Meckstroth and Rodwell

[aguahombre]

Awsome that their card is hand-done, just like most humans.

[jdonn]

I just want to clarify for anyone who hasn't been around long. The forums are in no way anti-American!

[aguahombre]

I just want to clarify for anyone who hasn't been around long. The forums are in no way anti-American!

these parts, anyway. I stay out of the Water Cooler :(

[wank]

if that refers to the OP, she is american

[Bbradley62]

It appears to me that Vampyr asked a Yes/No question: 

Is it condoned practice to check the least-wrong box rather than write a correct explanation?

 

It's hard to tell whether she's been told "yes" or "no" by these responses.  (I haven't been at an actual tournament in long enough that I no longer know what is condoned practice, so I'm not answering either, just trying to clarify the question.)

I'm sorry for being so contentious, but do you interpret her question to be seeking the legal answer or the opinions of the masses, as misguided and uninformed as those answers might be?

 

I believe she simply wants to know whether it is standard practice for pairs playing in an elite event such as the Spingold (which is where this conversation started) to have their convention cards filled out in a half-ass manner, including simply checking the box representing the closest answer in cases where there are several boxes to choose from that don't quite give the right answer.

 

I played against Nickell-Freeman in the second round of a regional pairs event about 12 years ago. They got to my table with their convention card about one-third completed. They were sorta-kinda filling it out, but they clearly didn't really think it was important that they do so. I remember being annoyed that they hadn't bothered to do this and thinking that the rules must not be enforced for certain players, because my partner and I wouldn't have tried to get away with that.

[ggwhiz]

Back to the original point imho.

 

Meckstroth and Rodwell tend to do whatever they can "get away with" under the laws to help themselves win. In some cases this includes poor disclosure (for example, they play major suit jump raises as "mixed" but it's marked on their card as weak; of course the regulation ACBL card has no checkbox for "mixed"),

 

Does it not come down to the decades old argument about professional play?

 

My guess as to the facts (or not) is that they did nothing wrong BUT!!!

 

I appreciate when Billy Eisenberg dropped a card on the table, Garozzo and Belladonna told him to pick it up but he called the director and insisted on the penalty, resulting in 3 or 4 down in a cold game.

 

Next hand G and B comically underplayed their own game into the toilet and this was in the finals of the Bermuda Bowl!

 

Soccer teams kick the ball out of play for an injured opponent, golfers call penalties on themselves for a ball moving as they address it (more to the point when they weren't all on camera) but Bridge is about the coin and making a living for these guys.

 

All legal but a HUGE millstone around the (lack of) popularity of bridge.

[jjbrr]

It appears to me that Vampyr asked a Yes/No question: 

Is it condoned practice to check the least-wrong box rather than write a correct explanation?

 

It's hard to tell whether she's been told "yes" or "no" by these responses.  (I haven't been at an actual tournament in long enough that I no longer know what is condoned practice, so I'm not answering either, just trying to clarify the question.)

I'm sorry for being so contentious, but do you interpret her question to be seeking the legal answer or the opinions of the masses, as misguided and uninformed as those answers might be?

 

I believe she simply wants to know whether it is standard practice for pairs playing in an elite event such as the Spingold (which is where this conversation started) to have their convention cards filled out in a half-ass manner, including simply checking the box representing the closest answer in cases where there are several boxes to choose from that don't quite give the right answer.

 

I played against Nickell-Freeman in the second round of a regional pairs event about 12 years ago. They got to my table with their convention card about one-third completed. They were sorta-kinda filling it out, but they clearly didn't really think it was important that they do so. I remember being annoyed that they hadn't bothered to do this and thinking that the rules must not be enforced for certain players, because my partner and I wouldn't have tried to get away with that.

lol

[hanp]

The comparisons with soccer (where many players go out of their way to injure the opponents) is hilarious.

[awm]

My observation about the mixed raises was based on playing against Meckstroth and Rodwell in a regional tournament a number of years ago. Perhaps they had complaints about this in the intervening time and decided to fix their card?

 

There are a lot of "half-assed" convention cards at the upper levels of the game. Looking over the cards at the USBF site, there are quite a few from very established partnerships which are not very well filled out.

 

Some of this is due to problems with the ACBL convention cards; the spaces on the card do not reflect very well the sorts of things that top players usually need to know about their opponents methods, and in general people don't pay much attention to the card and just ask when they need to know. When playing in the platinum pairs at the last nationals, very few players put a convention card on the table when they arrived, and very few glanced at my card when it was there. I'm sure most of the field could've produced a card (in some state of filled-out-ness) if anyone had asked, but for the most part no one did. This is a very different environment than in England (apparently) where people routinely exchange system cards before play.

[vuroth]

The comparisons with soccer (where many players go out of their way to injure the opponents) is hilarious.

Actually, I was thinking that the comparison with soccer, where many people fake injuries to take advantage of the "fair play" of their opponents, was hilarious.

[jdonn]

I was thinking the comparison with soccer, where players routinely get in the way of free kicks or poke the ball away before the other team can quickly get the kick off, and intentionally inch closer than where the referee placed them im defense of the kick, is hilarious.

[jjbrr]

When I was like 14 and just starting to play competitive club soccer, my coach gave us a whole lesson one practice on how to sneakily grab a part of the opponent's shorts when there's a corner kick so that if they jump their shorts would be tugged down and they might be more reluctant to jump next time (!?). He was an ex-pro.

 

oleeeeeeeee

[the hog]

It appears to me that Vampyr asked a Yes/No question: 

Is it condoned practice to check the least-wrong box rather than write a correct explanation?

