[hrothgar]

awm, on Apr 2 2010, 03:12 AM, said:

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.

It would be fairly simple to conduct an experiment or two and see whether directors generate incorrect rulings in these sorts of cases...

[Rossoneri]

I am totally losing the point of this thread and I think it's rather unfair to accuse any of the directors of bias.

As it seems that despite at least a few different people posting, there still seems to be a lot of speculation, so I am going to make this clearer.

These were the facts put to me by Ng:
- Part of what transpired was due to miscommunications/misunderstandings as to the position of the players regarding the use of the multi 2D
- They would have agreed to weak 2s if they knew opponents had a problem with multi 2D (They pre-alerted the multi to opponents before every round)
- The Singapore team had difficulty accessing printing resources so they adopted this stance, also Ng copied out the defence from the ACBL website in the morning before the match
- Admittedly, he should have gotten this prepared before flying over to the US
- Against Nickell-Katz, Nickell took out a file with a defence and said they were playing that
- Against Meckwell, they pre-alerted and offered their handwritten copy of the defence as well, but there was no director call until a board where one of them actually opened with a multi 2D.
- Meckwell suggested they should get a Procedural Penalty for the use of multi (Ng was slightly put off at this.)
- Director tried to find printed copies of the defence, could not find any, and allowed them to used weak 2s for the rest of the match.

[JanM]

awm, on Apr 1 2010, 05:12 PM, said:

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).

No, I didn't tell the director what the rules are; I just called and explained that they were playing 2♥ as weak with hearts and any other suit. True, I might not have called if I didn't know the rules, but I didn't tell the director that the bid was not allowed, I simply told him they were playing it. And I know all of you think the charts are really difficult to read, but the Midchart now SPECIFICALLY lists allowed bids, and 2♥ showing hearts and any other suit (as opposed to hearts and a minor) isn't listed, so it's easy to ascertain that it isn't a Midchart method. The rules about submitting a description and defense for Superchart methods are clearly set forth in the Superchart and the Conditions of Contest for the Vanderbilt. I am confident that if anyone else against whom this method was being used had called the director, they would have received the same ruling. The problem is that other people didn't call.

Quote

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.

All I can say is you're nuts. In fact, a few years ago, when there was some ambiguity about whether weird methods were allowed against a 1♣ opening that could be 2, I called the director when an opponent played (1♣)-2♥ as weak with either Major. The director ruled against me. And again, these rules aren't ambiguous, whatever you think.

Quote

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.

I apologize for using the words "inside information" - I put them in quotes to try (apparently unsuccessfully) to make it clear that the information wasn't in fact anything secret. It ISN'T inside information what is allowed, and it is actually easy to tell what is allowed under the Midchart. Whether something is a "relay system" is of course not so clear. But I strongly disagree that decisions about things like that are made based on who is asking for a ruling.

[ggwhiz]

Quote

- They would have agreed to weak 2s if they knew opponents had a problem with multi 2D (They pre-alerted the multi to opponents before every round)

If the above is true (and there is no reason to think it isn't), this is pure gamesmanship on Meckwells part and does not belong in this game at ANY level.

Twenty four hour "sports" channels and bridge is invisible. This kind of behavior is a big part of why.

[blackshoe]

The uncontested auction goes 1♥-4NT-5something-5NT-6something-6 or 7 ♥. 4NT is Blackwood, 5NT asks for kings. Is this a relay system? Why or why not?

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on Apr 1 2010, 10:01 PM, said:

The uncontested auction goes 1♥-4NT-5something-5NT-6something-6 or 7 ♥. 4NT is Blackwood, 5NT asks for kings. Is this a relay system? Why or why not?

I assume you are attempting some form of way of saying, "let's move on to another subject, and kill this string."

[nige1]

Rossoneri, on Apr 1 2010, 08:21 PM, said:

These were the facts put to me by Ng:
- Part of what transpired was due to miscommunications/misunderstandings as to the position of the players regarding the use of the multi 2D
- They would have agreed to weak 2s if they knew opponents had a problem with multi 2D (They pre-alerted the multi to opponents before every round)
- The Singapore team had difficulty accessing printing resources so they adopted this stance, also Ng copied out the defence from the ACBL website in the morning before the match
- Admittedly, he should have gotten this prepared before flying over to the US
- Against Nickell-Katz, Nickell took out a file with a defence and said they were playing that
- Against Meckwell, they pre-alerted and offered their handwritten copy of the defence as well, but there was no director call until a board where one of them actually opened with a multi 2D.
- Meckwell suggested they should get a Procedural Penalty for the use of multi (Ng was slightly put off at this.)
- Director tried to find printed copies of the defence, could not find any, and allowed them to used weak 2s for the rest of the match.

