[Trinidad]

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

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...

That is nonsense.

This thread is only unfair against Meckwell if two conditions are met:
1) The story is false
2) The discussed behavior is indeed bad

If the story is true, there is nothing unfair about telling it. And if the behavior is perfectly ok, how can that be unfair to Meckwell?

So far, people who are close to the fire are confirming that the essence of the story is true. Admittedly, those people are close to the Ng camp. I would like to hear this story from the Meckwell perspective (or the perspective of the TD). But the silence is deafening.

Rik

[gnasher]

Trinidad, on Apr 1 2010, 10:35 AM, said:

I would like to hear this story from the Meckwell perspective (or the perspective of the TD). But the silence is deafening.

No it isn't. The silence may say that:
- They don't know that this discussion is taking place.
- They have better things to do with their time.
- They don't wish to dignify uninformed and unjustified criticism by responding to it.
- They know that arguing with opinionated individuals who have already made up their minds is a waste of time.
- They don't care what we think or say about them.

If I became aware that I was being unfairly criticised by a bunch of idiots on an internet newsgroup that I never frequented, I would treat them with the contempt that they deserved, by ignoring them.

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on Apr 1 2010, 10:56 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Apr 1 2010, 10:35 AM, said:

I would like to hear this story from the Meckwell perspective (or the perspective of the TD). But the silence is deafening.

No it isn't. The silence may say that:
- They don't know that this discussion is taking place.
- They have better things to do with their time.
- They don't wish to dignify uninformed and unjustified criticism by responding to it.
- They know that arguing with opinionated individuals who have already made up their minds is a waste of time.
- They don't care what we think or say about them.

If I became aware that I was being unfairly criticised by a bunch of idiots on an internet newsgroup that I never frequented, I would treat them with the contempt that they deserved, by ignoring them.

I fully agree with the part of your post starting from "The silence may say that". I don't know what the "No it isn't." part is doing in your post.

Unless I missed something, there hasn't been any version from the Meckwell side or the TD. In that case, it is fair to say that the silence is deafening. You give a list of perfectly good explanations why the silence could be deafening. But that list doesn't make the silence less deafening.

Rik

[TimG]

Trinidad, on Apr 1 2010, 06:39 AM, said:

Unless I missed something, there hasn't been any version from the Meckwell side or the TD. In that case, it is fair to say that the silence is deafening.

That just means that there is silence, not that it reveals anything significant.

[gnasher]

My understanding of the phrase "deafening silence" is a silence which is not merely complete, but has significance or tells us something useful. The argument I was trying to make is that, because of the wide range of possible explanations for their silence, the silence has no significance and tells us nothing useful.

If by "the silence is deafening" you meant merely "Meckwell have made no public statement about this", then so far as I know you're right.

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on Apr 1 2010, 02:00 PM, said:

My understanding of the phrase "deafening silence" is a silence which is not merely complete, but has significance or tells us something useful.  The argument I was trying to make is that, because of the wide range of possible explanations for their silence, the silence has no significance and tells us nothing useful.

If by "the silence is deafening" you meant merely "Meckwell have made no public statement about this", then so far as I know you're right.

English is not my native language, so I could easily be wrong. Language can be very subtle and this may be one of those instances.

In any case, what I meant with "the silence is deafening" was something in between:

They* were completely silent while they could have reacted (not at all implying that they owed us a reaction, were expected to react or should have reacted). If this meaning doesn't fit the phrase that I used, please consider the intended meaning rather than the correct meaning.

I used the phrase in response to Josh' claim that this thread was unfairly biased against Meckwell. The reason for this perceived bias is simply that no one from the Meckwell side* has contributed to the thread while they could have. Then it is not a miracle that the thread ends up biased.

Rik

* "They" and "the Meckwell side" refers to the "Meckwell side" in a way equivalent to the contributions we got from the Ng side: Friends, kibitzers, players, team mates, the TD, etc. who have some knowledge of what happened, but can see it from the perspective of Meckwell. (To me the silence is deafening because we are talking about a relatively large group of people who could have reacted, not only Meckstroth or Rodwell.)

[hanp]

It does sound good, the silence is deafening.

