The Law's the Law?

[MarkDean]

Even more recently, in an early round of the 2010 Vanderbilt, a world champion-calibre team was playing a young, unheralded, team. One of the unheralded pairs was playing Multi Two Diamonds, which the ACBL requires of its proponents to supply two copies of the official, standard, ACBL defence for its opponents. The pair had tried to obtain the approved defence from the tournament officials to no avail, so they wrote it out by hand. The first pair they played against on the team unwittingly allowed the transgression after a misunderstanding. The second pair they played against said, “We’ll see how it goes,” (according to the young pair, but denied by the champions), then called the TD when the young pair opened Two Diamonds later in the set. When the TD arrived, the world champion pair suggested a procedural penalty (again, this version is disputed by the champions) against the young pair. When the youngsters informed the TD that they had a handwritten copy of the defence, the world champion pair questioned its legibility and accuracy. The young pair was eventually informed that they could not play Multi and had now to play weak twos. The world champions’ actions in this incident were generally looked upon unfavourably, but not by all.

Dispute over detail remains, but Fred's link lends further credence to the substance of the original post. In any case, the IPBA editorial about alleged unsporting behavioir raises important questions that we must face for the the future of Bridge. (For example see the Young players thread).

• The laws of Bridge state that it is ethical to take legal advantage.
  
• But is this kind of behaviour sporting?
  
• If not is it socially acceptable?
  
• Does the answer depend on local mores and national temperament?
  

This topic is emotive enough without descent to ad hominem attacks on those who don't share your view (as stupid, insane, disingenuous, idiots, morons, liars, cheats, and so on, ad nauseam)

I disagree with the first sentence of your post. The article says that Meckwell deny having said "We'll see how it goes," and deny asking for a procedural penalty. Obviously I do not know which side is telling the truth, but I think there is a pretty big difference in the two versions of the episode.

[jjbrr]

pretty big difference in the two versions of the story seems amazingly accurate in this situation.

 

 

shocking!

[nige1]

Even more recently, in an early round of the 2010 Vanderbilt, a world champion-calibre team was playing a young, unheralded, team. One of the unheralded pairs was playing Multi Two Diamonds, which the ACBL requires of its proponents to supply two copies of the official, standard, ACBL defence for its opponents. The pair had tried to obtain the approved defence from the tournament officials to no avail, so they wrote it out by hand. The first pair they played against on the team unwittingly allowed the transgression after a misunderstanding. The second pair they played against said, “We’ll see how it goes,” (according to the young pair, but denied by the champions), then called the TD when the young pair opened Two Diamonds later in the set. When the TD arrived, the world champion pair suggested a procedural penalty (again, this version is disputed by the champions) against the young pair. When the youngsters informed the TD that they had a handwritten copy of the defence, the world champion pair questioned its legibility and accuracy. The young pair was eventually informed that they could not play Multi and had now to play weak twos. The world champions’ actions in this incident were generally looked upon unfavourably, but not by all.

Dispute over detail remains, but Fred's link lends further credence to the substance of the original post. [sNIP]

I disagree with the first sentence of your post.  The article says that Meckwell deny having said "We'll see how it goes," and deny asking for a procedural penalty.  Obviously I do not know which side is telling the truth, but I think there is a pretty big difference in the two versions of the episode.

The following is the original post for comparison with the IPBA editorial

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?

The editorial seems to confirm the substance of the original post. Notice that

• The editorial points out which bits are disputed.
  
• The original post omits the disputed bits.
  

Presumably, Meckstroth and Rodwell can reduce confusion over disputed details if they want to do so. The director and scorer can be asked to cofirm the facts. There may be a written record. Even if we aren't privy to the full version of events, we can still debate the role of sportsmanship in Bridge.

[MarkDean]

OK, yeah, it does agree with the original post.

 

As the article says Meckwell dispute certain claims, they must have discussed it at some point.

[wyman]

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.

A wise man who posts here often once said to me: "With so much cheating in bridge these days, let's be tough on cheating and soft on winning."