Thank you, Rossoneri for more (indirect) evidence from the players. Apparently, Meckwell didn't merely call the director about an alleged infraction. They also proposed a swingeing penalty to the director. Ng belatedly did all he could to comply with chauvinist local regulations, so it is not surprising that he was "slightly put off at this".

[peachy]

nige1, on Apr 2 2010, 12:30 AM, said:

chauvinist local regulations

Please explain. Or is there a bee in your bonnet.

[CSGibson]

I wanted to address the tangent about known players getting preferential treatment from directors -

Frankly, I think that this is a natural occurence. If a director knows a player, knows his style of play, knows his level of competence, and knows in what situations they make director calls, then this is bound to influence his decision. I don't think that is wrong or unfair, either. A director has a job where they make a lot of judgment calls, and this extra information can help them make more accurate judgments. I don't think anyone thinks that a director is making a ruling solely on reputation, but he certainly can take reputation, for good or for ill, into consideration.

Here Meckwell's reputation may have played a part, because the ACBL midchart does not say that you have to have printed defenses for each opponent, just that each opponent be provided the defenses found in the ACBL approved database. I would have liked to actually see the defenses offered by Ng to make sure they weren't obviously illegible (and I know that it's been said that they wrote it out slowly and in large writing; I'd still have to see it for myself), but my feeling is that the director probably could have gone either way with his ruling because Ng did provide handwritten defenses to both opponents.

[nige1]

nige1, on Apr 2 2010, 12:30 AM, said:

chauvinist local regulations

peachy, on Apr 2 2010, 12:59 AM, said:

Please explain. Or is there a bee in your bonnet.

I'm afraid it is one of the bees in my bonnet. Currently, Bridge rules are fragmented into WBF laws, minutes, local regulations, conditions of contest ...

Instead, I wish the WBF would publish a complete up-to-date web-version of the rules (laws + regulations ++).

The WBF could still permit local jurisdictions to over-ride WBF rules with local variations. But there would be a single comprehensive default set of rules for those jurisdictions keen on a fairer global game with a level playing field.

Rules about disclosure are an interesting case in point. I can understand the argument that different countries may want to favour locally popular methods. But all can still comply with the same general overall disclosure rules. For example, most of screen regulations, bidding box regulations, and system card regulations; also the principles that apply to alerting, announcing, pre-disclosure, written defences, and so on.

[the hog]

peachy, on Apr 2 2010, 12:59 PM, said:

nige1, on Apr 2 2010, 12:30 AM, said:

chauvinist local regulations

Please explain. Or is there a bee in your bonnet.

Without putting words into his mouth, I think he means that the multi is a pretty innocuous convention that even lols in most countries can deal with, so being requred to have a defence on the table is silly.

[Cascade]

JanM, on Apr 2 2010, 03:25 PM, said:

Quote

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.

All I can say is you're nuts. In fact, a few years ago, when there was some ambiguity about whether weird methods were allowed against a 1♣ opening that could be 2, I called the director when an opponent played (1♣)-2♥ as weak with either Major. The director ruled against me. And again, these rules aren't ambiguous, whatever you think.

Not so nuts.

In fact Chip and yourself have been involved in an incident where the opponents were playing transfer openings that at the time were on the mid-chart and there was a published defense. Your side called the director and managed to get a ruling to not allow the opponents to play their methods even though they conformed with the announced regulations.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on Apr 2 2010, 07:46 AM, said:

Instead, I wish the WBF would publish a complete up-to-date web-version of the rules (laws + regulations ++).

The WBF have done this, and their complete set of regulations is available on their website.

Quote

The WBF could still permit local jurisdictions to over-ride WBF rules with local variations. But there would be a single comprehensive default set of rules for those jurisdictions keen on a fairer global game with a level playing field.

In fact, this is what many jurisdictions have done.

Quote

Rules about disclosure are an interesting case in point. I can understand the argument that different countries may want to favour locally popular methods. But all can still comply with the same general overall disclosure rules. For example, most of screen regulations, bidding box regulations, and system card regulations; also the principles that apply to alerting, announcing, pre-disclosure, written defences, and so on.

