Rodwell/Ekeblad?

[DJNeill]

Hey,

So Rodwell has been practicing some new relay system of Ekeblad's heavily with him on BBO (bumportant = ER). Did anything ever come of the rumor that Nickell were disbanding sometime soon?

 

Dan

[cherdano]

Rodwell/Ekeblad are playing in the Cavendish together. I don't think this means anything for team Nickell, I can't remember Meckwell ever playing together in the Cavendish.

[bid_em_up]

Meckwell won't play in the Cavendish because their methods are not allowed.

[Aberlour10]

Meckwell won't play in the Cavendish because their methods are not allowed.

I think there is a one more important reason that they don't play together in Cavendish Pairs, Fred wrote in 2004 about it:

 

Meckstroth and Rodwell are professional players. They never

play bridge unless they are guaranteed to make some money

from it. Not all professionals have this attitude but many do.

 

In the Cavendish each pair is forced to purchase at least 10%

(I think that is the number not sure) of themselves back from

the person who bought them.

 

A pair like Meckwell would rate to sell for $70,000 meaning that

they would have to place a bet of $7,000 on themselves. As great

as they are, this would not be a smart bet (especially when they

can guarantee a nice pay check by playing with a sponsor).

 

I would like to see a pair playing a natural system win - one

particular pair in fact - mine

 

By the way, system restrictions are quite severe in this event

(as they should be in any pairs tournament).

 

Fred Gitelman

[glen]

Meckwell was still Meckwell as Tue/Wed in the Gatlinburg KOs:

Gatlinburg Thursday Bulletin

Interesting to note that the Senior KOs have been disbanded (see article at top of bullletin).

 

The Wed/Thurs KOs had a XXXIII Bracket!!!

 

Sunday edit:

 

Meckwell on the winning team in Fri/Sat KO, see:

Gatlinburg Sunday Bulletin

Also the "regional" is above 10,000 tables after 5.5 days.

[cherdano]

Meckwell won't play in the Cavendish because their methods are not allowed.

What parts of their methods would not be allowed? I don't think they are playing multi anymore.

[nickf]

Meckwell won't play in the Cavendish because their methods are not allowed.

no, Meckwell wont play with each other in the Cavendish because:

 

1) they represent a very poor investment in respect to the Calcutta auctioning system

 

2) they make a bucklet load more money playing with clients.

 

nickf

sydney

[Tola18]

 

2) they make a bucklet load more money playing with clients.

Do they often play with clients?

 

Ie, as I know they arent known for extensive playing with clients.

[awm]

I think their preference is to play together, on a team hired by a client. When possible they prefer the team events.

 

When they do play in pairs events, for example at the Cavendish or in the premier pair events at the NABCs, they normally pair with clients.

[Guest Jlall]

Meckwell won't play in the Cavendish because their methods are not allowed.

lol...if you could rake in a sure several several k for playing a few days in the cavendish I think you'd do that too.

[bid_em_up]

Meckwell won't play in the Cavendish because their methods are not allowed.

no, Meckwell wont play with each other in the Cavendish because:

 

1) they represent a very poor investment in respect to the Calcutta auctioning system

 

2) they make a bucklet load more money playing with clients.

 

nickf

sydney

While you may be completely accurate in your assertions, I recall reading years ago that Meckstroth specifically stated that they would not play together in events where their methods are not allowed, financial considerations aside. They have spent too much time in their system, to have to readjust across from the table with each other in a new system. It would not be natural to them to have to play a new system across from each other, and feel that they would not be able to play at their best if required to do so.

 

What parts of their methods would not be allowed? I don't think they are playing multi anymore.

 

From the Cavendish Conditions of Contest:

 

In general, any convention or treatment that is familiar to the average tournament player, or can be explained to the average player within 10 seconds, is allowed. Methods of a destructive nature are not authorized, nor are the following:

 

Forcing or strong pass systems;

Multi 2" and similar conventional opening bids;

Two-suited weak two/three-bid openings which specify only one (or neither) of the suits held; anchor suit must contain at least five cards, except that two of a major showing that suit and a minor is permitted - even if the major is only a four card suit.

Preemptive bids that do not specify which suit is held;

Artificial bids or sequences that require a lengthy explanations;

Canape' style overcalls or opening bids if the first-bid suit may be shorter than four cards;

Any system, convention or treatment that would require a pre-alert (in ACBL parlance) and written suggested defenses.

Transfer openings and transfer responses, subject to the following exceptions:

 

Any transfer response structure to a no-trump opening, overcall or rebid is permitted, as are transfer responses showing at least high-card game invitational values.

Transfer responses over a 1 opening bid.

 

Now, I could be mistaken, but my read on the CoC says the points I have placed in bold would disallow the Meckwell system. There could be other points contained within it as well, but I'm not sure.

 

From the Meckwell System Summary info on the USBF site:

 

We play the following methods that may require advance preparation:

 

1. 2D opening showing short D, 11-15 (4315, 3415, 4414, 4405).

2. 1D opening showing 2+D’s 11-15.

