The Law's the Law?

[peachy]

Got in the tail end of all the posts, so I do not know if this point has been made.

Manoj,

 

If you read the posts above, you will find that it seems Meckwell were made aware that the opponents played Multi BEFORE the match started.

None of the information shared here came from the players themselves, and some of the pieces of information are conflicting.

[jjbrr]

Got in the tail end of all the posts, so I do not know if this point has been made.

Manoj,

 

If you read the posts above, you will find that it seems Meckwell were made aware that the opponents played Multi BEFORE the match started.

None of the information shared here came from the players themselves, and some of the pieces of information are conflicting.

I agree with this. So far we've gotten some speculation and then, possibly, some facts from people who seem to be very biased in favor of the Singapore team. They may very well have told the story exactly as it happened, and I think it's likely that they have, but until either Meckstroth or Rodwell or the TD come in and explain what they perceived to have happened, then I think it's inappropriate to judge anyone's actions.

[quiddity]

until either Meckstroth or Rodwell or the TD come in and explain what they perceived to have happened, then I think it's inappropriate to judge anyone's actions.

If this were true I can't imagine why anyone would bother to "come in and explain". Silence would be a very effective defense.

[nige1]

Bridge was regarded as a game for Ladies and Gentlemen but, even then, there was a Proprieties section in the laws, to address matters of ethics, politeness, and consideration for others.

 

Now, the laws stipulate that after an infraction, it is right and proper to take full legal advantage. Hence the only possible sanctions against "unsporting" behaviour are social sanctions.

 

According to Bob "Hardball" Hamman, players at top-level should give no quarter. Nor should they expect any. At the other extreme are experts like Hugh Kelsey and Eric Crowhurst, reluctant to call a director for any infraction.

 

The sporting dilemma is harder for a partnership in a team than in a pairs event.

 

Unlike some posters, I feel that relevant incidents are worthy of comment, even if we must rely on the evidence of only a few eye-witnesses like Trinidad and Amethyst.

 

The April Bridge World editorial is relevant to this topic. It discusses sportsmanship or the lack of it, in Bridge and other games.

[Siegmund]

Now, the laws stipulate that after an infraction, it is right and proper to take full legal advantage.

 

They also stipulate calling the director immediately after attention is drawn to an irregularity, and warn that failure to do so may cost the non-offending side their right to redress. Given the version of facts we've heard in this thread, I can at least imagine a director interpreting Meckwell's non-objection at the start of the round as an acceptance of their opponents' system, and refusing him satisfaction beyond obtaining a copy of the defence when the incident arose.

[kenberg]

I read a number of these posts, perhaps not all of them. Possibly not previously* noted:

 

Meckstroth is a member of the Competition and Conventions Committee, which among other things sets the rules about providing written defenses. (I recently stumbled on this while looking for other stuff.) Maybe it's grasping at straws, but is it possible that as a member of this committee he decided that it was his obligation to always call attention to a breach of the laws that he helped to promulgate?

 

 

Crazy maybe, or self-serving maybe, but I can imagine this as being a contributing factor.

 

 

The sort of behavior described simply isn't my style. But I'll say this: After all of this publicity I bet that next year everyone will show up with the proper written defenses!

 

* I mean that maybe this implication of him being on the committee has not been noted, I realize there has been mention of his role in writing some of the rules.

[the hog]

Got in the tail end of all the posts, so I do not know if this point has been made.

 

As I understand it, the 2D multi call was made at the table when one of Meckwell called TD. At this point in time, they surely would have discussed many many Multi defenses, I have no doubt about that. Only, they may not have FINALISED which one they will use against MULTI FOR THAT MATCH. Given this situation, I think it is right for them to call TD since they would be greatly disadvantaged if each partner was on a DIFFERENT PAGE. By insisting that a prepared defense be given, Meckwell ensured that they would not have any misunderstanding arising from their lack of agreement on WHAT TO PLAY - atleast they would play the prepared defense on BOTH SIDES of the screen.