Disclosure should, of course, be full and freely available, and it is true that not all players are as forthcoming and helpful as they should be. I am not sure, however, that this is due to regulations. The other things you mention are available in the WBF General Conditions of Contest, which anyone is free to use.

[gnasher]

Rossoneri, on Apr 2 2010, 02:21 AM, said:

- Meckwell suggested they should get a Procedural Penalty for the use of multi (Ng was slightly put off at this.)

If they really suggested that, I think that the director should have been more than slightly put-off by the suggestion. Decisions about procedural penalties are the director's prerogative, and none of the players' business.

[Trinidad]

Rossoneri, on Apr 2 2010, 02:21 AM, said:

I am totally losing the point of this thread and I think it's rather unfair to accuse any of the directors of bias.

As it seems that despite at least a few different people posting, there still seems to be a lot of speculation, so I am going to make this clearer.

These were the facts put to me by Ng:
- Part of what transpired was due to miscommunications/misunderstandings as to the position of the players regarding the use of the multi 2D
- They would have agreed to weak 2s if they knew opponents had a problem with multi 2D (They pre-alerted the multi to opponents before every round)
- The Singapore team had difficulty accessing printing resources so they adopted this stance, also Ng copied out the defence from the ACBL website in the morning before the match
- Admittedly, he should have gotten this prepared before flying over to the US
- Against Nickell-Katz, Nickell took out a file with a defence and said they were playing that
- Against Meckwell, they pre-alerted and offered their handwritten copy of the defence as well, but there was no director call until a board where one of them actually opened with a multi 2D.
- Meckwell suggested they should get a Procedural Penalty for the use of multi (Ng was slightly put off at this.)
- Director tried to find printed copies of the defence, could not find any, and allowed them to used weak 2s for the rest of the match.

Can someone please explain to me what prompted the TD to forbid Ng from playing Multi?

As far as I understand, playing Multi is allowed in the Vanderbilt, as long as certain conditions are met. Which condition was not met?

Rik

[gwnn]

gnasher, on Apr 1 2010, 10:18 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?

Out of mindless compassion? I suppose it's irrelevant but I never knew before I joined the forums that it's illegal to ask for this because it's so common in Romania and Hungary, even in tourneys.

Trinidad said:

As far as I understand, playing Multi is allowed in the Vanderbilt, as long as certain conditions are met. Which condition was not met?

The written defense was (supposedly) illegible.

[MFA]

In Denmark we say "have a bisquit" if someone is quick to cry.

Why was this problem not solved at the beginning of the set? I mean, did Meckwell intend to use the provided defense or not? If yes, without even examining it? How can they possibly have a problem now?

If they spotted the legibility problem from the start (which we can't be sure of but it is very likely) I think it is grossly inappropriate to wait to addressing it until the bid comes up.

Unless something specific in the regulations told me otherwise, I would rule that Meckwell then had accepted the defense as it was (that is provided that we knew that they were aware at the start of the set) and I would have allowed the opponents to play the convention throughout the set.

It seems to me that Meckwell perhaps should have been awarded a bisquit in this situation.

[RMB1]

What happens when the provided defence contains options and the oppoents accept the legible defence without choosing between the options?

W: 2♦
N: What's that?
E: Multi: weak two in M ...
N: Oh yes, you provided a defence didn't you.
(N read defence, finds the call that best describes his hand.)
N: Partner, we will use option 2.
N: 2♠ (or whatever)



As this is an ACBL scenario, should it be "defense"?

[aguahombre]

Yep, that is my understanding of how it works.

[jdonn]

MFA, on Apr 2 2010, 08:32 AM, said:

In Denmark we say "have a bisquit" if someone is quick to cry.

Why was this problem not solved at the beginning of the set? I mean, did Meckwell intend to use the provided defense or not? If yes, without even examining it? How can they possibly have a problem now?

If they spotted the legibility problem from the start (which we can't be sure of but it is very likely) I think it is grossly inappropriate to wait to addressing it until the bid comes up.

Unless something specific in the regulations told me otherwise, I would rule that Meckwell then had accepted the defense as it was (that is provided that we knew that they were aware at the start of the set) and I would have allowed the opponents to play the convention throughout the set.

It seems to me that Meckwell perhaps should have been awarded a bisquit in this situation.

You admit you can't be sure of what happened, but are making rulings and handing out bisquits.

I'm sure glad to not be meckwell, how annoying it would be for everyone to presume they know everything about me, including what I'm thinking at times when the assumers aren't even there.