[MFA]

helene_t, on Apr 3 2010, 12:07 PM, said:

why do all threads degenerate into acbl convention regulations? Can's we discuss global warming for a change?

Yes, I agree.
To watch the Americans struggle in the endless swamp because they insist on overly patronizing system regulations is somewhat amusing.
But not that amusing...

[qwery_hi]

MFA, on Apr 3 2010, 02:37 AM, said:

helene_t, on Apr 3 2010, 12:07 PM, said:

why do all threads degenerate into acbl convention regulations? Can's we discuss global warming for a change?

Yes, I agree.
To watch the Americans struggle in the endless swamp because they insist on overly patronizing system regulations is somewhat amusing.
But not that amusing...

Whats even more amusing is that the people decide what the rules are also play in the events where the rules are applied. I suggest we also have them sit in on their own appeals committees as there will surely be no real or perceived conflits of interest in those cases too.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on Apr 2 2010, 06:42 PM, said:

RMB1, on Apr 2 2010, 05:30 PM, said:

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"?

What you describe would contravene at least one law, wouldn't it?

As I understand it, you are expected to choose which defence you are using before the auction starts, or, if you don't, hope that you each select the same defence.

I can vaguely remember a ruling involving someone who received the UI that his parter was loooking at a particular page of the book (in the days when there was a book), so therefore he knew which of the two defences they were playing.

Actually, I think that Robin's description of the procedure is correct. At least that is how it was when the Midchart and written defenses first came out; but this is many years ago and I don't know if things have changed.

[gnasher]

qwery_hi, on Apr 3 2010, 11:49 AM, said:

Whats even more amusing is that the people decide what the rules are also play in the events where the rules are applied.

Isn't that both normal and sensible? The committee that makes the EBU's rules is made up of a mixture of top players, ordinary players and officials, and they seem to do a reasonable job. I'd far rather have active tournament players making these decisions than people who haven't played any serious bridge for a decade.

[kenberg]

Perhaps the ACBL could help.

If my memory is correct, here is what used to happen in the unit game of the Washington Bridge League. No doubt at other places also. The Multi was allowed, even in two table pair games. Practitioners brought the ACBL booklet, pre-alerted that they played Mult, gave you the book. I never played Multi myself, but partner and I discussed it. After the pre-alert, we announced that we played Defense number 1. (I know Defense number 2 is regarded as superior, but number 1 seemed adequate.) I had no problems, as far as I know neither did anyone else. I have moved too far away to play much at this unit game, and maybe they are no longer allowed to allow the Multi. I dunno. A pity if so.

Now to the current situation. As I get it, the Multi pair was not trying to ignore the rules, they ran out of printed copies of the defense. Maybe the ACBL could help with that. Even more worrisome, it has been suggested that the directors (at the Vanderbilt!) might not know the rules and might need to take the players word for what the rules require, or they might be intimidated into taking the word of highly ranked players. If there is any truth at all to this, it needs to be corrected. If the rules are too complicated for professional directors to cope with, that should tell us something about the rules. My own policy has long been that as a player I follow the rules as best as I understand them and will accept correction if I screw up. It is also part of my general plan for happiness to never under any circumstances be a director.

I doubt Meckwell are sitting on pins and needles worrying about whether I do or do not approve of their actions. I don't much approve, at least as I understand the situation, but so what. I am far more critical of the pair Jan mentioned that, in response to a request for a written defense, said "Take-out doubles".


At the local club, the fundamental rule is probably that a player should not be such a jerk that he drives away the other players. At the Vanderbilt, we have a right to expect more. The rules should be clear, the directors should know what the rules are, and if players are making a good faith effort to provide the required written defense the ACBL should make it easy for them to do so. I also would prefer that players not act like jackasses, but we don't always get everything that we want.

[gnasher]

kenberg, on Apr 3 2010, 02:17 PM, said:

If the rules are too complicated for professional directors to cope with, that should tell us something about the rules.

Or about the directors.

[Fluffy]

wowow so many views on this topic, gets you to show that there are mcuh more people lurking in the forums than posting.

[nige1]

peachy, on Mar 17 2010, 02:54 AM, said:

There is absolutely nothing ungentlemanly in playing a game by the rules of the game. 

The Law Book says legal behaviour is ethical. Some aspects of gamesmanship, although legally acceptable may be socially unacceptable. Hence, arguably, the acceptability of Meckwell's alleged behaviour is a matter for ACBL players.

[gnasher]

nige1, on Apr 5 2010, 10:24 AM, said:

peachy, on Mar 17 2010, 02:54 AM, said:

There is absolutely nothing ungentlemanly in playing a game by the rules of the game. 

The Law Book says legal behaviour is ethical. Some aspects of gamesmanship, although legally acceptable may be socially unacceptable. Hence, arguably, the acceptability of Meckstroth's alleged behaviour is a matter for ACBL players.

Indeed. What sort of world would we live in if everyone thought that their obligations to other people were limited to what is required by law?

[nige1]

IPBA, on Editorial, said:

Even more recently, in an early round of the 2010 Vanderbilt, a world champion-calibre team was playing a young, unheralded, team. One of the unheralded pairs was playing Multi Two Diamonds, which the ACBL requires of its proponents to supply two copies of the official, standard, ACBL defence for its opponents. The pair had tried to obtain the approved defence from the tournament officials to no avail, so they wrote it out by hand. The first pair they played against on the team unwittingly allowed the transgression after a misunderstanding. The second pair they played against said, “We’ll see how it goes,” (according to the young pair, but denied by the champions), then called the TD when the young pair opened Two Diamonds later in the set. When the TD arrived, the world champion pair suggested a procedural penalty (again, this version is disputed by the champions) against the young pair. When the youngsters informed the TD that they had a handwritten copy of the defence, the world champion pair questioned its legibility and accuracy. The young pair was eventually informed that they could not play Multi and had now to play weak twos. The world champions’ actions in this incident were generally looked upon unfavourably, but not by all.

