[cherdanno]

Do we actually know what happened exactly? The VuGraph operator was rather short and cryptic in his comments.

[mikegill]

Given that Meckwell played Multi for years, I find it pretty unbelievable that they do not have a defense against it memorized that they are happy with. And, given that they stopped playing it ostensibly because they thought it was worse than not playing it, why would they want to prevent their opponents from playing it other than to rattle them and/or force them to make an in-match system change? This seems akin to scouring your opponents' convention cards looking for any place that one of them forgot to check a box hoping to get a penalty assessed against them. I think it's definitely bad press for bridge when (one of) the best pair(s) in the word resorts to something like this in a match where they are heavily favored.

On a side note, has anyone seen Meckwell use the written defense against Multi? If they do, then certainly I (and others who have expressed distaste at this action) am definitely way out of line. If not, they are certainly within their rights to call a director, but I think it's hard to argue against the fact that they should be confident enough in their abilities to simply remind their non-ACBL opponents of the rules and continue trying to win the match at the bridge table.

[PeterGill]

I think Meckwell behaved just fine, the Singapore team's preparation was fine, and that when any team with overseas players enters the Vanderbilt, the ACBL could and perhaps should provide a brief summary of various requirements including such things as no mobile phones allowed in the playing area, which calls to announce and how, provision of the Multi Defence and some of the other little-known (for overseas players) curiosities of American bridge.

I think it's hard for everyone at the US Nationals to know all the rules.
Here's an example.....
Gromov - Dubinin in the Reisinger in San Franciso a couple of years ago opened 1C, 2C from my partner (Michaels, 5/5 majors, not alerted by me), Pass, 2H by me, Pass, Pass, 2S by them, all pass. At the end of the hand, they called the Director and gently pointed out that a non-natural cue of a Polish -style 1C
(it might have been 1D- 2D, I cannot remember) was alertable in ACBL Regs.
The TD agreed, and asked my why I didn't alert it.

"The ACBL Convention Card tells me not to - the relevant cue bid is in black, not red or blue on the CC," I replied. The TD examined my CC and saw that I was correct. He asked where I had found this (unusual?) CC. "From that pile of CC's there, as you walk into this room", I replied. The TD said he would get back to us, picking up a blank CC from the pile ad he walked away.

When the TD returned, he explained that he had checked the regs, and indeed the bid had been changed from alertable to non-alertable, but nobody seemed to know. To support this hypothesis that nobody knew, he asked seven TDs if the bid was alertable, and all seven wrongly replied that it was alertable.

Having let the score stand, the TD suggested to me that since we might be the only people in the whole room who knew the rules that it was non-alertable, for the rest of the event, I might as well alert the bid if it happened again. So much for following the rules.

Masses of Austrlians went to our closest US Nationals in Hawaii a year before the above incident. In Hawaii, I recall that I photocopied about 20 copies of the Defence to Multi to provide to the many Aussies who unwittingly planned to play Multi without knowing that they had to provide the written defence. It is not uncommon for overseas visitors who are new to American Natioanls not to know about the need for the written defence.

[mcphee]

These remarks about being un-sportsman like are way off base imo. We have rules for a reason. It evens the playing field, it is not up to either Jeff or Eric or any other player, to discuss the rules with the opponents. The bottom line is far more likely that they have a rule about these situations (a good thing to do) and that is to extract the penalty.

Ask your self if the team should have allowed the Italian player the opportunity to play the correct card from the dummy in the BB a couple of years back? Sorry, tough luck pal, bet you never do this again.

I find it a little sad that people want to FORCE meckwell to a disadvantage for what ever the reasons might be. They exercised their right and in no way is that being a bad sport. People seem so anxious to make a team do something against themselves because they are good players. hmmmmmm, I wonder if this should include them making a bad play during the hand? Give them another shot? How many chances should you give 3-4? If you give a pair 4 chances and they screw up again is it them un-sportsman like to inflict the penalty? What a crock!

[Cyberyeti]

Add me to the disgusted brigade.

If their opps were playing something truly outlandish would I have no problem with this course of action. The multi would be no problem to Meckwell and this is pure gamesmanship.

Played against Rubin/Granovetter a while ago in the UK, they used a bid that I suspect was not alertable in the US but was over here, and that changed my action. No idea whether we were damaged, the issue did not arise as neither of us did any more than point out it should have been alerted.

[gnasher]

mcphee, on Mar 17 2010, 02:42 PM, said:

I find it a little sad that people want to FORCE meckwell to a disadvantage for what ever the reasons might be.

I've reread the entire thread, and I can't find any post that suggests that Meckwell should be forced to behave differently. So, which people did you have in mind?