[jjbrr]

Trinidad, on Apr 1 2010, 08:53 AM, said:

I used the phrase in response to Josh' claim that this thread was unfairly biased against Meckwell. The reason for this perceived bias is simply that no one from the Meckwell side* has contributed to the thread while they could have. Then it is not a miracle that the thread ends up biased.

No, I'm pretty sure that's not it at all.

[Bbradley62]

Trinidad, on Apr 1 2010, 08:53 AM, said:

I used the phrase in response to Josh' claim that this thread was unfairly biased against Meckwell. The reason for this perceived bias is simply that no one from the Meckwell side* has contributed to the thread while they could have. Then it is not a miracle that the thread ends up biased.

Rik

* "They" and "the Meckwell side" refers to the "Meckwell side" in a way equivalent to the contributions we got from the Ng side: Friends, kibitzers, players, team mates, the TD, etc. who have some knowledge of what happened, but can see it from the perspective of Meckwell. (To me the silence is deafening because we are talking about a relatively large group of people who could have reacted, not only Meckstroth or Rodwell.)

At least four posters on the first page of this thread (jjbrr, aquahombre, csgibson and peachy) took Meckwell's side. Are you really expecting a world-champion team to reply here?

[peachy]

Trinidad, on Apr 1 2010, 08:53 AM, said:

Rik

* "They" and "the Meckwell side" refers to the "Meckwell side" in a way equivalent to the contributions we got from the Ng side: Friends, kibitzers, players, team mates, the TD, etc. who have some knowledge of what happened, but can see it from the perspective of Meckwell.

The TD?
None of the four players or the TD have spoken here, as far as I know. This is also not a court of law, or a war with camps and sides. Just speculation on a product of the rumor mill.

[aguahombre]

Bbradley62, on Apr 1 2010, 09:40 AM, said:

At least four posters on the first page of this thread (jjbrr, aquahombre, csgibson and peachy) took Meckwell's side. Are you really expecting a world-champion team to reply here?

Nobody appointed the four of us as spokespersons. We were just giving our opinions, like everyone else. I would have enjoyed reading something from Meckwell, but certainly understand that we should not hold our breath for that.

[awm]

Regardless of facts or accusations thereof, I think there are some interesting topics in this thread.

In particular, there is a type of gamesmanship that involves calling the director at any minor impropriety, and pressing for the most favorable possible ruling in these situations. This is clearly legal according to the laws, but arguably "unsporting." It's interesting to ask whether we think this kind of attitude is bad for the game, or whether it's just people doing their best to win. Bob Hamman implies in his book, for example, that he thinks this sort of gamesmanship is part of what separates a good player from a great one (admittedly he seems to be referring more to psychological games at the table than to director calls). Some of the opinions expressed here are rather contrary, suggesting that such attitudes from our elite players are bad for the game.

Another question is whether such attitudes depend on the opposition/state of the match. Perhaps this type of action is okay in a closely-fought match between top professionals, but not okay when holding a substantial lead against a much weaker team? Then again, what if the match is close against a supposedly much weaker team (I think this was the case in the Nickell-Ng match)?

There's also the observation that some people tend to get much more favorable treatment from directors than others (in particular "famous" players who serve on a lot of league committees, like Jeff Meckstroth, frequently seem to get favorable treatment). One can ask whether this places such a person under additional "sportsmanship" constraints (i.e. he knows he can get the board thrown out if he asks, but he should just make sure a suitable defense is provided because he knows this is what would happen if most other players called in this situation,) or not (it's not Meckstroth's fault that directors seem to "like" him, he's just asking for a ruling like anyone else), or even say that he should "set an example" by making sure the rules (which in some cases he helped write) are enforced to the letter.

[jjbrr]

awm, on Apr 1 2010, 11:05 AM, said:

Regardless of facts or accusations thereof, I think there are some interesting topics in this thread.

In particular, there is a type of gamesmanship that involves calling the director at any minor impropriety, and pressing for the most favorable possible ruling in these situations.

...

Another question is whether such attitudes depend on the opposition/state of the match. Perhaps this type of action is okay in a closely-fought match between top professionals, but not okay when holding a substantial lead against a much weaker team? Then again, what if the match is close against a supposedly much weaker team (I think this was the case in the Nickell-Ng match)?

...

There's also the observation that some people tend to get much more favorable treatment from directors than others (in particular "famous" players who serve on a lot of league committees, like Jeff Meckstroth, frequently seem to get favorable treatment).