 

In the process, if the opponents got the rough end of the stick, too bad!

 

Manoj.

Yes, of course I am sure that Meckstroth and Rodwell both play a different defence to a multi. rofl

[Rossoneri]

None of the information shared here came from the players themselves, and some of the pieces of information are conflicting.

Some of the information shared here came from one of the players concerned, albeit through someone else.

[Codo]

None of the information shared here came from the players themselves, and some of the pieces of information are conflicting.

Some of the information shared here came from one of the players concerned, albeit through someone else.

But these informations do not fit well into the view of the Meckwell supporters, so they (some of them) like to ignore them.

[jdonn]

None of the information shared here came from the players themselves, and some of the pieces of information are conflicting.

Some of the information shared here came from one of the players concerned, albeit through someone else.

But these informations do not fit well into the view of the Meckwell supporters, so they (some of them) like to ignore them.

Oh yes this thread is sooooo unfairly pro meckwell...

[Trinidad]

None of the information shared here came from the players themselves, and some of the pieces of information are conflicting.

Some of the information shared here came from one of the players concerned, albeit through someone else.

But these informations do not fit well into the view of the Meckwell supporters, so they (some of them) like to ignore them.

Oh yes this thread is sooooo unfairly pro meckwell...

That is nonsense.

 

This thread is only unfair against Meckwell if two conditions are met:

1) The story is false

2) The discussed behavior is indeed bad

 

If the story is true, there is nothing unfair about telling it. And if the behavior is perfectly ok, how can that be unfair to Meckwell?

 

So far, people who are close to the fire are confirming that the essence of the story is true. Admittedly, those people are close to the Ng camp. I would like to hear this story from the Meckwell perspective (or the perspective of the TD). But the silence is deafening.

 

Rik

[gnasher]

I would like to hear this story from the Meckwell perspective (or the perspective of the TD). But the silence is deafening.

No it isn't. The silence may say that:

- They don't know that this discussion is taking place.

- They have better things to do with their time.

- They don't wish to dignify uninformed and unjustified criticism by responding to it.

- They know that arguing with opinionated individuals who have already made up their minds is a waste of time.

- They don't care what we think or say about them.

 

If I became aware that I was being unfairly criticised by a bunch of idiots on an internet newsgroup that I never frequented, I would treat them with the contempt that they deserved, by ignoring them.

[Trinidad]

I would like to hear this story from the Meckwell perspective (or the perspective of the TD). But the silence is deafening.

No it isn't. The silence may say that:

- They don't know that this discussion is taking place.

- They have better things to do with their time.

- They don't wish to dignify uninformed and unjustified criticism by responding to it.

- They know that arguing with opinionated individuals who have already made up their minds is a waste of time.

- They don't care what we think or say about them.

 

If I became aware that I was being unfairly criticised by a bunch of idiots on an internet newsgroup that I never frequented, I would treat them with the contempt that they deserved, by ignoring them.

I fully agree with the part of your post starting from "The silence may say that". I don't know what the "No it isn't." part is doing in your post.

 

Unless I missed something, there hasn't been any version from the Meckwell side or the TD. In that case, it is fair to say that the silence is deafening. You give a list of perfectly good explanations why the silence could be deafening. But that list doesn't make the silence less deafening.

 

Rik

[TimG]

Unless I missed something, there hasn't been any version from the Meckwell side or the TD. In that case, it is fair to say that the silence is deafening.

That just means that there is silence, not that it reveals anything significant.

[gnasher]

My understanding of the phrase "deafening silence" is a silence which is not merely complete, but has significance or tells us something useful. The argument I was trying to make is that, because of the wide range of possible explanations for their silence, the silence has no significance and tells us nothing useful.

 

If by "the silence is deafening" you meant merely "Meckwell have made no public statement about this", then so far as I know you're right.