3. Transfers used in many auctions, primarily competitive ones.

1D-X, 1M-X, after 1M overcall (normally with NegX or 1S NAT)

By UPH, 1D-2C, 1D-2S, or 1D-3C. 1M-X and 1?-1M-X type

sequences, transfer is possibly lead-directing with raise.

4. ART raises. 1H-1S-3D: Mixed raise, 2NT=Limit+ raise, etc.

5. Negative free bids @ 2-level in some cases (1D-1M-2C, or 2

of new Major when transfers not in use).

6. ART responses to 1C. 1D=0-7, all others = GF (1H=8+ with S,

or 11-13 BAL, 1N=C, 2C=D, 2D=8-10 BAL, 2H=14+BAL, 3C=any

solid suit 7+ winners, others = 3suiters.

7. 2-suiter conventions. 1S-3C = C + H. 4C jump overcall often

minors. Meckwell vs Strong NT’s. 1C-2D=Michaels.

8. 1D-2H=5/4+ in S/H less than INV, 2S=same but INV. 3C as

jump = minors less than INV.

[cherdano]

I read the CoC, too. I am not aware of any parts of the Meckwell system to which the bold parts in your quote would apply. Are you?

[Guest Jlall]

None of the meckwell system that you outlined requires a pre alert. None requires a lengthy explanation.

[bid_em_up]

None of the meckwell system that you outlined requires a pre alert. None requires a lengthy explanation.

Is this not considered to be a prealert?

 

We play the following methods that may require advance preparation:

[fred]

While you may be completely accurate in your assertions,  I recall reading years ago that Meckstroth specifically stated that they would not play together in events where their methods are not allowed, financial considerations aside.  They have spent too much time in their system, to have to readjust across from the table with each other in a new system.  It would not be natural to them to have to play a new system across from each other, and feel that they would not be able to play at their best if required to do so.

I was at the tournament in question when Meckstroth made the statement you refer to (the Macallan Invitational Pairs in London in roughly 1996). I recall that Rodwell had similar feelings but was less outspoken about it.

 

I believe Meckstroth was in a bad mood at the time because he thought (and he could have easily been right) that the organizers of this particular tournament either changed the conditions of contest or did not properly inform the players of the conditions of contest. He was expecting to be able to play his full system with Rodwell and it bothered him (reasonably enough) to learn at the last minute that this would not be allowed.

 

However, it would be wrong to draw any general conclusions from this.

 

Tournaments like the Macallan are seen as rare sources of "fun" for professional players. While there is some prize money in these events and while these tournaments typically pay the players' expenses, a strong professional player would tend to do better financially by spending his time playing in an ACBL Regional (for example).

 

As such, I could understand Meckstroth thinking "these tournaments are supposed to be fun and it is not fun for me if I can't play my system".

 

But I can promise you that Meckstroth-Rodwell (and probably any professional player) would be willing to be forced to play ANY system if it was in their financial interest to do so.

 

This is how these guys make there living and that is (as it should be) by far the most important factor for them in deciding which tournaments to play in.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Guest Jlall]

None of the meckwell system that you outlined requires a pre alert. None requires a lengthy explanation.

Is this not considered to be a prealert?

 

We play the following methods that may require advance preparation:

In the ACBL none of those things are pre alertable. Many players announce their basic system anyways when they are going to play a match against someone.

 

As far as the USBF goes they give us system summary forms to fill out and we are supposed to write down anything that may require some advanced defense on there, but you don't have to pre alert at the table. The USBF is just trying to make an easy section for people to look up what their opponents play that might be non standard.

[bid_em_up]

While you may be completely accurate in your assertions,  I recall reading years ago that Meckstroth specifically stated that they would not play together in events where their methods are not allowed, financial considerations aside.  They have spent too much time in their system, to have to readjust across from the table with each other in a new system.  It would not be natural to them to have to play a new system across from each other, and feel that they would not be able to play at their best if required to do so.

I was at the tournament in question when Meckstroth made the statement you refer to (the Macallan Invitational Pairs in London in roughly 1996). I recall that Rodwell had similar feelings but was less outspoken about it.

 

I believe Meckstroth was in a bad mood at the time because he thought (and he could have easily been right) that the organizers of this particular tournament either changed the conditions of contest or did not properly inform the players of the conditions of contest. He was expecting to be able to play his full system with Rodwell and it bothered him (reasonably enough) to learn at the last minute that this would not be allowed.

 

However, it would be wrong to draw any general conclusions from this.

 

Tournaments like the Macallan are seen as rare sources of "fun" for professional players. While there is some prize money in these events and while these tournaments typically pay the players' expenses, a strong professional player would tend to do better financially by spending his time playing in an ACBL Regional (for example).

 

As such, I could understand Meckstroth thinking "these tournaments are supposed to be fun and it is not fun for me if I can't play my system".

 

But I can promise you that Meckstroth-Rodwell (and probably any professional player) would be willing to be forced to play ANY system if it was in their financial interest to do so.

 

This is how these guys make there living and that is (as it should be) by far the most important factor for them in deciding which tournaments to play in.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Ty Fred. It was my recollection that it was the Cavendish, evidently I was mistaken. (Heck, it was 10-11 years ago....and it was an Invitational pairs, thats probably why I thought it was the Cavendish.)