[G_R__E_G]

hanp, on Mar 30 2010, 09:25 AM, said:

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?

I'm wondering the same thing Han - something seems odd with this. The approved defense isn't that long:

http://web2.acbl.org...database/3b.htm

If this was written out over three pages I find it hard to believe that it was that difficult to read (unless he has a doctor's handwriting).

[peachy]

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

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!

I was one of those who originally did not share the outrage that most folks here expressed.

On 1), if the rules say you need an approved defense, then you need one (it may be silly, and I agree it is - but what can one do about changing the rules on the day of the event - nothing)

On 2) I believe you if that is what you heard yourself the TD's say.

However, the TD's do have copies, at least one. Therefore, someone is telling porkies or someone or several someones have had a misunderstanding. Whatever it was, there were easy solutions by Ng-Tan to correct their own mistake, other than write in large letters on three sheets of paper.

*The locals are friendly, ask somebody to help you get the document.

*There are lots of other players in Vanderbilt who play Multi - ask around, borrow the paper, or make a copy of it at the hotel's business center.

*Make a printout of the document from the webpage, at the hotel's business center.

*There are several Fedex Office (formerly: Kinko's) in town, have a teammate or friend, even a stranger [most people like to help a visitor], go to one and print it off the internet.

Coming to the tournament without having that silly piece of paper that the tournament rules required, was bad planning. I would take personal responsibility for that and would not change the subject into complaining about the opposing team's complete lack of class when I was the one at fault. Having read your point 4), I have now more sympathy for the Singapore team than I did before.


As to 3) this has nothing to do with it. If someone else gets by without being in compliance, it has nothing to do with "my" obligation to be in compliance.

Agree on 4). They should have called the TD in the beginning if they were going to call.

[mohitz]

peachy, on Mar 31 2010, 12:11 AM, said:

I would take personal responsibility for that and would not change the subject into complaining about the opposing team's complete lack of class when I was the one at fault.

This thread isn't about Team Ng complaining, is it?

[Trinidad]

amethyst, on Mar 30 2010, 02:05 PM, said:

1)  2D used by Ng-Tan only showed 1 weak major, not a true multi.

That's exactly the variation that Meckwell used to play. The defense in the database must be approved for that.

amethyst, on Mar 30 2010, 02:05 PM, said:

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.

So, they provided a defense. Meckstroth claimed he couldn't read it.

amethyst, on Mar 30 2010, 02:05 PM, said:

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.

That's not relevant.

amethyst, on Mar 30 2010, 02:05 PM, said:

4) still don't understand y Meckwell did not call director when they were informed at beginning of set. 

I still don't understand why the TD made his ruling when there actually was a defense at the table.

Rik

[Rossoneri]

mohitz, on Mar 30 2010, 06:55 PM, said:

peachy, on Mar 31 2010, 12:11 AM, said:

I would take personal responsibility for that and would not change the subject into complaining about the opposing team's complete lack of class when I was the one at fault.

This thread isn't about Team Ng complaining, is it?

Quite right. When Kelvin (Ng) spoke to me, he said it was his fault for not preparing a copy of the defence in the first place.

[amethyst]

No one's complaining! Someone picked up on the situation from vugraph. Someone said, We don't know what really happened. Someone provided some facts. I'm backing up those facts. The "law's the law" sure, w/c cud have been enforced at the beginning of the set when opps were duly informed.

[peachy]

Rossoneri, on Mar 30 2010, 09:09 PM, said:

mohitz, on Mar 30 2010, 06:55 PM, said:

peachy, on Mar 31 2010, 12:11 AM, said:

I would take personal responsibility for that and would not change the subject into complaining about the opposing team's complete lack of class when I was the one at fault.

This thread isn't about Team Ng complaining, is it?

Quite right. When Kelvin (Ng) spoke to me, he said it was his fault for not preparing a copy of the defence in the first place.

I was reacting (overreacting, rather) to later posts. Sorry. You are right.

[Bbradley62]

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

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.

OP said the Ng vs Nickell match was the first round. Was this a three-way? The primary reason I'm asking is because this thread seems to be full of inaccurate statements of alleged fact.

[joemanjo]

Got in the tail end of all the posts, so I do not know if this point has been made.

As I understand it, the 2D multi call was made at the table when one of Meckwell called TD. At this point in time, they surely would have discussed many many Multi defenses, I have no doubt about that. Only, they may not have FINALISED which one they will use against MULTI FOR THAT MATCH. Given this situation, I think it is right for them to call TD since they would be greatly disadvantaged if each partner was on a DIFFERENT PAGE. By insisting that a prepared defense be given, Meckwell ensured that they would not have any misunderstanding arising from their lack of agreement on WHAT TO PLAY - atleast they would play the prepared defense on BOTH SIDES of the screen.

In the process, if the opponents got the rough end of the stick, too bad!

Manoj.

[mohitz]

joemanjo, on Mar 31 2010, 10:26 PM, said:

Got in the tail end of all the posts, so I do not know if this point has been made.

Manoj,

If you read the posts above, you will find that it seems Meckwell were made aware that the opponents played Multi BEFORE the match started.

[peachy]

mohitz, on Mar 31 2010, 12:01 PM, said:

joemanjo, on Mar 31 2010, 10:26 PM, said:

Got in the tail end of all the posts, so I do not know if this point has been made.

