[hotShot]

Perhaps I we are looking at this the wrong way.

It says 3rd quarter, just 2 IMPs up.

Obviously the former junior national team was a real threat, so the Nickell team needed any edge they could get.

They should feel honored that their opponents needed to use all tricks from the (law) book to win (if they won...).

[jjbrr]

hotShot, on Mar 17 2010, 11:48 AM, said:

Perhaps I we are looking at this the wrong way.

It says 3rd quarter, just 2 IMPs up.

Obviously the former junior national team was a real threat, so the Nickell team needed any edge they could get.

They should feel honored that their opponents needed to use all tricks from the (law) book to win (if they won...).

Please confirm that Meckwell had played against this pair in one of the first two quarters.

[peachy]

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!

EXACTLY.

*If* things happened the way OP described, the Singapore team was in violation of the Conditions of Contest because they came to play unprepared (didn't bother to read the rules, or if they did read them, didn't think the rules would apply to them?). The Singapore team was not disadvantaged because the same rules apply to everyone.

My bet is *if* things happened as OP described, Meckwell was not disadvantaged and my other bet is they never claimed they were disadvantaged. Respect the game, respect the rules.

And completely agree that none of us posters are in a position to know what happened.

Edit: Unless you were there kibitzing and saw and heard it.

[awm]

My impression was that Meckstroth was the one who put "defense two" to Multi into the defense database. Certainly he served on the committee which approved defenses to methods for quite some time. Whether this has any bearing on the matter is unclear.

I will say that in my experience, Meckstroth and Rodwell tend to do whatever they can "get away with" under the laws to help themselves win. In some cases this includes poor disclosure (for example, they play major suit jump raises as "mixed" but it's marked on their card as weak; of course the regulation ACBL card has no checkbox for "mixed"), claiming certain calls are "tactical bids" when they are frequent within the partnership and protected by methods (for example they frequently respond to 1♦ on three-card majors and do not alert this), and using director calls very freely whenever anything untoward occurs (I've seen them try to get opening leads rolled back in committee when one opponent psyched and the other didn't lead the psych suit).

With this said, none of those things are illegal per se; they are all "by the book" according to laws. The problem in my view is that ACBL's laws are very poorly written and very erratically enforced. Meckstroth and Rodwell tend to get much more favorable treatment by directors (and committees) than a lot of other players who lack their reputation and their level of involvement on the laws committees. Thus it sometimes seems like they are railroading other players when they get a board canceled and their opponents ordered to stop playing multi in a situation like this, whereas when I encountered the exact same situation in a national event a few years ago we were told to "play on as best we could" and then forced to keep our losing table result even though it was clearly impacted by our lack of defense to the multi. Similarly, I have no doubt that if Meckstroth himself were to be playing multi without a defense, the director would kindly print out copies of the defense for him, or ask around and find another player with a defense, or give him time to go print out a defense (or have his sitting-out teammates do it).

[karlson]

I find it hard to disagree with anything gnasher says in this thread (well, ok, that's true for most threads).

If Meckwell wanted the defense because they want to actually use it, then I don't see how there could possibly be a problem with the director call. Everything in this thread is based on the premise that this is implausbile, which is probably true, but I've been surprised before.

If I were a director called to the table in this situation and I found out the calling pair had absolutely no intention of using the written defense, I would tell them to stop wasting my time.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Mar 18 2010, 12:16 AM, said:

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... ?

Maybe it is not relevant but maybe it is (at least to me).

I can't be sure of Meckwell's method. The only ACBL card that I can find of theirs from the 2009 trials has 2♦ marked as "3 suited" although their system summary and WBF card both include the possibility of (43) in the majors.

To me 3415 and 4315 are not three-suited therefore it seems of dubious legality when GCC only permits "a three-suiter ..." . As far as I can tell this method is not allowed on the mid-chart and on the super-chart a prealert and conventional defense would be required "Pre-Alerts are required for all conventional methods not permitted on the ACBL General Convention Chart."

Basically if my opponents are going to be pedantic about the regulations then their methods would come under the same sort of pedantic scutiny.

