[Jlall]

So what Richard? I mean that is life. The stars get better rulings with the police, they don't wait in line to go to clubs, they get hotter women, bigger strike zones, more leniency on travels etc etc.

Plus as Jeremy says they are more likely to argue their case well since they know the rules better, and as awm implies the directors are more likely to be intimidated by them and the fans and the backlash etc etc.

I totally agree with the premise that if there is a close ruling in me vs Meckstroth or whatever, he'll probably win. Sucks, but that's life. What is Meckstroth really supposed to do about that, feel bad? Let's not forget he EARNED his status as a superstar, and that is one of the perks in his life. Is it fair? No. Is life fair? No.

The whole outrage that stars get preferential treatment especially when it comes to rulings in their sport really seems shocking and juvenile to me. Haven't we learned this kinda stuff yet?

As for THIS ruling, it really seems like it had nothing to do with it being Meckstroth, and the director made the right ruling. If the defense was written and not legible then the opponents did not have a defense to multi, as mandated by the ACBL. Is it somewhere in the laws that it has to be a printed out defense rather than written? I don't know the exact laws, but it wouldn't surprise me.

If the written defense was legible and it's not required to be printed rather than written, then the director made a bad call. Presumably Meckwell were arguing that they couldn't read it, so it becomes a judgement call for the director on whether or not they can read it. That is up to the director, and he made his ruling.

It is completely unfair to Meckwell to expect them to be "good sports" or to waive any possible penalties when the opponents have committed an infraction. I know everyone loves noble heroes, but to expect your opponents to do you any favors is nuts, no matter who they are.

[awm]

jjbrr, on Apr 1 2010, 03:24 PM, said:

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?

I think you are missing the point here. Knowing the laws is not at issue.

The situation where a pair is playing multi without the required defense has a number of possible remedies. These include: (1) Get them a copy of the defense, then allow play to continue (2) Tell both sides to play on, but allow the non-offending side to obtain an adjustment if they get a bad result that is clearly linked to the lack of defense (3) Throw out the board and/or reset the auction to before the multi bid occurred.

It is not obvious that any of these rulings are wrong, and we have seen all three approaches taken by directors in national-level events. However, I suspect that some pairs are more likely to get the favorable rulings than others...

It's not because the pairs who get favorable rulings "know the laws better." It's because the directors know the pairs better, or are on better terms with them, or have more at stake in making sure that they are happy with the ruling. In most cases this is not something directors do deliberately, but there is certainly evidence that all three rulings are occasionally made, and it does seem likely that the choice of which ruling to make depends somewhat on "who the people are."

If Meckwell are seen standing next to each other in a restroom at a point in a major event where they have information they could potentially pass to each other... what do you think the penalty is? I suspect it is a mild reprimand (hey this actually happened, didn't it?) because Meckwell's reputation is such that no one really thinks they would cheat. If Buratti and Lanzarotti are seen in the same situation... what do you think the penalty is? I suspect is is quite a bit more serious than a mild reprimand! How about a relatively unknown pair in the same situation?

This has nothing to do with "knowing the rules" or "knowing when to call the director."

To put it another way, when I get a lousy ruling I might whine to my friends or put up a poll on BBO forums. Either way, nothing will come of it. If Meckstroth got a lousy ruling, he might complain to the director-in-charge and the director making the ruling might be out a job the next nationals. Seems to me that if the director has to make a judgment call on a case involving me and Meckstroth, his own self-interest might have some influence on the result. And sure, I could in principle appeal, but it would hardly surprise me to find that a number of Jeff Meckstroth's friends or former teammates end up on the committee. With that said, if the proper ruling is in Jeff Meckstroth's favor doesn't he have every right to call the director in to rule? After all, I could otherwise potentially take advantage of him and increase my chances of an upset through unethical means.

[jjbrr]

hrothgar, on Apr 1 2010, 02:34 PM, said:

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...

I agree with everything you said.

It supports my argument that knowledge of the rules yields good rulings. To me, it should be clear that it has nothing to do with any perceived preferential treatment.

[Jlall]

Life is tough Adam!

[awm]

Jlall, on Apr 1 2010, 03:50 PM, said:

Life is tough Adam!

Yup. To some degree this kind of thing is inevitable.

But I do think it would be nice if directors tried a little harder to create at least the appearance of impartiality, and if the regulations were written a bit tighter way instead of deliberately leaving a lot of "wriggle-room" for this kind of "who the people are" ruling to occur.

Some of these things are tough calls, and more of those will always go to the top players than not. On the other hand, the incident where my team got a full board penalty for a cell phone going off and another team got only a 1/3 board penalty for the same thing in the same event seems somewhat beyond the pale.