 

It's hard to tell whether she's been told "yes" or "no" by these responses.  (I haven't been at an actual tournament in long enough that I no longer know what is condoned practice, so I'm not answering either, just trying to clarify the question.)

I'm sorry for being so contentious, but do you interpret her question to be seeking the legal answer or the opinions of the masses, as misguided and uninformed as those answers might be?

 

I believe she simply wants to know whether it is standard practice for pairs playing in an elite event such as the Spingold (which is where this conversation started) to have their convention cards filled out in a half-ass manner, including simply checking the box representing the closest answer in cases where there are several boxes to choose from that don't quite give the right answer.

 

I played against Nickell-Freeman in the second round of a regional pairs event about 12 years ago. They got to my table with their convention card about one-third completed. They were sorta-kinda filling it out, but they clearly didn't really think it was important that they do so. I remember being annoyed that they hadn't bothered to do this and thinking that the rules must not be enforced for certain players, because my partner and I wouldn't have tried to get away with that.

lol

Why is this funny?

[jjbrr]

What I am asking is what is the correct procedure, sanctioned by the ACBL, since Meckwell's approach (if in fact it was reported correctly) seems not to be best.

 

I am accepting the fact that the ACBL is not giong to introduce significant improvements, such as switching to the WBF CC, anytime soon.

Because the first paragraph is just wrong, unless you want to argue that "standard procedure by players" means the same thing as "ACBL sanctioned correct procedures." While the standard procedure is and should be the correct procedure most of the time, I think you'll agree it's not always true.

 

Even if the first paragraph were true, the second paragraph doesn't add anything to the discussion. Regional pairs 12 years ago != elite events today.

 

But it begs the question of why this isn't in the law forum, which I believe I already addressed as well.

[the hog]

Well, it is a valid point. I have experienced this in other countries as well - the half filled out system card by expert pairs and a bit of a happy go lucky attitude about it.

 

Regional pairs, elite pairs....does it really matter? Having a correctly filled out cc is just respecting the opps is it not? Before Josh regards this as another example of anti Americanism, please note that i did say I have experienced it in a number of countries. Try even gettting a cc, any cc, in Poland for example.

[jjbrr]

Well, it is a valid point. I have experienced this in other countries as well - the half filled out system card by expert pairs and a bit of a happy go lucky attitude about it.

 

Regional pairs, elite pairs....does it really matter? Having a correctly filled out cc is just respecting the opps is it not? Before Josh regards this as another example of anti Americanism, please note that i did say I have experienced it in a number of countries. Try even gettting a cc, any cc, in Poland for example.

I agree. I would like to see penalties assessed to people who can't take the few minutes it takes to fill in their CC. Seems like it should be a simple thing and there's no excuse for not doing it.

 

Of course, then we'd have threads about how so and so is pathetic for calling the director about it.

[aguahombre]

I might add that there are areas of the RM Card which, if filled out neatly on a computer would probably be less clear to read. An example would be the check boxes for attitude, count and suit-pref. they put clearly readable "1", "2" and "3" in the check boxes to show priority.

[Trinidad]

I might add that there are areas of the RM Card which, if filled out neatly on a computer would probably be less clear to read. An example would be the check boxes for attitude, count and suit-pref. they put clearly readable "1", "2" and "3" in the check boxes to show priority.

And a computer would not be able to put a "1", "2" and "3" there?

 

Rik

[gwnn]

this

 

is the correct link (no ellipsis).

 

Anyway how can you write an URL here without it turning automatically into a link?

[nige1]

Currently, some jurisdictions specify local-format system-cards. These cards disadvantage strangers and foreigners, who are most in need of disclosure aids.

 

IMO, the lawbook should mandate a system-card protocol. This should include a universal system card format (if only as a default, that local jurisdictions may over-ride). It could be the current WBF card. Perhaps, however, with more thought, the WBFLC could do even better

• Mandatory pre-alert section.
  
• Optional sections for detailed high-level agreements.
  
• Apart from these sections, the card should be as orthogonal as possible, that is, there should be only one place for each item of information, so you would always know where to look.
  
• Local jurisdictions would provide completed templates for locally popular systems.
  
• The WBF would provide an intelligent on-line editor to help complete and check the card.
  

Players would soon become accustomed to the new format and wouldn't have to struggle with unfamiliar formats when they travelled abroad.

[ArtK78]

this

 

is the correct link (no ellipsis).

 

Anyway how can you write an URL here without it turning automatically into a link?

I fixed my prior post so that the URL is now a hyperlink. The explanation is in the prior post.

 

However, your "correct link" does not work.

[Vampyr]

But it begs the question of why this isn't in the law forum, which I believe I already addressed as well.

I had thought about putting this question in the laws forum, but I thought that I would have a better chance of getting an answer in a more widely-read forum. I should have thought that this was the kind of regulation a player would be very familiar with, if only to avoid getting into trouble (I was once fined 0.5 VP because one of my footnotes was misnumbered).

 

By the way, the phrase you are looking for is "raises the question".

[aguahombre]

By the way, the phrase you are looking for is "raises the question".

Since the question had been raised before, and unanswered before, "begs" was correct. You "unbegged" (answered) after the second request.

 

but perhaps this belongs in a different forum, also ;)

[Vampyr]

By the way, the phrase you are looking for is "raises the question".

Since the question had been raised before, and unanswered before, "begs" was correct. You "unbegged" (answered) after the second request.

Sorry, this is not correct.

[fromageGB]

At least with a convention card you have an opportunity to write something that describes what you do. Not so with announcements. Here in EBU-land I am compelled to announce "weak" when my partner opens 2M on a 5 card suit and 9 to 11 HCP. If that is not misleading, what is?