[helene_t]

Yeah of course the Singapore team were foolish and of course the TD has to enforce the law, once called.

That isn't really my point. It's about Meckwell's lack of sportmanship. And it's not because Meckwell is high seeded than Ng. If it were Meckwell who forgot to bring the written defense to one of their conventions, I would expect the Ng team not to bother about it either, unless it was a convention they really needed a suggested defense against.

[Fluffy]

In Spain we often "relax" the rules, it is so very common (to the point people look badly at me if I don't allow a penalty card to be just grabbed and go unpenalised after a revoke), so from the bridge I am used to play I find this outrageous.


The other reason why I wouldn't do so here is because then RHO would open 3M or 2NT, and there is no way I can demostrate there is an UI towards LHO's decision (at least with the directors around here)

[Mbodell]

I think it was probably appropriate, but more context may be required. We had one of our opponents in the first round loser match have only one convention card because the other one had been misplaced. These were personalized, laminated convention cards. The directors were there and were requiring them to fill out a second card using a standard acbl card and seemed to imply that we could get them in time trouble and/or force them to play sayc if they didn't get an identical second card filled out.

This seemed obviously silly so we just played on with the one card and 10 minutes later the directors had found the second card and brought it over.

So if the Singapore pair had the written defenses earlier in the match but had given them to their opponents in the 2nd quarter and not gotten them back or left them elsewhere, then it would seem kind of unsporting to make a big stink. But if they never had them in the first place then it is sort of a problem.

In the DC nationals I was playing muti in the last day A/X swiss and I hadn't realized it but while I had a copy of the defense my partner didn't. We were playing against a team from our local area which included our districts board member who was quick to not let us play multi with only the one copy of the defenses. After this match I had to run up to kinkos to print a second copy of the defenses for partner so we could play it in future matches. Definitely within the rules, but a little annoying at the same time.

[hotShot]

As far as I understand, it is legal to play multi in this event, if you supply a written defense.

I guess the team from Singapore checked if it's allowed to play multi and did not notice that they need to supply a defense.

The lawful and gentleman-like way would be, to call the TD, let him ban the multi for the next boards and offer to use your own defense at this board, if necessary to avoid an artificial adjusted score.

[NickRW]

Edit

[NickRW]

peachy, on Mar 17 2010, 07:54 AM, said:

There is absolutely nothing ungentlemanly in playing a game by the rules of the game. I am appalled at the shots folks have aimed at Meckwell in this thread. Meckwell did the right thing from any perspective. Any comparison of Vanderbilt environment to playing against lol's at the club is utterly ridiculous.

I can only say rubbish. Some winnings leave a bitter taste and are not worth having. And some winnings leave you looking small. If the behaviour attributed in this case is actually true, then said player is dirt to me.

Do you want to win like that? I sure as hell don't.

[jdonn]

I do not understand all this venom. It's not like Rodwell turned to an opponent and said "You have no defense? I hereby ban you from playing multi!" They called the director and told him what happened. For all anyone here knows the director might have had extra multi defenses laying around that Meckwell would have been happy to use. I mean seriously, gamesmenship my arse. Meckwell didn't tell them not to bring a defense!

Hypothetical situation. Suppose you are a bridge player who is making your living, playing in a major event, and being paid a ton of money. You are good or experienced at playing against multi but you happen to have an accident that leads to a bad score. Your client asks what happens. You will say "the opponents were required by the rules to bring us a written defense but they didn't have it. So rather than call the director we decided to be good sports and just do our best." Uh... what???

I'm friends with the Singapore guys and of course it was an honest mistake, but why is the venom not directed toward them for not bothering to find out the rules before playing? It's not Tuesday morning at a local bridge club, it's the most major event at one of the most major tournaments in the country and they travelled halfway around the world to play in it.

[Cascade]

Director please.

Is a 2♦ opening that can be 3415 or 4315 legal?

The General Convention Chart allows

"5. TWO DIAMOND ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of:
a) a strong hand.
a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP."

[mohitz]

I don't understand why the name Meckwell is being used. Since nobody seems to know what exactly transpired at the table, it is entirely possible that one of them does not approve of the action taken by the other.

FWIW, I did not like this behavior.

[NickRW]

jdonn, on Mar 17 2010, 10:38 AM, said:

I do not understand all this venom...

I'm friends with the Singapore guys and of course it was an honest mistake, but why is the venom not directed toward them for not bothering to find out the rules before playing?

Clearly the Singaporeans were in error/stupid/deserved it or whatever you want to call it - that point is not in dispute.

But that you don't understand the venom the other way - hmm - in England we have a saying - "it's not cricket" - meaning some things are ungentlemanly, unsporting. And we have the attitude that those who win by means that "are not cricket" are despicable, to be shunned, thrown out of the club. That you're professional, if anything, makes it worse - it certainly does not provide any sort of excuse in our eyes.

Apparently you don't do cricket in America as we have long suspected.

Nick

[the hog]

jdonn, on Mar 17 2010, 05:38 PM, said:

I do not understand all this venom. It's not like Rodwell turned to an opponent and said "You have no defense? I hereby ban you from playing multi!" They called the director and told him what happened. For all anyone here knows the director might have had extra multi defenses laying around that Meckwell would have been happy to use. I mean seriously, gamesmenship my arse. Meckwell didn't tell them not to bring a defense!

Hypothetical situation. Suppose you are a bridge player who is making your living, playing in a major event, and being paid a ton of money. You are good or experienced at playing against multi but you happen to have an accident that leads to a bad score. Your client asks what happens. You will say "the opponents were required by the rules to bring us a written defense but they didn't have it. So rather than call the director we decided to be good sports and just do our best." Uh... what???

