The Law's the Law?

[the hog]

Well if what Raist said happened is accurate, then what can I say? behaviour like this is reprehensible.

you are being very soft with them if this is true ;), what comes to my mind is what a pair of ass*** mot****ers. But only if that was true, I am sure it is being exagerated by someone who doesn't like M-R much.

Wow Fluffy, tell me what you really think.

[the hog]

Is there something to prevent a pair from generating a clear computer-printed convention card and then adding a few clearly printed notes on those few areas that need clarification?

 

Really, this is a pretty silly discussion.  It is not difficult for a pair to produce an easy to read convention card, whether hand written or computer generated or both.  And for a pair at this level of competition to throw something together that looks like crap is hard to understand.

I think you are bending over backwards to be an apologist Art. Fwiw I looked at their, (M/R), convention card on line. It really is full of obfuscation and took me about 15 minutes to work out what bids might mean.

[ArtK78]

Is there something to prevent a pair from generating a clear computer-printed convention card and then adding a few clearly printed notes on those few areas that need clarification?

 

Really, this is a pretty silly discussion.  It is not difficult for a pair to produce an easy to read convention card, whether hand written or computer generated or both.  And for a pair at this level of competition to throw something together that looks like crap is hard to understand.

I think you are bending over backwards to be an apologist Art. Fwiw I looked at their, (M/R), convention card on line. It really is full of obfuscation and took me about 15 minutes to work out what bids might mean.

Hardly.

 

I am talking about the MR card that is displayed on the website referred to earlier.

 

What a piece of crap. Even if you can make out what it says on it, how can anyone be anything but embarrassed to put it on the table?

[the hog]

OK - sorry, misunderstood.

[Trinidad]

If you ever read Bob Hamman's book, "At the Table" you would understand what transpired.  This wasn't the Dallas Regional or a club game - this was in the Vanderbilt, "and we play hardball, there", according to Hamman.

This is still only bridge. I heard another player say: "There is no condo with a pool at stake." Ok. These guys are paid by Mr. Nickel to win the Vanderbilt. Are they sure that he wants them to win like this?

 

Rik

[TimG]

If you ever read Bob Hamman's book, "At the Table" you would understand what transpired.  This wasn't the Dallas Regional or a club game - this was in the Vanderbilt, "and we play hardball, there", according to Hamman.

This is still only bridge. I heard another player say: "There is no condo with a pool at stake." Ok. These guys are paid by Mr. Nickel to win the Vanderbilt. Are they sure that he wants them to win like this?

Mr. Nickel is surely aware of their behavior and continues to hire them year after year.

[gnasher]

If you ever read Bob Hamman's book, "At the Table" you would understand what transpired.  This wasn't the Dallas Regional or a club game - this was in the Vanderbilt, "and we play hardball, there", according to Hamman.

I don't think anyone has any difficulty in understanding what is alleged to have happened; the question is whether we approve or not. I don't see how that's affected by knowing what some other top player would do - if you consider an action wrong, you will still consider it wrong even if you know that half the world would do it.

[billw55]

If you ever read Bob Hamman's book, "At the Table" you would understand what transpired. This wasn't the Dallas Regional or a club game - this was in the Vanderbilt, "and we play hardball, there", according to Hamman.

I guess that answers my previous question.

[crazy4hoop]

http://usbf.org/docs/2009usbc/acblcards/Me...rothRodwell.jpg

 

Access forbidden, wtf?!?

[jjbrr]

http://usbf.org/docs/2009usbc/acblcards/Me...rothRodwell.jpg

 

Access forbidden, wtf?!?

http://usbf.org/docs/2009usbc/acblcards/

 

try this instead

[crazy4hoop]

thx

[bluecalm]

I think their behavior is pathetic if described correctly.

The point of the rule is clearly to give opponent good defense if the needed it. MR played against multi hundreds of times, they clearly enforced the rule to throw off opponents psychologically and did that against spirit of the game.

 

It's even more pathetic considering that they enforced the rule which is very controversial, against what rest of the world is used to and intended to defend lol's not pro players. They also deceived their opponents verbally by suggesting they have no problems with multi.

 

As to their card. LOL. I am happy they got eliminated in R16 by the better team. Served them well. There are icons of the game and are behaving like kids. Shame !

[amethyst]

Finally, access to a computer ...

1) 2D used by Ng-Tan only showed 1 weak major, not a true multi.

2) Ng asked directors for copy of ACBL defense before start of Vanderbilt but copy could not be found, so Ng looked it up online and hand wrote it in large letters over 3 pages.

3) 1st rd opps Zaleski thought nothing of Ng-Tan 2D. Ng-Tan repaid favor by not complaining that Zaleski & p did not have CC available at table.

4) still don't understand y Meckwell did not call director when they were informed at beginning of set.

 

I was there!

[nige1]

Finally, access to a computer ...

1. 
    
    
   
2. 2D used by Ng-Tan only showed 1 weak major, not a true multi.
    
   
3. Ng asked directors for copy of ACBL defense before start of Vanderbilt but copy could not be found, so Ng looked it up online and hand wrote it in large letters over 3 pages.
    