However it doesn't seem right that the remedy when someone does not have a defense is that they are not allowed to play the method. The application of bridge law and I would have thought by extention bridge regulation is based on damage. If there is no damage then there is no remedy required. Therefore if a defense was readily available or if Meckwell were not going to use the defense etc then there would be no damage and play could continue normally. And if not at least some effort to find a standard defense could be made. And finally even if a defense could not be found instantly the board could be played (especially given Meckwell's experience) and then if necessary damage accessed. Of course repeat offenses of not turning up with a proper defense could be treated more harshly.

I can't be sure but I think that the directing staff at a Nationals might have available defenses to things like multi. In San Diego I was proactive and talked to the directors before we played even one session about possible problems in our system. One of the directors that I talked to started saying something about "our multi" in a helpful sort of way. I can't remember the details as it happens that we don't actually play a multi so I pretty much ignored what he was saying but I got the impression that he was making sure we knew to prealert and had the appropriate defenses.

[awm]

Cascade, on Mar 17 2010, 02:35 PM, said:

To me 3415 and 4315 are not three-suited therefore it seems of dubious legality when GCC only permits "a three-suiter ..." . As far as I can tell this method is not allowed on the mid-chart and on the super-chart a prealert and conventional defense would be required...

Funny story about this. At some point a couple friends of mine were playing precision in a regional with the same agreement to open 2♦ with (43)15 hands and the director was called over. He agreed with Cascade that this was not a three-suited pattern and therefore not a legal method. My friends explained that "Meckstroth and Rodwell play it this way, Greco and Hampson play it this way, Cohen and Berkowitz play it this way" and the director then changed his mind and said their 2♦ opening was fine.

In effect the rules on the ground seem to be: if a strong, famous American pair uses the method, then it is general chart legal. Otherwise it is not.

[dicklont]

We've had elections in Holland on march 3.
New this time: you must be able to identify yourself, with a passport, driving license or similar official document.
This is a new rule and there is some solid reasoning to back it up.

When I arrive in the election room the man behind the desk greets me friendly, we know each other for years.
He did not ask for my identification and I found that a natural thing.
From many other places I saw reports of people who had to identify themselves, even to their own relatives were behind the desk.
What is the point?

[hanp]

jjbrr, on Mar 17 2010, 11:32 AM, said:

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.

I'd say the conclusion is that you call the director and let the director makes the ruling.

[ochinko]

ArtK78, on Mar 17 2010, 06:05 PM, said:

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.

You are missing the fact that the thread is interesting per se, even if we can only speculate what actually happened at the table.

Basically, there is the camp that says that you can harass opponents over every technicality that fits the purpose (and some even go as far as to say that you *should*). The other camp is on the opinion that the rules are not there to help you intimidate your opps, and break their concentration, and even if your income depends on winning you should consider first what is morally right before you consider what is legally right.

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on Mar 17 2010, 02:35 PM, said:

To me 3415 and 4315 are not three-suited therefore it seems of dubious legality when GCC only permits "a three-suiter ..." .

AFAIK, the purpose of the regulation is to allow at the GCC level the very common, even "standard", Precision 2♦ opening which does indeed show 4=4=1-4, 4=4=0=5, 4=3=1=5, or 3=4=1=5 distribution. So I would be very surprised if anyone in authority in the ACBL suggested that opening 2♦ on one of the last two distributions is not permitted.

[Hanoi5]

Quote

Basically, there is the camp that says that you can harass opponents over every technicality that fits the purpose (and some even go as far as to say that you *should*). The other camp is on the opinion that the rules are not there to help you intimidate your opps, and break their concentration, and even if your income depends on winning you should consider first what is morally right before you consider what is legally right.

This is only black or white. There are some shades of gray in-between. Some people have argued about the professional side, the importance of winning, gamesmanship, etc.

I think a pair of this status looks really bad in the eye of the public when they do a thing like this but I'm almost sure the sponsors will feel happier when they win 'by the rules'. Besides there are other aspects that should be taken into account, some people tend to hold grudges against others for things that happened in the past, what if this is the case here?

