[aguahombre]

trinidad: The original post stated what certainly occurred. It did not state what else occurred. It did not state any history, it did not state anything that occurred between the Director being given the facts and his ruling.

No one is disputing the OP's post. There is not much there to dispute. It did not even state that the board was adjusted.

It might as well have said: "Meckwell discovered an irregularity. They called the TD. The TD ruled. Should Meckwell, who know all the rules and how to handle all situations, have not called the TD?"

So, people filled in their own scenarios to a post which was incomplete. How can anyone who does not possess more information conclude that calling the TD for an irreguarity is anything but proper/mandatory to do? These people are not questioning the poster's veracity. but some seem to be saying that the very act of allowing the TD to do his/her job is somehow an attempt to intimidate, rattle, or otherwise gain undue advantage over the opponents.

[PeterGill]

I think Meckstroth might be on the Systems Committee in USA.

Perhaps he thought that he would dishonour that position
if he failed to call the Director? My point is that it is an assumption
that he or his partner called the Director for personal reasons.
The motivation for the Director call is unknown.

[the hog]

AQH, I normally agree with most of your posts as well, however:

"The TD ruled. Should Meckwell, who know all the rules and how to handle all situations, have not called the TD?"

Some contributors to this thread clearly think not. There was a more gentlemanly way of handling this situation.

"So, people filled in their own scenarios to a post which was incomplete."

This is incorrect. Posters are responding to the situation presented by the op. There may have been some argy bargy before or afterward, there may not. Also notice that by stating the score line at the time, the op seems to imply that action was taken because of the score.

To Pierre: Let me ask you this Peter, "Would YOU have called the director?" Both you and I know what the answer to this question is.

[jjbrr]

655321 is a living legend

[jwmonty]

awm, on Mar 17 2010, 02:46 PM, said:

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.

Actually it is pretty clear that the term "three-suited," at least as used by the ACBL, includes hands with shapes like 3=4=1=5 and 4=3=1=5. If you visit the Defense Database page on the ACBL website, you will find a list of available defenses to Midchart conventions. Defense 1.a. is described as being the defense to a "2H opening which is 3-suited, short in diamonds," and is reachable by a hyperlink. Follow the link and you get a page headed "Versus 2H Opening which is 3-suited, short diamonds, 11-15 (Can be 4-3 in majors)." The rest of this page contains the actual defense to the 2H bid.

It is obvious that the ACBL does not consider a 2H opening that may contain a three-card major to be something other than"3-suited" just because one of the majors may contain fewer than four cards.

The GCC states that one of the allowable meanings for a 2D opening is "a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP." I conclude that 4=3=1=5 and 3=4=1=5 are acceptable shapes for a Precision 2D opening under the GCC, because those shapes are "three-suiters." The only way this could be untrue is if the term "three-suiter," as used in the GCC, has a different meaning from "3-suited" as used in the Defense Database. I think you are going to be hard-pressed to make that argument.

[Cascade]

jwmonty, on Mar 18 2010, 03:26 PM, said:

awm, on Mar 17 2010, 02:46 PM, said:

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.

Actually it is pretty clear that the term "three-suited," at least as used by the ACBL, includes hands with shapes like 3=4=1=5 and 4=3=1=5. If you visit the Defense Database page on the ACBL website, you will find a list of available defenses to Midchart conventions. Defense 1.a. is described as being the defense to a "2H opening which is 3-suited, short in diamonds," and is reachable by a hyperlink. Follow the link and you get a page headed "Versus 2H Opening which is 3-suited, short diamonds, 11-15 (Can be 4-3 in majors)." The rest of this page contains the actual defense to the 2H bid.

It is obvious that the ACBL does not consider a 2H opening that may contain a three-card major to be something other than"3-suited" just because one of the majors may contain fewer than four cards.