Dispute over detail remains, but Fred's link lends further credence to the substance of the original post. In any case, the IPBA editorial about alleged unsporting behavioir raises important questions that we must face for the the future of Bridge. (For example see the Young players thread).

• The laws of Bridge state that it is ethical to take legal advantage.
  
• But is this kind of behaviour sporting?
  
• If not is it socially acceptable?
  
• Does the answer depend on local mores and national temperament?

This topic is emotive enough without descent to ad hominem attacks on those who don't share your view (as stupid, insane, disingenuous, idiots, morons, liars, cheats, and so on, ad nauseam)

[MarkDean]

nige1, on Apr 17 2010, 03:27 PM, said:

IPBA, on Editorial, said:

Even more recently, in an early round of the 2010 Vanderbilt, a world champion-calibre team was playing a young, unheralded, team. One of the unheralded pairs was playing Multi Two Diamonds, which the ACBL requires of its proponents to supply two copies of the official, standard, ACBL defence for its opponents. The pair had tried to obtain the approved defence from the tournament officials to no avail, so they wrote it out by hand. The first pair they played against on the team unwittingly allowed the transgression after a misunderstanding. The second pair they played against said, “We’ll see how it goes,” (according to the young pair, but denied by the champions), then called the TD when the young pair opened Two Diamonds later in the set. When the TD arrived, the world champion pair suggested a procedural penalty (again, this version is disputed by the champions) against the young pair. When the youngsters informed the TD that they had a handwritten copy of the defence, the world champion pair questioned its legibility and accuracy. The young pair was eventually informed that they could not play Multi and had now to play weak twos. The world champions’ actions in this incident were generally looked upon unfavourably, but not by all.

Dispute over detail remains, but Fred's link lends further credence to the substance of the original post. In any case, the IPBA editorial about alleged unsporting behavioir raises important questions that we must face for the the future of Bridge. (For example see the Young players thread).

• The laws of Bridge state that it is ethical to take legal advantage.
  
• But is this kind of behaviour sporting?
  
• If not is it socially acceptable?
  
• Does the answer depend on local mores and national temperament?

This topic is emotive enough without descent to ad hominem attacks on those who don't share your view (as stupid, insane, disingenuous, idiots, morons, liars, cheats, and so on, ad nauseam)

I disagree with the first sentence of your post. The article says that Meckwell deny having said "We'll see how it goes," and deny asking for a procedural penalty. Obviously I do not know which side is telling the truth, but I think there is a pretty big difference in the two versions of the episode.

[jjbrr]

pretty big difference in the two versions of the story seems amazingly accurate in this situation.


shocking!

[nige1]

IPBA, on Editorial, said:

Even more recently, in an early round of the 2010 Vanderbilt, a world champion-calibre team was playing a young, unheralded, team. One of the unheralded pairs was playing Multi Two Diamonds, which the ACBL requires of its proponents to supply two copies of the official, standard, ACBL defence for its opponents. The pair had tried to obtain the approved defence from the tournament officials to no avail, so they wrote it out by hand. The first pair they played against on the team unwittingly allowed the transgression after a misunderstanding. The second pair they played against said, “We’ll see how it goes,” (according to the young pair, but denied by the champions), then called the TD when the young pair opened Two Diamonds later in the set. When the TD arrived, the world champion pair suggested a procedural penalty (again, this version is disputed by the champions) against the young pair. When the youngsters informed the TD that they had a handwritten copy of the defence, the world champion pair questioned its legibility and accuracy. The young pair was eventually informed that they could not play Multi and had now to play weak twos. The world champions’ actions in this incident were generally looked upon unfavourably, but not by all.

nige1, on Apr 17 2010, 03:27 PM, said:

Dispute over detail remains, but Fred's link lends further credence to the substance of the original post. [SNIP]

MarkDean, on Apr 17 2010, 09:35 PM, said:

I disagree with the first sentence of your post.  The article says that Meckwell deny having said "We'll see how it goes," and deny asking for a procedural penalty.  Obviously I do not know which side is telling the truth, but I think there is a pretty big difference in the two versions of the episode.

The following is the original post for comparison with the IPBA editorial

kfay, on Mar 16 2010, 10:42 PM, said:

In the 1st round Vanderbilt match between the #1 seed Nickell and the former Singapore Junior National team (Ng) the following situation arose: 3rd quarter, Nickell had been up 2 IMPs.  A player from the Ng squad opened a multi 2D and Meckwell called the director because they weren't provided a written defense.  The players were then banned from playing multi. Thoughts?

The editorial seems to confirm the substance of the original post. Notice that

• The editorial points out which bits are disputed.
  
• The original post omits the disputed bits.

Presumably, Meckstroth and Rodwell can reduce confusion over disputed details if they want to do so. The director and scorer can be asked to cofirm the facts. There may be a written record. Even if we aren't privy to the full version of events, we can still debate the role of sportsmanship in Bridge.

[MarkDean]

OK, yeah, it does agree with the original post.

As the article says Meckwell dispute certain claims, they must have discussed it at some point.

[wyman]

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

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.

A wise man who posts here often once said to me: "With so much cheating in bridge these days, let's be tough on cheating and soft on winning."