Manoj,

If you read the posts above, you will find that it seems Meckwell were made aware that the opponents played Multi BEFORE the match started.

None of the information shared here came from the players themselves, and some of the pieces of information are conflicting.

[jjbrr]

peachy, on Mar 31 2010, 12:45 PM, said:

mohitz, on Mar 31 2010, 12:01 PM, said:

joemanjo, on Mar 31 2010, 10:26 PM, said:

Got in the tail end of all the posts, so I do not know if this point has been made.

Manoj,

If you read the posts above, you will find that it seems Meckwell were made aware that the opponents played Multi BEFORE the match started.

None of the information shared here came from the players themselves, and some of the pieces of information are conflicting.

I agree with this. So far we've gotten some speculation and then, possibly, some facts from people who seem to be very biased in favor of the Singapore team. They may very well have told the story exactly as it happened, and I think it's likely that they have, but until either Meckstroth or Rodwell or the TD come in and explain what they perceived to have happened, then I think it's inappropriate to judge anyone's actions.

[quiddity]

jjbrr, on Mar 31 2010, 01:51 PM, said:

until either Meckstroth or Rodwell or the TD come in and explain what they perceived to have happened, then I think it's inappropriate to judge anyone's actions.

If this were true I can't imagine why anyone would bother to "come in and explain". Silence would be a very effective defense.

[nige1]

Bridge was regarded as a game for Ladies and Gentlemen but, even then, there was a Proprieties section in the laws, to address matters of ethics, politeness, and consideration for others.

Now, the laws stipulate that after an infraction, it is right and proper to take full legal advantage. Hence the only possible sanctions against "unsporting" behaviour are social sanctions.

According to Bob "Hardball" Hamman, players at top-level should give no quarter. Nor should they expect any. At the other extreme are experts like Hugh Kelsey and Eric Crowhurst, reluctant to call a director for any infraction.

The sporting dilemma is harder for a partnership in a team than in a pairs event.

Unlike some posters, I feel that relevant incidents are worthy of comment, even if we must rely on the evidence of only a few eye-witnesses like Trinidad and Amethyst.

The April Bridge World editorial is relevant to this topic. It discusses sportsmanship or the lack of it, in Bridge and other games.

[Siegmund]

Quote

Now, the laws stipulate that after an infraction, it is right and proper to take full legal advantage.

They also stipulate calling the director immediately after attention is drawn to an irregularity, and warn that failure to do so may cost the non-offending side their right to redress. Given the version of facts we've heard in this thread, I can at least imagine a director interpreting Meckwell's non-objection at the start of the round as an acceptance of their opponents' system, and refusing him satisfaction beyond obtaining a copy of the defence when the incident arose.

[kenberg]

I read a number of these posts, perhaps not all of them. Possibly not previously* noted:

Meckstroth is a member of the Competition and Conventions Committee, which among other things sets the rules about providing written defenses. (I recently stumbled on this while looking for other stuff.) Maybe it's grasping at straws, but is it possible that as a member of this committee he decided that it was his obligation to always call attention to a breach of the laws that he helped to promulgate?


Crazy maybe, or self-serving maybe, but I can imagine this as being a contributing factor.


The sort of behavior described simply isn't my style. But I'll say this: After all of this publicity I bet that next year everyone will show up with the proper written defenses!

* I mean that maybe this implication of him being on the committee has not been noted, I realize there has been mention of his role in writing some of the rules.

[the hog]

joemanjo, on Mar 31 2010, 11:56 PM, said:

Got in the tail end of all the posts, so I do not know if this point has been made.

As I understand it, the 2D multi call was made at the table when one of Meckwell called TD. At this point in time, they surely would have discussed many many Multi defenses, I have no doubt about that. Only, they may not have FINALISED which one they will use against MULTI FOR THAT MATCH. Given this situation, I think it is right for them to call TD since they would be greatly disadvantaged if each partner was on a DIFFERENT PAGE. By insisting that a prepared defense be given, Meckwell ensured that they would not have any misunderstanding arising from their lack of agreement on WHAT TO PLAY - atleast they would play the prepared defense on BOTH SIDES of the screen.

In the process, if the opponents got the rough end of the stick, too bad!

Manoj.

Yes, of course I am sure that Meckstroth and Rodwell both play a different defence to a multi. rofl

[Rossoneri]

peachy, on Mar 31 2010, 05:45 PM, said:

None of the information shared here came from the players themselves, and some of the pieces of information are conflicting.

Some of the information shared here came from one of the players concerned, albeit through someone else.

[Codo]

Rossoneri, on Apr 1 2010, 10:09 AM, said:

peachy, on Mar 31 2010, 05:45 PM, said:

None of the information shared here came from the players themselves, and some of the pieces of information are conflicting.

Some of the information shared here came from one of the players concerned, albeit through someone else.

But these informations do not fit well into the view of the Meckwell supporters, so they (some of them) like to ignore them.

[jdonn]

Codo, on Apr 1 2010, 01:46 AM, said:

Rossoneri, on Apr 1 2010, 10:09 AM, said:

peachy, on Mar 31 2010, 05:45 PM, said:

None of the information shared here came from the players themselves, and some of the pieces of information are conflicting.

Some of the information shared here came from one of the players concerned, albeit through someone else.

But these informations do not fit well into the view of the Meckwell supporters, so they (some of them) like to ignore them.

Oh yes this thread is sooooo unfairly pro meckwell...