Did the wrong team win trials (Appeal Board 69)

[mike777]

In my experience most of the world doesn't care about the selection of their own country's team, and that includes most club players.

 

 

I could not disagree more strongly.......

 

I would hate it ...just hate it if we did not have an open competition, open to all members.....

 

Fair enough you can debate/argue what open version is best but......

 

In fact I think that other countries that are not open, I dont respect!

 

They may win but I dont respect them. ?they come across as cowards, afraid to compete in their own country.

 

I would hate it if some wise man or woman selected the open team because they are wise or rich.

[SimonFa]

I could not disagree more strongly.......

 

I would hate it ...just hate it if we did not have an open competition, open to all members.....

 

Fair enough you can debate/argue what open version is best but......

 

In fact I think that other countries that are not open, I dont respect!

 

They may win but I dont respect them. ?they come across as cowards, afraid to compete in their own country.

 

I would hate it if some wise man or woman selected the open team because they are wise or rich.

 

Wow, where did that come from? I only commented that in my experience most people don't care how their team is selected, or for that matter know they are even competing.

 

As it happens I do care and take an interest and agree with you that it should be open.

[Fluffy]

Yeah very nice. My team composed of 5 pros who will have to pay all expenses to play in Lille, including tickets, hotel and entry fee to the tournament (our NBO provides zero money). Now because some team of 6 amateurs (2 of them just play to fill up because someone cannot play one of the days) wants to play against us for fun we will have to travel to another city to play trials for a whole weekend and spend another extra 2000€ between all of us (half of them because of lessons we won't be able to make). I am very happy that it is open O_o

[mike777]

Yeah very nice. My team composed of 5 pros who will have to pay all expenses to play in Lille, including tickets, hotel and entry fee to the tournament (our NBO provides zero money). Now because some team of 6 amateurs (2 of them just play to fill up because someone cannot play one of the days) wants to play against us for fun we will have to travel to another city to play trials for a whole weekend and spend another extra 2000€ between all of us (half of them because of lessons we won't be able to make). I am very happy that it is open O_o

 

 

by definition if they are pros they dont pay...they get paid.......

 

If they aint getting paid they aint pros.

 

not sure why spanish pro players need to fly to france to play for spain. Learn to say Just NO! Show me the money!

 

In any event assume spanish opp. must do same.....

[Trinidad]

I could not disagree more strongly.......

 

I would hate it ...just hate it if we did not have an open competition, open to all members.....

 

Fair enough you can debate/argue what open version is best but......

 

In fact I think that other countries that are not open, I dont respect!

 

They may win but I dont respect them. ?they come across as cowards, afraid to compete in their own country.

 

I would hate it if some wise man or woman selected the open team because they are wise or rich.

Different circumstances ask for different ways to chose a national team.

 

If you would want to send one best baseball team to represent North America, would you organize an open one week tournament and see who comes floating on top? Or would you pick the team that won the World Series? Or would you select the best players for each position (the All Star team)? I am pretty sure that of these three methods, the first one is the worst to pick the best team.

 

However, circumstances in North American bridge are such that it is pretty much the only way. There is no National Bridge League where teams are competing against each other throughout the season. The distances are too long to make this feasible. Nevertheless, the teams in the USA are tied strongly around a team "owner" (a rich, wise man or woman). Given the conditions that the players are pretty much committed to teams, the only way to select a team is to have a selection tournament.

 

In Europe, the circumstances are very different. Take, for example, The Netherlands:

 

- The top players meet each other hundred times per year in:

  o the national bridge league for teams, MP pairs, as well as the IMP pair circuit. (These are "open" to about the best 60 players of the country.)

  o weekly training/practice sessions for the national team. (These are -in principle- open for anyone who thinks he can be good enough to represent the country and has the time to show up every week.)

  o training matches vs teams from other countries (Europe is small)

  o a range of national tournaments in The Netherlands

  o finally (for the top players only) the tournaments where the American top players meet each other (NABC's and big international invitational tournaments)

 

This means that it is much easier to put an "All Star team" together, consisting of the best three pairs (with some boundary conditions, such as: can these guys be on the same team?).