[jjbrr]

awm, on Apr 1 2010, 02:48 PM, said:

To put it another way, when I get a lousy ruling I might whine to my friends or put up a poll on BBO forums. Either way, nothing will come of it. If Meckstroth got a lousy ruling, he might complain to the director-in-charge and the director making the ruling might be out a job the next nationals.

Come on. Sometimes people who aren't good at their jobs don't get rehired.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Apr 1 2010, 09:47 PM, said:

It is completely unfair to Meckwell to expect them to be "good sports"

It may be unrealistic, but I don't think it's unfair. I expect all of my opponents to be good sports. Most of them are, too, especially at the higher levels.

Quote

or to waive any possible penalties when the opponents have committed an infraction. I know everyone loves noble heroes, but to expect your opponents to do you any favors is nuts, no matter who they are.

I think most of us would consider that there are some breaches of the rules for which we wouldn't seek a penalty. For example, if an opponent ignores my "Stop" card, but no damage results, I don't usually call the director in the hope of having him penalised.

For all of us, there is a line between what we consider "sporting" and what we consider "doing the opponents a favour". We all draw that line in different places, but I think that very few players would think it sporting to act as Meckstroth is alleged to have acted.

[Jlall]

gnasher, on Apr 1 2010, 04:22 PM, said:

I expect all of my opponents to be good sports.

Guess that's where we're different, I don't expect any of my opps to behave in such a way and I don't see why it's fair to. They are well within their rights to gain any advantage they can within the laws, and I don't think less of any of my opps if they choose to do so.

If you would not do what Meckwell did then that's fine and nice but I don't understand expecting others to behave like you do.

They are playing a match in the highest level event possible and their opps broke a rule and they called the director, I think that's normal and would never crucify them for it even if I would not have done the same thing.

[Rodney26]

I was playing in one of the National Swisses against two foreign players (I'm from the US), one of whom is a top flight pro from what I can tell. The other player is not as well known to me but I was aware that he and my partner had had an unpleasant incident in the past where the pro refused to play on a team with my partner. About four boards in, the top flight pro took a trick as declarer, turned the trick, pondered for a minute and then asked to see the trick again. I shook my head thinking I should make this call as my partner was already a bit unhappy to catch this match. Dummy clucked his tongue at me and declarer started laughing.

At the end of the match, declarer advised me that I should play like a gentleman in the future, which I have to say didn't sit well with me. Not having played in too many top flight events, I still am not sure if it would be normal etiquette to let declarer see the trick or if the question was one put to a less experienced player in the hopes that I would acquiesce. This thread suggests the latter, although Justin or others could confirm whether that is true. The thought of asking to look at a trick I had already turned over in a national event would never even cross my mind. Is this a commonplace experience or was the pro engaging in some gamesmanship?

I think I would have preferred the Meckwell experience rather than having my sportsmanship questioned.

[jjbrr]

I show the LOL at the club, but not someone at a serious event.

[Jlall]

Usually if they turn it over and then ask like 1 second later I let them see it, but again I don't think this should be expected and I think many/most people would not do this. According to the laws I would not have to let them see it.

If they waited like 10+ seconds after turning it over obv I would never let them see it and I might LOL at them for even asking. I don't think anyone would let you turn it over, think for a minute, and then see it heh.

[gnasher]

In any event more serious than a club duplicate, I wouldn't let them see it. Forgetting what cards have gone is a bridge error; why should I let them off that?

Failing to provide a written defence to the Multi, on the other hand, is not a bridge error - it's an adminstrative failure.

[hrothgar]

Jlall, on Apr 1 2010, 11:47 PM, said:

So what Richard? I mean that is life. The stars get better rulings with the police, they don't wait in line to go to clubs, they get hotter women, bigger strike zones, more leniency on travels etc etc.

Hi Justin

I was simply trying to answer a specific question.

jjbrr asked how enforcing the laws could be considered extremely favorable rulings. I provided an example in which enforcement of the laws could result in a bias.

My very first comment on this thread was the following

Quote

Even in the worst case scenario, Meckwell didn't break any Laws.
Case closed.

My beliefs haven't changed.

[Jlall]

Yeah fair enough dude heh.

[Phil]

Rodney26, on Apr 1 2010, 04:52 PM, said:

IAbout four boards in, the top flight pro took a trick as declarer, turned the trick, pondered for a minute and then asked to see the trick again.

You say, "sure, as soon as the hands over ".

[nige1]

gnasher, on Apr 1 2010, 08:00 AM, 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.

I agree with gnasher. The same point was made in threads criticising Reese-Schapiro, the Blue-Team, and others.

[jdonn]

awm, on Apr 1 2010, 02:48 PM, said:

To put it another way, when I get a lousy ruling I might whine to my friends or put up a poll on BBO forums. Either way, nothing will come of it. If Meckstroth got a lousy ruling, he might complain to the director-in-charge and the director making the ruling might be out a job the next nationals.