   
4. 1st rd opps Zaleski thought nothing of Ng-Tan 2D.  Ng-Tan repaid favor by not complaining that Zaleski & p did not have CC available at table.
    
   
5. still don't understand y Meckwell did not call director when they were informed at beginning of set. 
    
   

I was there!

Wow :) :) :( :( but thank you for clarifying :)

[hanp]

OK assuming that this is all correct I take back what I wrote earlier in this thread.

 

I don't understand it though, if the opponents had clearly written defenses with them, why did the director rule against them?

[G_R__E_G]

OK assuming that this is all correct I take back what I wrote earlier in this thread.

 

I don't understand it though, if the opponents had clearly written defenses with them, why did the director rule against them?

I'm wondering the same thing Han - something seems odd with this. The approved defense isn't that long:

 

http://web2.acbl.org/defensedatabase/3b.htm

 

If this was written out over three pages I find it hard to believe that it was that difficult to read (unless he has a doctor's handwriting).

[peachy]

Finally, access to a computer ...

1) 2D used by Ng-Tan only showed 1 weak major, not a true multi.

2) Ng asked directors for copy of ACBL defense before start of Vanderbilt but copy could not be found, so Ng looked it up online and hand wrote it in large letters over 3 pages.

3) 1st rd opps Zaleski thought nothing of Ng-Tan 2D. Ng-Tan repaid favor by not complaining that Zaleski & p did not have CC available at table.

4) still don't understand y Meckwell did not call director when they were informed at beginning of set.

 

I was there!

I was one of those who originally did not share the outrage that most folks here expressed.

 

On 1), if the rules say you need an approved defense, then you need one (it may be silly, and I agree it is - but what can one do about changing the rules on the day of the event - nothing)

 

On 2) I believe you if that is what you heard yourself the TD's say.

 

However, the TD's do have copies, at least one. Therefore, someone is telling porkies or someone or several someones have had a misunderstanding. Whatever it was, there were easy solutions by Ng-Tan to correct their own mistake, other than write in large letters on three sheets of paper.

 

*The locals are friendly, ask somebody to help you get the document.

 

*There are lots of other players in Vanderbilt who play Multi - ask around, borrow the paper, or make a copy of it at the hotel's business center.

 

*Make a printout of the document from the webpage, at the hotel's business center.

 

*There are several Fedex Office (formerly: Kinko's) in town, have a teammate or friend, even a stranger [most people like to help a visitor], go to one and print it off the internet.

 

Coming to the tournament without having that silly piece of paper that the tournament rules required, was bad planning. I would take personal responsibility for that and would not change the subject into complaining about the opposing team's complete lack of class when I was the one at fault. Having read your point 4), I have now more sympathy for the Singapore team than I did before.

 

As to 3) this has nothing to do with it. If someone else gets by without being in compliance, it has nothing to do with "my" obligation to be in compliance.

 

Agree on 4). They should have called the TD in the beginning if they were going to call.

[mohitz]

I would take personal responsibility for that and would not change the subject into complaining about the opposing team's complete lack of class when I was the one at fault.

This thread isn't about Team Ng complaining, is it?

[Trinidad]

1)  2D used by Ng-Tan only showed 1 weak major, not a true multi.

That's exactly the variation that Meckwell used to play. The defense in the database must be approved for that.

 

2)  Ng asked directors for copy of ACBL defense before start of Vanderbilt but copy could not be found, so Ng looked it up online and hand wrote it in large letters over 3 pages.

So, they provided a defense. Meckstroth claimed he couldn't read it.

 

3) 1st rd opps Zaleski thought nothing of Ng-Tan 2D.  Ng-Tan repaid favor by not complaining that Zaleski & p did not have CC available at table.

That's not relevant.

 

4) still don't understand y Meckwell did not call director when they were informed at beginning of set. 

I still don't understand why the TD made his ruling when there actually was a defense at the table.

 

Rik

[Rossoneri]

I would take personal responsibility for that and would not change the subject into complaining about the opposing team's complete lack of class when I was the one at fault.

This thread isn't about Team Ng complaining, is it?

Quite right. When Kelvin (Ng) spoke to me, he said it was his fault for not preparing a copy of the defence in the first place.

[amethyst]

No one's complaining! Someone picked up on the situation from vugraph. Someone said, We don't know what really happened. Someone provided some facts. I'm backing up those facts. The "law's the law" sure, w/c cud have been enforced at the beginning of the set when opps were duly informed.

[peachy]

I would take personal responsibility for that and would not change the subject into complaining about the opposing team's complete lack of class when I was the one at fault.

This thread isn't about Team Ng complaining, is it?

Quite right. When Kelvin (Ng) spoke to me, he said it was his fault for not preparing a copy of the defence in the first place.

I was reacting (overreacting, rather) to later posts. Sorry. You are right.

[Bbradley62]

3) 1st rd opps Zaleski thought nothing of Ng-Tan 2D. Ng-Tan repaid favor by not complaining that Zaleski & p did not have CC available at table.

OP said the Ng vs Nickell match was the first round. Was this a three-way? The primary reason I'm asking is because this thread seems to be full of inaccurate statements of alleged fact.

[joemanjo]

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.

[mohitz]

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.