 

Yes, these players are selected by "wise men" (The Nickel and Diamond teams aren't?). But you cannot say that they are afraid to compete in their own country. After all, they compete way much more in their own country than the North American players do.

 

This is the case for most players in European teams. Each country has a national team league where teams are competing against each other in a way similar to MLB, NBA, NFL or NHL in North America. With very few exceptions, the players of the national teams compete in their national leagues.

 

Rik

[mike777]

Again you miss the main point

 

The number one goal is not to send the best team. We dont even agree what that means!

 

I have said this over and over again over many years here in the forums.

 

If a team of second best win...that is great! In fact that is better if they beat the number one team picked by a wise man.

 

If the Dutch want to put together an all star team..great..just make them play open teams!

 

If they lose they lose!

 

I would think an open team beating an all star team would be great news...you seem to think it is bad news

 

Let me put it this way in American Football, basketball, baseball...the second or third rated team may win!

 

But we call them the best team, We call them winners

[Zelandakh]

But we call them the best team, We call them winners

When the Russians won the Olympic gold medal in basketball with the (third time lucky) last second Hail Mary pass play, did you, or for that matter anyone else in the USA, consider them the best basketball team in the world at that time? Do you think it would be a good idea for the USA to send the winners of the NBA play-offs (perhaps minus a few foreign players) to the Olympics to represent them rather than have a coach select what they consider to be the best squad?

 

What is best for one country or sport may not be best for another. For all your disparaging words it is hard to argue with the success that Italy has enjoyed over the years. Perhaps you do not respect them because you think they are scared of competition. Personally I call them winners. Why do you think winning the Bermuda Bowl repeatedly does not count as competition?

[JLOGIC]

Different circumstances ask for different ways to chose a national team.

 

If you would want to send one best baseball team to represent North America, would you organize an open one week tournament and see who comes floating on top? Or would you pick the team that won the World Series? Or would you select the best players for each position (the All Star team)? I am pretty sure that of these three methods, the first one is the worst to pick the best team.

 

However, circumstances in North American bridge are such that it is pretty much the only way. There is no National Bridge League where teams are competing against each other throughout the season. The distances are too long to make this feasible. Nevertheless, the teams in the USA are tied strongly around a team "owner" (a rich, wise man or woman). Given the conditions that the players are pretty much committed to teams, the only way to select a team is to have a selection tournament.

 

In Europe, the circumstances are very different. Take, for example, The Netherlands:

 

- The top players meet each other hundred times per year in:

  o the national bridge league for teams, MP pairs, as well as the IMP pair circuit. (These are "open" to about the best 60 players of the country.)

  o weekly training/practice sessions for the national team. (These are -in principle- open for anyone who thinks he can be good enough to represent the country and has the time to show up every week.)

  o training matches vs teams from other countries (Europe is small)

  o a range of national tournaments in The Netherlands

  o finally (for the top players only) the tournaments where the American top players meet each other (NABC's and big international invitational tournaments)

 

This means that it is much easier to put an "All Star team" together, consisting of the best three pairs (with some boundary conditions, such as: can these guys be on the same team?).

 

Yes, these players are selected by "wise men" (The Nickel and Diamond teams aren't?). But you cannot say that they are afraid to compete in their own country. After all, they compete way much more in their own country than the North American players do.

 

This is the case for most players in European teams. Each country has a national team league where teams are competing against each other in a way similar to MLB, NBA, NFL or NHL in North America. With very few exceptions, the players of the national teams compete in their national leagues.

 

Rik

 

Louk and Rico have also started playing USA regionals where they are no doubt paid very well to show up. And I have no doubt this will make them much stronger as a pair, even though their team will always have a sponsor. Bas and Sjoert at one point were one of the highest paid pairs at the US nationals (which means they make enough in 3 tournaments a year to live reasonably well for the entire year, even if they made no more money). Simon and Bauke have played the nationals here for as long as I remember, I think they have also played regionals.