[WellSpyder]

A few years ago I played in the final stages of the Gold Cup (Great Britain's most prestiguous knock-out teams competition.) The quarter-finals onwards are played alongside a bridge congress at an upmarket hotel, and the regulations for the event clearly stated that jacket and tie were required for the evening sessions. Now I am wondering whether the "Meckwell did nothing wrong" camp think I should have complained when the opponents turned up in the usual jeans and tee shirt and asked the TD to insist they go and change, plus award us 3 imps per board for any lateness caused as a result. My own view is that I would rather try to win a bridge competition by playing bridge....

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on Mar 17 2010, 03:00 PM, said:

Played against Rubin/Granovetter a while ago in the UK, they used a bid that I suspect was not alertable in the US but was over here, and that changed my action. No idea whether we were damaged, the issue did not arise as neither of us did any more than point out it should have been alerted.

I think that's very different, because in that situation you might have been damaged, whereas in the present case it appears that Mecstroth and Rodwell were not at all damaged.

Playing against overseas visitors, I think you should make extra effort to avoid this sort of problem, by examining their convention card and asking questions that wouldn't be necessary if you were sure that they were following the alerting rules. Ultimately, though, if their unwitting failure to follow the rules damaged me, I'd seek an adjusted score.

[Trinidad]

mcphee, on Mar 17 2010, 02:42 PM, said:

I find it a little sad that people want to FORCE meckwell to a disadvantage for what ever the reasons might be.

No one is forcing Meckwell into a disadvantage. That is the exact point. Meckwell are not disadvantaged if the opps play Multi.

People are merely suggesting that Meckwell should refrain from gaining an unfair advantage. And basically all have emphasized that Meckwell's action was legal. However, it is also not illegal to go after someone else's wife, but...

Rik

[hrothgar]

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

With this said and done, it would seem entirely appropriate for folks to reciprocate in kind each and every time and opportunity were to arise.

Insist on delay of game penalties for overly long smoking breaks, try to nail them for any violation of the inane zero tolerance regs, and lord help them if there is ever a repeat of the bathroom incident.

And oh, BTW, the next time folks start talking about all the work that Meckstroth does for the "good of the game", I'm going to have much fun dragging out this little incident...

BTW, does anyone know whether Meckstroth was playing against the Singapore pair during the first half of the event? I'd be very curious to understand whether Meckwell only decided to raise the objection after seeing their score in the first half.

[Rossoneri]

Instead of arguing now, should we first find out what exactly happened before pointing fingers and accusing anyone of unsportsmanlike behaviour?

I personally find some of the comments directed towards Meckwell overboard, when most of us do not even know what exactly happened!

[jjbrr]

Rossoneri, on Mar 17 2010, 09:52 AM, said:

Instead of arguing now, should we first find out what exactly happened before pointing fingers and accusing anyone of unsportsmanlike behaviour?

I personally find some of the comments directed towards Meckwell overboard, when most of us do not even know what exactly happened!

Ding ding ding!

[ArtK78]

jjbrr, on Mar 17 2010, 09:53 AM, said:

Rossoneri, on Mar 17 2010, 09:52 AM, said:

Instead of arguing now, should we first find out what exactly happened before pointing fingers and accusing anyone of unsportsmanlike behaviour?

I personally find some of the comments directed towards Meckwell overboard, when most of us do not even know what exactly happened!

Ding ding ding!

It is much more fun to cast aspersions without knowing the facts. The facts often ruin a perfectly good rant.

[hanp]

The other week I was south in this position like this:

---

The contract was 3NT, LHO was on play, I needed two more tricks. Obviously I was going down.

The play was quick. LHO led the spade ace, but RHO was expecting LHO to play the club ace first and discarded a heart. He then noticed the spade was played and took back his heart and played a spade. I went down 1.

After the hand my partner pointed out that I should have called the director. Maybe I can make LHO play a heart, and I make the contract. Perhaps not, but that's the director's decision not mine. It did not occur to me at the table but I think my partner was right.

It is not relevant but had my opponents been in this situation, they would definitely have called the director.

[jjbrr]

hanp is leveling us

"they would definitely have called the director. " lol

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on Mar 17 2010, 09:38 AM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Mar 17 2010, 03:00 PM, said:

Played against Rubin/Granovetter a while ago in the UK, they used a bid that I suspect was not alertable in the US but was over here, and that changed my action. No idea whether we were damaged, the issue did not arise as neither of us did any more than point out it should have been alerted.

I think that's very different, because in that situation you might have been damaged, whereas in the present case it appears that Mecstroth and Rodwell were not at all damaged.

Playing against overseas visitors, I think you should make extra effort to avoid this sort of problem, by examining their convention card and asking questions that wouldn't be necessary if you were sure that they were following the alerting rules. Ultimately, though, if their unwitting failure to follow the rules damaged me, I'd seek an adjusted score.

This is exactly the point I was making, we made no fuss, other than to say to our American guests that they really should be alerting the bid over here, even though there might have been a little damage.

I tend to behave to opponents in most cases as I'd expect them to behave to me. If I think they'd have let something slide, I do the same, if I know they'd try to shaft me for every last advantage I do the same.