I'm friends with the Singapore guys and of course it was an honest mistake, but why is the venom not directed toward them for not bothering to find out the rules before playing? It's not Tuesday morning at a local bridge club, it's the most major event at one of the most major tournaments in the country and they travelled halfway around the world to play in it.

Josh, a couple of points:
1) There is no venom directed at anyone. Some of us simply think that the behaviour, if as described, is unsportsmanlike. Some of us have also admitted that at times we ourselves have been guilty of unsportsmanlike behaviour. Most of us have regretted it afterwards.
2) I am afraid your hypothetical carries no water whatsoever. Now be honest; do you really believe Mw would have used the written defence and not their own? Don't be naive.

[jdonn]

No venom lol.

"They have been guilty of these shenanigans before and it is a shame that a pair as good as this feel they have to resort to these tactics."

[the hog]

jdonn, on Mar 17 2010, 06:11 PM, said:

No venom lol.

"They have been guilty of these shenanigans before and it is a shame that a pair as good as this feel they have to resort to these tactics."

Jeez mate, if you reckon that comment is venemous, then you don't know me at all. (Probably wouldn't want to either. )

[jdonn]

Actually you might be surprised. When I finally met Cascade in person I liked him quite a lot and now we get along well.

While I'm on the topic, Cascade I don't understand your post at all, I assume it's some kind of analogy to what actually happened but I don't get your point... ?

[Trinidad]

Just for the record: I have seen Meckwell do the same as what the Ng team did. They got away with it, with the TD at the table and not even a hint that they weren't allowed to play the Multi. My wife and I were kibitzing Meckwell in the '96 Reisinger in San Francisco. (The Reisinger has short rounds as opposed to the Vanderbilt.) The following occurred:

At some point during the round (i.e. not the first board) Meckstroth picks up his cards. He looks at them and calls the TD. The TD arrives, asks how he may help and Meckstroth asks if he could bring the yellow booklet. The TD leaves and comes back with two yellow booklets, which contain a number of defenses against Meckwells openings, among others the Multi.

Meckstroth asks the opponents to pick a defense against the Multi. The opponents discuss for 10 seconds and opt for number 2 (out of a possible 3). They even mention that 1) might be better but that they would need the time to discuss this. The TD stands there and says: "So defense 2 it is?" and leaves. Then Meckstroth opens 2♦, which is promptly alerted by Rodwell and explained as Multi.

With respect to this incident, I have always had these thoughts:
1) Odd that you need to provide a defense to the Multi in a high level ACBL tournament.
2) Odd that Meckwell didn't announce their methods and didn't provide the defense at the start of each round. If you need to provide a written defense, you should obviously prealert too.
3) Odd that the TD just allowed all this to happen. Shouldn't he have forbidden Meckwell to play the Multi?
4) Odd that the TD is acting as Meckwell's gopher.
5) Odd that all this was going on in the middle of a hand.

Back then, I concluded that top players (and top TDs) amongst themselves went easy on the rules: Follow the spirit, rather than the letter. I chose to play that way myself from then on.

But when Meckwell are now complaining that a young foreign team is playing Multi without providing a defense I am completely lost.

Furthermore, isn't there an approved defense to the Multi in the ACBL database?

Rik

[helene_t]

Trinidad, on Mar 17 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

Furthermore, isn't there an approved defense to the Multi in the ACBL database?

Yes. That's why you are allowed to play multi. It is your (multi-player's) responsibility that opps have a copy of it.

[Ant590]

I agree it's unsportsmanlike, for two reasons:
(1) I strongly doubt they play any of the standard defences
(2) If Meckwell play the multi also, as Rik's post suggests, they should have brought a copy for the opps and surely they can use that one. This seems akin to not lending the opponents a pencil on the premise it might annoy them and cause them to play badly.

I do hope that plenty of weak 2 diamond openers came up in the rest of the match.

[helene_t]

Ant590, on Mar 17 2010, 12:45 PM, said:

(2) If Meckwell play the multi also, as Rik's post suggests, they should have brought a copy for the opps and surely they can use that one. This seems akin to not lending the opponents a pencil on the premise it might annoy them and cause them to play badly.

They used to play multi but don't anymore.

[gnasher]

Trinidad, on Mar 17 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

Meckstroth asks the opponents to pick a defense against the Multi.

Did he really ask them to do this? If so, that seems rather presumptuous. The opponents aren't required to agree upon a defence, or to limit their selection to what's in the booklet.

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on Mar 17 2010, 01:19 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Mar 17 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

Meckstroth asks the opponents to pick a defense against the Multi.

Did he really ask them to do this? If so, that seems rather presumptuous. The opponents aren't required to agree upon a defence, or to limit their selection to what's in the booklet.

He left them the possibility to use their own (but they didn't have one, since they seemed to have never encountered a Multi before).

It is obviously quite a while back, but the way I interpret what I observed then is that they were explicitly told that they could use defense 1, 2 or 3. It was added that they could use their own defense, but it seemed to imply to mean "their own prepared defense". (I sure would have been smart enough to come up with something like: Dbl in direct seat promises: ♠AK74 ♥43 ♦KJT6 ♣Q62 or whatever hand LHO might have had. That thought never crossed my mind and I think that it would have, since I am quite naughty in thinking those things. )

The option not to agree on a defense was never put on the table.

BTW, in the whole procedure, Jeff was quite helpful. He pointed out the basic mechanisms of the defenses and actually suggested number 2.

Rik