 

To be superstar bridge players at all, you need to be able to play bridge all the time. This means you need to be independently wealthy, or you need to make enough money playing bridge to support yourself. These guys are 100 % cashing in on their success in USA whenever they get the chance. From what I understand Team Orange is given some money, but not really a livable wage by their federation.

 

Here is the problem with selection in a country where there are more than three great pairs. Look what happened in Italy, the selection was controlled by one of the 2 major sponsors, and the 2 pairs on her team were selected, leaving out Fantoni/Nunes. We can call this political or we can say it was justified, who knows, but I'm sure it was unfair to Fantoni/Nunes...so what did they do? They left Italy. It's hard to blame them, in their mind they had almost no chance to play the world championships, and I think Fantoni was #1 in the world! No doubt he would like to compete to keep that ranking.

 

I heard that Huub Bertens was going to play in the US trials recently. I have no idea if he chose to leave the netherlands because he was not on the top 3 pairs in the netherlands despite being a great player, and it would no doubt not change very soon given that they won the bermuda bowl at home recently. But it must be a sucky feeling to be a great player with no chance at all to be on your team because its a selection process.

 

At least in USA, a country with a lot of great players, everyone gets a chance to compete and earn their way into the world championships. Sure, it's damn hard, but if it was a selection would someone like me really have a realistic shot of playing in a world championship in even the next 20 years? It's very unlikely. Having a chance to earn it makes you want to play better, play harder, etc. Say what you want about sponsors, but making more money, getting on better/higher paying teams, having better incentive laden contracts, is a huge motivator.

 

The ability to play in USA for a lot of money has made a lot of the foreign players much better. They can make enough money to play all the time, and they can play with each other in fields that are very tough. This situation simply doesnt exist in most other countries, so as a result you have regionals filled with bulgarians, turks, swedes, dutch, chinese (zhao), poles (balicki zmud are top 10 in masterpoints this year I think), etc etc. It is funny that people from those countries then look down upon us for being too mercenary...ok! If there were enough clients willing to pay enough money in those countries, the situation would be exactly the same.

[pigpenz]

Justin: curious as to why anyone would want to sponsor someone to play bridge?

bridge really isnt marketable so far after 80 years.....at least poker has found a way.

[billw55]

Justin: curious as to why anyone would want to sponsor someone to play bridge?

bridge really isnt marketable so far after 80 years.....at least poker has found a way.

Obviously people have their reasons, since they are out there doing it. I could only guess what these reasons are, but I doubt marketability is one of them.

[chudecek]

In response to mfa1010:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s865h972dak97ckq3&w=skt7ht863d83ct965&n=sqj32haj54d64ca84&e=sa94hkqdqjt52cj72&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1c1d3dp3nppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Meckstroth led DJ, K, 3, 4

Moss led S5, 7, Q, 4

Moss led C4, 2, Q, 5 (Count by Eric?)

Moss led S6, T, J, A

Meckstroth led HQ, 2, 3, 5

 

For whatever reason – skill, experience, whatever - Jeff led HQ.

It HELD as Eric played H3 which HAD to be attitude. Now Jeff

can count declarer’s tricks: 2S 1H 2D 3C, and he should reason

unless Eric held H JTxx (which would be confirmed by H3)

there was no beat.

 

Jeff knows that on a D play after HQ holds, the D8 is either

In declarer’s hand or in Eric’s – therefore declarer can get a

9th trick by leading D9. So Jeff has to credit Eric for H JTxx

and continue with HK after his HQ holds.

 

This is consistent with playing for a beat and consistent

with Eric’s attitude signal of H3. The problem is that Eric’s

H3 came after a long tank, and this made Jeff suspect that

Eric did not have H JTxx.

 

The committee should have asked Jeff “How did you expect

to beat the hand unless your partner had H JTxx, which his H3

implied?” And the ruling should have been that continuing

with HK after HQ holds is the NORMAL defense. Push board.

[Fluffy]

Carl I agree on your analysis on the way you are showing it, however your attitude leads me to believe that you are not really objective, and there is perhaps mre to this story than really is.

