes on those few areas that need clarification?

Really, this is a pretty silly discussion.  It is not difficult for a pair to produce an easy to read convention card, whether hand written or computer generated or both.  And for a pair at this level of competition to throw something together that looks like crap is hard to understand.

I think you are bending over backwards to be an apologist Art. Fwiw I looked at their, (M/R), convention card on line. It really is full of obfuscation and took me about 15 minutes to work out what bids might mean.

Hardly.

I am talking about the MR card that is displayed on the website referred to earlier.

What a piece of crap. Even if you can make out what it says on it, how can anyone be anything but embarrassed to put it on the table?

[the hog]

OK - sorry, misunderstood.

[Trinidad]

Winstonm, on Mar 20 2010, 05:14 PM, said:

If you ever read Bob Hamman's book, "At the Table" you would understand what transpired.  This wasn't the Dallas Regional or a club game - this was in the Vanderbilt, "and we play hardball, there", according to Hamman.

This is still only bridge. I heard another player say: "There is no condo with a pool at stake." Ok. These guys are paid by Mr. Nickel to win the Vanderbilt. Are they sure that he wants them to win like this?

Rik

[TimG]

Trinidad, on Mar 20 2010, 08:58 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 20 2010, 05:14 PM, said:

If you ever read Bob Hamman's book, "At the Table" you would understand what transpired.  This wasn't the Dallas Regional or a club game - this was in the Vanderbilt, "and we play hardball, there", according to Hamman.

This is still only bridge. I heard another player say: "There is no condo with a pool at stake." Ok. These guys are paid by Mr. Nickel to win the Vanderbilt. Are they sure that he wants them to win like this?

Mr. Nickel is surely aware of their behavior and continues to hire them year after year.

[gnasher]

Winstonm, on Mar 20 2010, 05:14 PM, said:

If you ever read Bob Hamman's book, "At the Table" you would understand what transpired.  This wasn't the Dallas Regional or a club game - this was in the Vanderbilt, "and we play hardball, there", according to Hamman.

I don't think anyone has any difficulty in understanding what is alleged to have happened; the question is whether we approve or not. I don't see how that's affected by knowing what some other top player would do - if you consider an action wrong, you will still consider it wrong even if you know that half the world would do it.

[billw55]

Winstonm, on Mar 20 2010, 11:14 AM, said:

If you ever read Bob Hamman's book, "At the Table" you would understand what transpired. This wasn't the Dallas Regional or a club game - this was in the Vanderbilt, "and we play hardball, there", according to Hamman.

I guess that answers my previous question.

[crazy4hoop]

http://usbf.org/docs...rothRodwell.jpg

Access forbidden, wtf?!?

[jjbrr]

crazy4hoop, on Mar 22 2010, 11:10 PM, said:

http://usbf.org/docs...rothRodwell.jpg

Access forbidden, wtf?!?

http://usbf.org/docs...usbc/acblcards/

try this instead

[crazy4hoop]

thx

[bluecalm]

I think their behavior is pathetic if described correctly.
The point of the rule is clearly to give opponent good defense if the needed it. MR played against multi hundreds of times, they clearly enforced the rule to throw off opponents psychologically and did that against spirit of the game.

It's even more pathetic considering that they enforced the rule which is very controversial, against what rest of the world is used to and intended to defend lol's not pro players. They also deceived their opponents verbally by suggesting they have no problems with multi.

As to their card. LOL. I am happy they got eliminated in R16 by the better team. Served them well. There are icons of the game and are behaving like kids. Shame !

[amethyst]

Finally, access to a computer ...
1) 2D used by Ng-Tan only showed 1 weak major, not a true multi.
2) Ng asked directors for copy of ACBL defense before start of Vanderbilt but copy could not be found, so Ng looked it up online and hand wrote it in large letters over 3 pages.
3) 1st rd opps Zaleski thought nothing of Ng-Tan 2D. Ng-Tan repaid favor by not complaining that Zaleski & p did not have CC available at table.
4) still don't understand y Meckwell did not call director when they were informed at beginning of set.

I was there!

[nige1]

amethyst, on Mar 30 2010, 08:05 AM, said:

Finally, access to a computer ...

• 2D used by Ng-Tan only showed 1 weak major, not a true multi.
  
  
• Ng asked directors for copy of ACBL defense before start of Vanderbilt but copy could not be found, so Ng looked it up online and hand wrote it in large letters over 3 pages.
  
  
• 1st rd opps Zaleski thought nothing of Ng-Tan 2D.  Ng-Tan repaid favor by not complaining that Zaleski & p did not have CC available at table.
  
  
• still don't understand y Meckwell did not call director when they were informed at beginning of set. 

I was there!

Wow but thank you for clarifying

[hanp]

OK assuming that this is all correct I take back what I wrote earlier in this thread.

I don't understand it though, if the opponents had clearly written defenses with them, why did the director rule against them?