The GCC states that one of the allowable meanings for a 2D opening is "a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP." I conclude that 4=3=1=5 and 3=4=1=5 are acceptable shapes for a Precision 2D opening under the GCC, because those shapes are "three-suiters." The only way this could be untrue is if the term "three-suiter," as used in the GCC, has a different meaning from "3-suited" as used in the Defense Database. I think you are going to be hard-pressed to make that argument.

So 4-4-3-2 is "three suited"?

[Cascade]

and if "three suited" is generally understood to mean can be "two suited with a three card fragment" then why does the defense database include the redundant parenthetical note "(could be 4-3 in the majors)"?

and why is this parenthetical note not included in the GCC for the 2♣ and 2♦ openings?

[Dirk Kuijt]

Without commenting on the Vanderbilt situation, the seemingly equivalent situation at matchpoints (mentioned by, I believe, hanp) is actually quite different.

I can't vouch for the following story, though I suspect it has happened. The point is accurate in any case:

E/W, defending against 4 Spades, revoke at trick 10, which means that they win no more tricks, even though West has the trump ace. Gracious South, knowing that this gives him a good score that he was "not entitled to", says, "I don't want to win the tournament like that, we'll just forget about the revoke".

Well, N/S didn't win the tournament like that--E/W did! The problem? The pair that came in second complained, "Nobody forgave any of our mistakes." The problem is that N/S have to defend the integrity of the whole tournament; if they forgive errors then they are giving away things that don't belong to them.

In contrast, in the Vanderbilt, which is a straight knockout, if you forgive errors, you hurt only yourself.

[the hog]

"t is not true that a partnership agreement is completely, or even adequately, described by saying "2♦ Multi". Multi comes in various flavors, and a defense that is appropriate for one version may not appropriate for another. If you don't provide a defense, and you don't have FULL disclosure, then you really are putting your opponents at an unfair disadvantage, even if you are playing Meckwell, or some other pair that plays (what is ostensibly) the same convention."

Dirk, that is a self serving argument.

[Dirk Kuijt]

One other issue for the anti-Meckwell group to consider.

It is not true that a partnership agreement is completely, or even adequately, described by saying "2♦ Multi". Multi comes in various flavors, and a defense that is appropriate for one version may not appropriate for another. If you don't provide a defense, and you don't have FULL disclosure, then you really are putting your opponents at an unfair disadvantage, even if you are playing Meckwell, or some other pair that plays (what is ostensibly) the same convention.

[aguahombre]

The_Hog, on Mar 17 2010, 09:15 PM, said:

"t is not true that a partnership agreement is completely, or even adequately, described by saying "2♦ Multi". Multi comes in various flavors, and a defense that is appropriate for one version may not appropriate for another. If you don't provide a defense, and you don't have FULL disclosure, then you really are putting your opponents at an unfair disadvantage, even if you are playing Meckwell, or some other pair that plays (what is ostensibly) the same convention."

yikes. Are you changing your position? what an outstanding/objective thing to do.

[the hog]

AQH, no I was quoting Dirk. Unfortunately his post is under mine and my first one was errant nonsense, so I edited it.

[PeterGill]

The Hog asked me if I personally would have called the Director.

Nowadays, well no, I wouldn't have, mainly because I like winning and I find that most of my partners get distracted from concentrating their mind fully on winning each hand if we have unnecessary Director calls which can distract them (and me) from concentrating on the game.

Would I have called the Director many years ago, when I used to win less often?
I'm afraid that the answer is almost certainly yes, I would have. People change.

Therefore, should you, when you are playing against me, call the Director unnecessarily to try to distract me from concentrating on winning? Well no, that doesn't work, because I have toughened myself up mentally at the bridge table so that if there is such a distraction I tell myself to focus more than ever on concentrating on each hand in order to maximise my chance of beating you.

I don't think any of these considerations apply to Meckwell, but it is the best I can do to answer The Hog's surprisingly complex question.