[Trinidad]

My understanding of the phrase "deafening silence" is a silence which is not merely complete, but has significance or tells us something useful.  The argument I was trying to make is that, because of the wide range of possible explanations for their silence, the silence has no significance and tells us nothing useful.

 

If by "the silence is deafening" you meant merely "Meckwell have made no public statement about this", then so far as I know you're right.

English is not my native language, so I could easily be wrong. Language can be very subtle and this may be one of those instances.

 

In any case, what I meant with "the silence is deafening" was something in between:

 

They* were completely silent while they could have reacted (not at all implying that they owed us a reaction, were expected to react or should have reacted). If this meaning doesn't fit the phrase that I used, please consider the intended meaning rather than the correct meaning.

 

I used the phrase in response to Josh' claim that this thread was unfairly biased against Meckwell. The reason for this perceived bias is simply that no one from the Meckwell side* has contributed to the thread while they could have. Then it is not a miracle that the thread ends up biased.

 

Rik

 

* "They" and "the Meckwell side" refers to the "Meckwell side" in a way equivalent to the contributions we got from the Ng side: Friends, kibitzers, players, team mates, the TD, etc. who have some knowledge of what happened, but can see it from the perspective of Meckwell. (To me the silence is deafening because we are talking about a relatively large group of people who could have reacted, not only Meckstroth or Rodwell.)

[hanp]

It does sound good, the silence is deafening.

[jjbrr]

I used the phrase in response to Josh' claim that this thread was unfairly biased against Meckwell. The reason for this perceived bias is simply that no one from the Meckwell side* has contributed to the thread while they could have. Then it is not a miracle that the thread ends up biased.

No, I'm pretty sure that's not it at all.

[Bbradley62]

I used the phrase in response to Josh' claim that this thread was unfairly biased against Meckwell. The reason for this perceived bias is simply that no one from the Meckwell side* has contributed to the thread while they could have. Then it is not a miracle that the thread ends up biased.

 

Rik

 

* "They" and "the Meckwell side" refers to the "Meckwell side" in a way equivalent to the contributions we got from the Ng side: Friends, kibitzers, players, team mates, the TD, etc. who have some knowledge of what happened, but can see it from the perspective of Meckwell. (To me the silence is deafening because we are talking about a relatively large group of people who could have reacted, not only Meckstroth or Rodwell.)

At least four posters on the first page of this thread (jjbrr, aquahombre, csgibson and peachy) took Meckwell's side. Are you really expecting a world-champion team to reply here?

[peachy]

Rik

 

* "They" and "the Meckwell side" refers to the "Meckwell side" in a way equivalent to the contributions we got from the Ng side: Friends, kibitzers, players, team mates, the TD, etc. who have some knowledge of what happened, but can see it from the perspective of Meckwell.

The TD?

None of the four players or the TD have spoken here, as far as I know. This is also not a court of law, or a war with camps and sides. Just speculation on a product of the rumor mill.

[aguahombre]

At least four posters on the first page of this thread (jjbrr, aquahombre, csgibson and peachy) took Meckwell's side. Are you really expecting a world-champion team to reply here?

Nobody appointed the four of us as spokespersons. We were just giving our opinions, like everyone else. I would have enjoyed reading something from Meckwell, but certainly understand that we should not hold our breath for that.

[awm]

Regardless of facts or accusations thereof, I think there are some interesting topics in this thread.

 

In particular, there is a type of gamesmanship that involves calling the director at any minor impropriety, and pressing for the most favorable possible ruling in these situations. This is clearly legal according to the laws, but arguably "unsporting." It's interesting to ask whether we think this kind of attitude is bad for the game, or whether it's just people doing their best to win. Bob Hamman implies in his book, for example, that he thinks this sort of gamesmanship is part of what separates a good player from a great one (admittedly he seems to be referring more to psychological games at the table than to director calls). Some of the opinions expressed here are rather contrary, suggesting that such attitudes from our elite players are bad for the game.