Please cite evidence that any of the above is true or played any role in the events that happened.

[awm]

jjbrr, on Apr 1 2010, 12:10 PM, said:

Please cite evidence that any of the above is true or played any role in the events that happened.

Since the attitude seems to be to discount the opinions of anyone as to what actually happened (even eye witnesses), I don't suppose I can cite evidence that anything actually occurred.

My post was making general points though about what "sportsmanship" means and whether being a bit of a "rules lawyer" is just the expected "do everything you can to win" attitude that one would want from elite players in any activity, or is somehow unsporting and taking advantage... or if the opinion is more nuanced based on the situation and who the people involved are.

Certainly the "accusation" in this particular case relates very obviously to these points.

[junyi_zhu]

awm, on Apr 1 2010, 05:05 PM, said:

Regardless of facts or accusations thereof, I think there are some interesting topics in this thread.

In particular, there is a type of gamesmanship that involves calling the director at any minor impropriety, and pressing for the most favorable possible ruling in these situations. This is clearly legal according to the laws, but arguably "unsporting." It's interesting to ask whether we think this kind of attitude is bad for the game, or whether it's just people doing their best to win. Bob Hamman implies in his book, for example, that he thinks this sort of gamesmanship is part of what separates a good player from a great one (admittedly he seems to be referring more to psychological games at the table than to director calls). Some of the opinions expressed here are rather contrary, suggesting that such attitudes from our elite players are bad for the game.

Another question is whether such attitudes depend on the opposition/state of the match. Perhaps this type of action is okay in a closely-fought match between top professionals, but not okay when holding a substantial lead against a much weaker team? Then again, what if the match is close against a supposedly much weaker team (I think this was the case in the Nickell-Ng match)?

There's also the observation that some people tend to get much more favorable treatment from directors than others (in particular "famous" players who serve on a lot of league committees, like Jeff Meckstroth, frequently seem to get favorable treatment). One can ask whether this places such a person under additional "sportsmanship" constraints (i.e. he knows he can get the board thrown out if he asks, but he should just make sure a suitable defense is provided because he knows this is what would happen if most other players called in this situation,) or not (it's not Meckstroth's fault that directors seem to "like" him, he's just asking for a ruling like anyone else), or even say that he should "set an example" by making sure the rules (which in some cases he helped write) are enforced to the letter.

In my observation, the so-called sportsmanship occurs only when the sportsman(woman) has led a large margin.

[jjbrr]

awm, on Apr 1 2010, 11:43 AM, said:

jjbrr, on Apr 1 2010, 12:10 PM, said:

Please cite evidence that any of the above is true or played any role in the events that happened.

Since the attitude seems to be to discount the opinions of anyone as to what actually happened (even eye witnesses), I don't suppose I can cite evidence that anything actually occurred.

My post was making general points though about what "sportsmanship" means and whether being a bit of a "rules lawyer" is just the expected "do everything you can to win" attitude that one would want from elite players in any activity, or is somehow unsporting and taking advantage... or if the opinion is more nuanced based on the situation and who the people involved are.

Certainly the "accusation" in this particular case relates very obviously to these points.

It just strikes me as inappropriate to encourage conversation with the sole purpose of stoking the coals.

I also can't believe one of your examples is that you perceive Meckwell get preferential treatment and thus they have the onus of taking extra precautions in regards to their sportsmanship lest you consider them criminals. That's pretty sick.

In before the peanut gallery chimes in with "Back in 1983 during a club game, I witnessed Meckstroth get a favorable ruling, and therefore he can get opponents' conventions barred whenever he pleases!"

[ArtK78]

jjbrr, on Apr 1 2010, 01:14 PM, said:

I also can't believe one of your examples is that you perceive Meckwell get preferential treatment and thus they have the onus of taking extra precautions in regards to their sportsmanship lest you consider them criminals. That's pretty sick.

While I would not phrase it exactly in that manner, IMO the general concept makes perfect sense. Those who are perceived as being among the greats of the game should live by a higher standard. Surely Meckwell can deal with things like the opponents not having two copies of an approved defense for Multi at their fingertips without calling for the TD, even though they have every right to call the TD. Based on the presentation of the facts, the manner in which this matter was (allegedly) dealt with casts Meckwell in a poor light.