[theli]

as i was interested in bridge for much less time than i was interested in football (soccer for some) i think this case is like when a player obtains a penalty kick by exaggerating a physical contact.
he is congratulated by his side and booed by the opps.

so if you're a fan of Meckwell you should congratulate them. If you're not you can talk about their lack of sportmanship (just as long as you in their place wouldn't have behaved the same)

[Cyberyeti]

theli, on Mar 18 2010, 04:21 AM, said:

as i was interested in bridge for much less time than i was interested in football (soccer for some) i think this case is like when a player obtains a penalty kick by exaggerating a physical contact.
he is congratulated by his side and booed by the opps.

so if you're a fan of Meckwell you should congratulate them. If you're not you can talk about their lack of sportmanship (just as long as you in their place wouldn't have behaved the same)

This is a national thing, in much of Europe this is true, but in the UK soccer phone-ins are crammed with fans deriding their own club's players for diving/exaggeration.

Didier Drogba and Cristiano Ronaldo were ridiculed for this when they started playing here and much reduced how often they did it.

I think there is more of this type of attitude against gamesmanship here, although the laws of bridge are discouraging keeping to this. The number of pairs who just won't admit a break in tempo shorter than several minutes now with the standard of "normality" required for any action oppsite is definitely increasing.

[jjbrr]

theli, on Mar 18 2010, 04:21 AM, said:

as i was interested in bridge for much less time than i was interested in football (soccer for some) i think this case is like when a player obtains a penalty kick by exaggerating a physical contact.
he is congratulated by his side and booed by the opps.

so if you're a fan of Meckwell you should congratulate them. If you're not you can talk about their lack of sportmanship (just as long as you in their place wouldn't have behaved the same)

I think more appropriately, since this is a case where the uneducated masses of BBF don't have all the details, this is much like when a player obtains a penalty kick and his fans agree that there was contact and a PK was justified while his opponents scream that he exaggerated the physical contact and boo him and curse his family and the ref and cry about sportsmanship and the like.

The point is there may very well have been a legitimate foul.

[Phil]

One of my partners was involved in a first round Spingold match against Sutherlin and Gerard several years ago. Gerard had reached a grand missing the trump K with 3 out that was offside (Kx). Partner's partner was so nervous that he ducked (!).

Sutherlin took Gerard aside and said "we don't want to win this way" so they conceded the trick and the grand.

[aguahombre]

Phil, on Mar 18 2010, 09:34 AM, said:

One of my partners was involved in a first round Spingold match against Sutherlin and Gerard several years ago. Gerard had reached a grand missing the trump K with 3 out that was offside (Kx). Partner's partner was so nervous that he ducked (!).

Sutherlin took Gerard aside and said "we don't want to win this way" so they conceded the trick and the grand.

Hopefully, Gerard's opponents said, "We don't want to win this way." and declined the gift.

[hanp]

Phil, on Mar 18 2010, 10:34 AM, said:

One of my partners was involved in a first round Spingold match against Sutherlin and Gerard several years ago. Gerard had reached a grand missing the trump K with 3 out that was offside (Kx). Partner's partner was so nervous that he ducked (!).

Sutherlin took Gerard aside and said "we don't want to win this way" so they conceded the trick and the grand.

I don't get this at all, is this supposed to be sportsmanship? I'm sure he meant it nicely but it seems very obnoxious to me.

[aguahombre]

hanp, on Mar 18 2010, 11:04 AM, said:

Phil, on Mar 18 2010, 10:34 AM, said:

One of my partners was involved in a first round Spingold match against Sutherlin and Gerard several years ago. Gerard had reached a grand missing the trump K with 3 out that was offside (Kx). Partner's partner was so nervous  that he ducked (!).

Sutherlin took Gerard aside and said "we don't want to win this way" so they conceded the trick and the grand.

I don't get this at all, is this supposed to be sportsmanship? I'm sure he meant it nicely but it seems very obnoxious to me.

I was thinking of a better word than "obnoxious". Maybe patronizing. Maybe, "you ain't gonna win anyway, so take that."