 

Another question is whether such attitudes depend on the opposition/state of the match. Perhaps this type of action is okay in a closely-fought match between top professionals, but not okay when holding a substantial lead against a much weaker team? Then again, what if the match is close against a supposedly much weaker team (I think this was the case in the Nickell-Ng match)?

 

There's also the observation that some people tend to get much more favorable treatment from directors than others (in particular "famous" players who serve on a lot of league committees, like Jeff Meckstroth, frequently seem to get favorable treatment). One can ask whether this places such a person under additional "sportsmanship" constraints (i.e. he knows he can get the board thrown out if he asks, but he should just make sure a suitable defense is provided because he knows this is what would happen if most other players called in this situation,) or not (it's not Meckstroth's fault that directors seem to "like" him, he's just asking for a ruling like anyone else), or even say that he should "set an example" by making sure the rules (which in some cases he helped write) are enforced to the letter.

[jjbrr]

Regardless of facts or accusations thereof, I think there are some interesting topics in this thread.

 

In particular, there is a type of gamesmanship that involves calling the director at any minor impropriety, and pressing for the most favorable possible ruling in these situations.

 

...

 

Another question is whether such attitudes depend on the opposition/state of the match. Perhaps this type of action is okay in a closely-fought match between top professionals, but not okay when holding a substantial lead against a much weaker team? Then again, what if the match is close against a supposedly much weaker team (I think this was the case in the Nickell-Ng match)?

 

...

 

There's also the observation that some people tend to get much more favorable treatment from directors than others (in particular "famous" players who serve on a lot of league committees, like Jeff Meckstroth, frequently seem to get favorable treatment).

Please cite evidence that any of the above is true or played any role in the events that happened.

[awm]

Please cite evidence that any of the above is true or played any role in the events that happened.

Since the attitude seems to be to discount the opinions of anyone as to what actually happened (even eye witnesses), I don't suppose I can cite evidence that anything actually occurred.

 

My post was making general points though about what "sportsmanship" means and whether being a bit of a "rules lawyer" is just the expected "do everything you can to win" attitude that one would want from elite players in any activity, or is somehow unsporting and taking advantage... or if the opinion is more nuanced based on the situation and who the people involved are.

 

Certainly the "accusation" in this particular case relates very obviously to these points.

[junyi_zhu]

Regardless of facts or accusations thereof, I think there are some interesting topics in this thread.

 

In particular, there is a type of gamesmanship that involves calling the director at any minor impropriety, and pressing for the most favorable possible ruling in these situations. This is clearly legal according to the laws, but arguably "unsporting." It's interesting to ask whether we think this kind of attitude is bad for the game, or whether it's just people doing their best to win. Bob Hamman implies in his book, for example, that he thinks this sort of gamesmanship is part of what separates a good player from a great one (admittedly he seems to be referring more to psychological games at the table than to director calls). Some of the opinions expressed here are rather contrary, suggesting that such attitudes from our elite players are bad for the game.

 

Another question is whether such attitudes depend on the opposition/state of the match. Perhaps this type of action is okay in a closely-fought match between top professionals, but not okay when holding a substantial lead against a much weaker team? Then again, what if the match is close against a supposedly much weaker team (I think this was the case in the Nickell-Ng match)?

 

There's also the observation that some people tend to get much more favorable treatment from directors than others (in particular "famous" players who serve on a lot of league committees, like Jeff Meckstroth, frequently seem to get favorable treatment). One can ask whether this places such a person under additional "sportsmanship" constraints (i.e. he knows he can get the board thrown out if he asks, but he should just make sure a suitable defense is provided because he knows this is what would happen if most other players called in this situation,) or not (it's not Meckstroth's fault that directors seem to "like" him, he's just asking for a ruling like anyone else), or even say that he should "set an example" by making sure the rules (which in some cases he helped write) are enforced to the letter.

In my observation, the so-called sportsmanship occurs only when the sportsman(woman) has led a large margin.