There are also situations which are so crass where you half expect opponents not to know what to do, example (EBU rules)

1N-P-2♦(announced, hearts)-P-2♥(not announced or alerted by law, completing the transfer)

Although the bid is not alerted, it is clearly not completely natural (you might be in a 5-1 fit if your 1N is allowed to have a stiff in it). So do you alert takeout or penalty doubles of this ?

I think you have to be reasonable in situations where opponents may well not know the rules that apply, whether it's because the rules are just odd, or are likely to be different where the opponents come from.

[hanp]

jjbrr, on Mar 17 2010, 10:22 AM, said:

hanp is leveling us

If you were playing me in the Vanderbilt, found out I was playing multi but didn't bring the required defense, would you call the director?

[jjbrr]

hanp, on Mar 17 2010, 10:52 AM, said:

jjbrr, on Mar 17 2010, 10:22 AM, said:

hanp is leveling us

If you were playing me in the Vanderbilt, found out I was playing multi but didn't bring the required defense, would you call the director?

I know that's rhetorical, but...

I don't really see how this or the other story are relevant to this discussion. I am neither as good as Meckwell nor am I making my living as a bridge player due to my success in big events. You don't play multi.

Your hypothetical is a very big "if," though we both know that if you and I sat down at a table right now, I wouldn't call the director. They frequently allow the players at juniors championships to have a written defense at the table, and I never brought it with me, though I can't recall having a competitive multi auction where the bids were anything other than natural or stayman after a double or whatever. But like I said, Meckwell have much more interest invested in playing as perfectly as they can, which I simply cannot relate to.

If defending multi correctly was a contributing factor to me making a very substantial amount of money, as Jdonn said earlier, I would definitely call the director on you, since I haven't memorized all the defenses. Perhaps with one partner I might play one defense against a weak-only multi and a different defense against multi with a strong possibility. I would certainly be disadvantaged.

I would definitely not call the director for the purpose of making sure you can't play the convention. I might ask if it's possible that the director could go to the director station and quickly print one off the database; I suspect no one at the table would mind waiting. I might ask if partner and I can discuss our defense to multi in a live auction the first time if you sprang it on us without us realizing what you were playing. I assume you trust that I would do this as ethically as I could, and I can tell you I'd discuss option 2 as best I could with my partner, because that's my preference. Against people who aren't you, I might well call the director and not be so lenient towards the director or anyone else helping them out. Against you I would consider it more a fun match against friends, since there are very few consequences of me losing the first or second day of the Vandy. Against someone else I think it's fair game to enforce the rules.

But again, this point is moot. You wouldn't show up without the defense, and if you did I know you'd have a copy in your hotel room or something and would offer to fetch it quickly.

If you sat down at the table and alerted your partner's opening pass as an opening hand or better, do you think I'm not supposed to call the director or something? Would you not expect Meckwell to? You can't really argue that they're disadvantaged, because they're both great at bidding theory so I think most would agree they'd be just fine. How is this different? Maybe they're disadvantaged and maybe they're not. I don't think it's fair to automatically assume that they're not disadvantaged or at least inconvenienced by the lack of a written defense. They wouldn't be disadvantaged if the Singapore guys hadn't brought convention cards to the table at all, because they could ask what the bids mean. Would everyone feel the same way about Meckwell if they called the director for that infraction?

Edit: I was careless and failed to realize that Han does play multi. I apologize to him for my assumptions.

[vuroth]

jjbrr, on Mar 17 2010, 09:53 AM, said:

Rossoneri, on Mar 17 2010, 09:52 AM, said:

Instead of arguing now, should we first find out what exactly happened before pointing fingers and accusing anyone of unsportsmanlike behaviour?

I personally find some of the comments directed towards Meckwell overboard, when most of us do not even know what exactly happened!

Ding ding ding!

Agree.

Forgive my vast and overreaching ignorance, but...

Quote

Meckwell are not disadvantaged if the opps play Multi.

Meckwell may well have felt that, if they did not call the director, the second round opponents would have, and fundamentally Meckwell would have faced a slightly different opponent (one allowed to use Multi) than the rest of the field would have (an opponent barred from using Multi). Ergo, since this was the first round, the more ethical move may have been to call the director immediately, to keep the playing field level.

All that said, I really don't have a horse in this race.

[jjbrr]

As an aside, I had an experience slightly similar to the one you presented. I was declaring a doubled contract and my lefty cashed a winner at trick 10 or 11, on which my RHO discarded another winner. When I claimed the rest of the tricks, RHO claimed that he hadn't pitched the winner and that he had instead pitched a loser. LHO agreed with me, until the director came and his story suddenly changed to "I didn't see what happened."

Since pitching a winner there was ridiculous, the director agreed that he hadn't pitched it and had in fact pitched something else.

Draw whatever conclusions you want as it relates to your story.