The Law's the Law?

[NickRW]

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.

B) 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]

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]

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]

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. B) )

[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]

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]

(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]

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]

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. B))

 

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

[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]

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]

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]

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.