Also, ethics and morals and all that jazz are VERY subjective, and opinions are like, well you know the rest.

[Mud Reelo]

In Denmark a commonly used defence against Multi is called 'Meckwell'. How's that for irony?

[Trinidad]

Mud Reelo, on Mar 17 2010, 10:31 PM, said:

In Denmark a commonly used defence against Multi is called 'Meckwell'. How's that for irony?

I think that is the defense 2 from the original "yellow booklet". the one that is now in the ACBL defense database.

Who do you think invented it? (What does that say about Meckwell if they were complaining that no defense was provided?)

Rik

[655321]

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!

Haha, yes, but facts are rarely the point of these threads.

Isn't the point to give all the 'Disgusted, of Tunbridge Wells' in our midst an opportunity to display their moral superiority, at no cost to themselves or anyone else, while providing free entertainment to the masses (those of the masses reading the thread, anyway)

Where would be the fun in that if you had to know what happened first?

[Trinidad]

Sorry, but quite frankly I find these posts about "let's find out what happened first" a little tiring. Here is the original post once more:

kfay, on Mar 17 2010, 04:42 AM, 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?

Kevin is stating clearly what happened and asking for thoughts. He is getting thoughts. Whether Kevin is telling the truth or whether the whole thing never happened and Kevin made the whole story up is irrelevant for that.

If we would have to start every reply in each thread with the disclaimer:
"Assuming the original poster is stating the facts accurately", (ATOPISTFA) this is going to be a very boring forum. Kevin and only Kevin is responsible for his post and by default we assume that the OP is representing the facts accurately, so a disclaimer is not necessary. But for those who think that posters regularly make up stories I offer some additional acronyms:

ATAPISTFA Assuming the above poster is stating the facts accurately
ATOPIAL Assuming the original poster is a liar
ATIASTFA Assuming that I am stating the facts accurately
ATQPISTFA Assuming the quoted poster is stating the facts accurately

And in the outside competition category:
ATOPIAD / ATOPIAR / ATOPIALWL / ATOPIPOTRR Assuming the original poster is a democrat / a republican / a left wing liberal / part of the religious right (for the water cooler)

So in short:
ATOPISTFA, this incident is not cricket.
ATOPIAL: That would not be cricket either.

Rik

[NickRW]

655321, on Mar 17 2010, 10:10 PM, said:

Isn't the point to give all the 'Disgusted, of Tunbridge Wells' in our midst an opportunity to...

Whoa there. I used to live in Tunbridge Wells - the in-laws still do.

[the hog]

655321, on Mar 18 2010, 05:10 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!

Haha, yes, but facts are rarely the point of these threads.

Isn't the point to give all the 'Disgusted, of Tunbridge Wells' in our midst an opportunity to display their moral superiority, at no cost to themselves or anyone else, while providing free entertainment to the masses (those of the masses reading the thread, anyway)

Where would be the fun in that if you had to know what happened first?

It also seems that these forums include those who try to win at all costs. That's fine; use the rules to your advantage. Just don't come bleating when the you get bitten in the bum.

[655321]

Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells, on Mar 17 2010, 07:18 PM, said:

655321, on Mar 18 2010, 05:10 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!

Haha, yes, but facts are rarely the point of these threads.

Isn't the point to give all the 'Disgusted, of Tunbridge Wells' in our midst an opportunity to display their moral superiority, at no cost to themselves or anyone else, while providing free entertainment to the masses (those of the masses reading the thread, anyway)

Where would be the fun in that if you had to know what happened first?

It also seems that these forums include those who try to win at all costs. That's fine; use the rules to your advantage. Just don't come bleating when the you get bitten in the bum.

Hmm, not sure how my post can be interpreted in that way, I have made no comment at all about Meckwell's actions.

[the hog]

655321, on Mar 18 2010, 07:30 AM, said:

snipped
Hmm, not sure how my post can be interpreted in that way, I have made no comment at all about Meckwell's actions.

Really? Read this quote in the given context:

"Isn't the point to give all the 'Disgusted, of Tunbridge Wells' in our midst an opportunity to display their moral superiority"