Of course the truth is somewhere in the middle for both you and Meckstroth. You are welcome to complain to the director in charge just like he is, and if he did so the director who made a bad ruling would be in absolutely no danger at all of getting fired over it.

[JanM]

awm, on Apr 1 2010, 10:05 AM, said:

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).

I'd like to suggest a different view of this statement. Someone who never calls the director unless s/he knows what the law is and that s/he is entitled to a favorable ruling will get more favorable rulings than the average person, who often calls the director whenever s/he is unhappy. That has nothing to do with the fame or bridge expertise or bridge service of the person who knows the law. Chip virtually never calls the director, and virtually never appeals from an unfavorable ruling (usually involving a teammate). When he does call or appeal, he usually prevails. Does that mean that directors and committees are prejudiced in his favor? Or is it a reflection of the fact that he only calls or appeals when he believes strongly that he's right?

Just to be clear, I don't know what actually happened at the table in the Nickell-Ng match. I chose to show the match on Vugraph, and I set it up, but I wasn't the operator at either table.

I am pretty sure I'd never complain if my opponents were playing multi without the ACBL defenses available. I don't use those defenses anyway. But I can sympathize with someone who feels that many of the Systems Regulations are ignored & believes they shouldn't be. On the first day of the Vanderbilt, one of my opponents was playing Polish 2♥ (a 2♥ opening bid is weak with 5+ hearts and 5+ in any other suit). I happen to have the "inside information" that this method is not Midchart legal and that Superchart methods require advance submission of a recommended defense. I asked my opponents for a defense to the bid. My opponent said "takeout doubles." I have some more "inside information:" it's not at all obvious what to do after 2♥-P-2♠(pass or correct), in fact I don't know what is right. So I suggested that I needed a more complete defense than "takeout doubles." My opponent said that there were lots of pairs playing this method and he thought "takeout doubles" was an adequate defense. I called the director. The director told them they couldn't play the bid, since they hadn't submitted a description and defense in advance.

Did I get a more favorable ruling than my opponents because all the directors know me (of course they do, I'm always there doing Vugraph)? Because I'm famous? Because I'm married to someone famous? Or was it because I know the rules and wasn't willing to let my opponents completely ignore them?

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on Apr 1 2010, 11:18 PM, said:

In any event more serious than a club duplicate, I wouldn't let them see it.  Forgetting what cards have gone is a bridge error; why should I let them off that?

Failing to provide a written defence to the Multi, on the other hand, is not a bridge error - it's an adminstrative failure.

But, as far as we know, they did provide a written defense. So there was no administrative failure.

Meckstroth just claimed he couldn't read it. How do you reply to something like that?

Should his opponents have replied that they couldn't read the (hand written) Meckwell CC? Should they have advised him to take an eye exam? Should they say: "Sorry, I can't hear you."? Should they offer to read it to him out loud? Should they start mentioning the cards that are played (as is done for visually impaired players)?

(I hope that everybody realizes that they shouldn't.)

Rik

[awm]

JanM, on Apr 1 2010, 06:40 PM, said:

I happen to have the "inside information" that this method is not Midchart legal and that Superchart methods require advance submission of a recommended defense.

....


Did I get a more favorable ruling than my opponents because all the directors know me (of course they do, I'm always there doing Vugraph)? Because I'm famous? Because I'm married to someone famous? Or was it because I know the rules and wasn't willing to let my opponents completely ignore them?

I wouldn't say this is exactly a matter of knowing the rules. It's more a matter of the director believing that you know the rules, which I think is influenced in part by your being involved with USBF and/or your husband's involvement with the committees that make these rules.

To explain, the director probably lacks a way to verify your "inside information." You told him that you know this bid is illegal, and he ruled accordingly. If I were to encounter the exact same situation you did and do the exact same thing, the director simply would not believe that I have "inside information." He would look at the charts, which are extremely unclear about this issue, and make a ruling (which would quite possibly be that the bid is allowed).

To take things a step further, suppose that you were to call the director about an issue like this and your "inside information" were actually incorrect. I'm not suggesting you would do this deliberately, but it's possible that what you believe to be the rule has been recently changed, or that you misremembered and stated (say) Chip's opinion rather than official policy. I am almost completely certain that the director would still rule in your favor and ban your opponents from playing the method in question! After all, these rules are very ambiguous and your "inside information" is probably more reliable than anything else the director can get his hands on easily.

At the same time, opponents can get around my complaint that their methods are a non-game-forcing relay system by saying "it's not a relay" without further discussion! The fact is that quite often the director has to decide who to believe. This decision is made based on who the people are, and not what the rules say, if only because the rules tend to be incomplete as written with a lot of "inside information" floating around.