I don't see anything wrong with the discussion of the issues brought up by Adam. He did not bring up the issues in an accusatory manner (which is something that cannot be said of other posters). The issues were raised so that they can be discussed openly.

[awm]

jjbrr, on Apr 1 2010, 01:14 PM, said:

I also can't believe one of your examples is that you perceive Meckwell get preferential treatment and thus they have the onus of taking extra precautions in regards to their sportsmanship lest you consider them criminals. That's pretty sick.

In before the peanut gallery chimes in with "Back in 1983 during a club game, I witnessed Meckstroth get a favorable ruling, and therefore he can get opponents' conventions barred whenever he pleases!"

I didn't say anything like that.

No one is considering anyone criminals. In fact, I've not even indicated whether I personally believe Meckstroth should be held to a higher standard here; it is not obvious to me either way.

The fact is that Jeff Meckstroth is well known to most of the directing staff, and they are probably on good terms with him. He's done a lot of service to the league as a whole, serving on various committees and so forth. He is known throughout bridge as being a great player. It's likely directors will give him the "benefit of the doubt" to a much greater degree than they would some young foreign player without the reputation and distinguished record. Directors also know that if they give Jeff Meckstroth a lousy and unfavorable ruling, he knows enough of the "powers that be" to lodge a complaint, whereas other players may not even know the procedures (much less have the contacts to make anything stick). It does seem likely that Jeff Meckstroth will get more favorable treatment than many other players do. Obviously this may or may not apply to the case in question; you can even disbelieve it entirely if you like, although there is a fairly substantial case record of directors (especially ACBL directors) ruling based on "who the people are" rather than the merits of the situation in question. We can get into this if you really want to, but honestly I don't think it's so much the point here.

Certainly there is a view that just because all the directors know Jeff Meckstroth doesn't mean he shouldn't expect the laws to be enforced, and that his opponents can always appeal if they feel the ruling was unfair to them. On the other hand, there is at least the perception that if Jeff Meckstroth frequently calls the director on very minor infractions and gets extremely favorable rulings, he is somehow abusing his power/stature in the game (even if the rulings are "by the book"). Again, it's not obvious to me what the "right answer" is but I think the discussion is worth having.

Even though most of us will never have Jeff Meckstroth's reputation or abilities, the situation where there is some minor infraction of law and we have to decide what to do is a common one. The situation where the director knows us (personally or by reputation) and there is at least an appearance that we might be able to influence the ruling is also a common one.

[jjbrr]

awm, on Apr 1 2010, 01:49 PM, said:

Directors also know that if they give Jeff Meckstroth a lousy and unfavorable ruling, he knows enough of the "powers that be" to lodge a complaint, whereas other players may not even know the procedures (much less have the contacts to make anything stick). It does seem likely that Jeff Meckstroth will get more favorable treatment than many other players do.

I don't understand how your conclusion that Jeff is more likely to get favorable treatment is because TDs fear his complaints and not solely because his young, foreign opponents don't know the rules. I must have missed the discussion where TDs complained about players and their hurtful complaints.

No kidding Meckstroth is likely to get better rulings as a result of knowing the rules. He knows when to call the director and I assume he can succinctly address the infraction. What does that have to do with anything at all?

How can you call enforcement of the law "extremely favorable rulings"? Perhaps the TD made a poor decision in this particular case, but there is no reason whatsoever to believe Meckstroth somehow goaded him into his decision.

He has more knowledge about the game in general than most people, too. Does that mean it's unethical if he uses his bridge skills against weaker players, thus depriving them of good results while unfairly earning himself his cheap "extremely favorable" results? If you know as much about the laws as he does, you, too, will get favorable rulings.

[hrothgar]

jjbrr, on Apr 1 2010, 11:24 PM, said:

How can you call enforcement of the law "extremely favorable rulings"?

Your analysis seems to assume that there is a strong correlation between

1. The Laws / regulations
2. The rulings generated by some random TD

My experience suggests otherwise

I'll go a step further:

I think that a significant portion of the rulings produced by the average TD are spotty, at best.

I suspect that an average level TD who is being "helped" by a top level pro is likely to produce "better" rulings than normal. (By better, I mean more likely to be in compliance with the rules / regulations).

Let us assume that said pro only "helps" the TD when it is in his interest to do so...