 

From what others said Moss made a small error in the end by failing to make a safety play. Nobody has detailed the position I think so can't judge it fully.

 

I hate it when opponents cheat (often unintentionally) , then I make a careless play or a suboptimum bidding decision and the opponents get away with it. I think that on MP play when both sides at fault both get worst result on America (ok, I realice this is not ACBL, so I know the rules even less). Well that can be applied here and assing average of push and swing for half the score for example.

[mikeh]

Carl I agree on your analysis on the way you are showing it, however your attitude leads me to believe that you are not really objective, and there is perhaps mre to this story than really is.

 

From what others said Moss made a small error in the end by failing to make a safety play. Nobody has detailed the position I think so can't judge it fully.

 

I hate it when opponents cheat (often unintentionally) , then I make a careless play or a suboptimum bidding decision and the opponents get away with it. I think that on MP play when both sides at fault both get worst result on America (ok, I realice this is not ACBL, so I know the rules even less). Well that can be applied here and assing average of push and swing for half the score for example.

I hope you are not suggesting that Meckwell cheated here.

 

As for Carl's argument: I said before and I say again that it is extremely unfair....it is flat out wrong, imo, to criticize a committee decision without knowing what was said at the hearing.

 

I looked for the appeal decision: I thought it would be online, maybe in the bulletin. Has anyone seen it?

 

I was once involved in a contentious committee hearing, and the losers spread all kinds of false and malicious rumours afterwards, including allegations that the committee were friends of ours and biased. They also stated that certain things were said in committee that were not said. So I know from personal experience how important it is to get the facts right, and so far we have zero facts as to what was said.

 

For example, it strikes me as absurd to think that none of the Director(s), Moss, Gitelman, their team representative (I assume the captain was at the hearing) or any of the committee members did not ask Meckstroth why he switched.

 

The Diamond team seems to be made up of very strong adults, with a sound grasp of bridge law, and why are we assuming that they got jobbed, when we neither know nor can ask about the details?

 

I can tell you that as a trial lawyer, when you hear one side of the story and the outcome seems wrong, the chances are pretty good that you haven't heard the whole story.

[bluecalm]

I surely hope to hear more about how appeal went.

The law is clear. There was unauthorized information and if playing Kh was logical alternative then the result shouldn't stand.

The only way for Kh not being logical alternative is that they have some very detailed carding agreement here which I seriously doubt (if they had, Rodwell wouldn't think).

[mikeh]

The only way for Kh not being logical alternative is that they have some very detailed carding agreement here which I seriously doubt (if they had, Rodwell wouldn't think).

Wow....the more detailed my agreements, the more I have to think about them. True, Rodwell has a tad more experience than I do, but otoh he has a tad more agreements than I do. In fact, one of the commentators spoke about how she was inthe seat ahead of them on a cross-country flight and Meckwell spent the entire flight discussing finely detailed agreements. I don't care how smart they are....with the details they have, and the changes they make, I would expect thought more often than not.

[bluecalm]

I dunno, you either know what the card means here or you don't. Usually when it's trick 7 or something you don't need time recalling.

Of course it's possible that they showed their notes and it's 100% clear Rodwell couldn't have Jh they way he carded but I have trouble believing this.

I am sure the committee had its reasons for the decision that's why I would like to see them before making my judgement but it really looks suspicious for now.

[CSGibson]

After the long tank Moss was reported to have pointedly asked Meckstroth if the 3 was upside-down attitude. Then Meckstroth switched. I'm wondering if he could take inference from the question as well as from the tank (not legal inference from the tank, more a question of if there was no tank, would you expect to be able to take any inferences from a strong declarer asking that question)?

[gnasher]

I hate it when opponents cheat (often unintentionally)

If it's unintentional, it's not cheating. "Cheating" implies that they deliberately broke the rules.

 

In UI cases we never have to make that sort of accusation. All we say is, "You had UI; the UI suggested LA1 over LA2; therefore you can't choose LA1." If they did choose LA1, it doesn't mean they were cheating, it just means that their evaluation of the UI and the LAs was different to ours.

 

I surely hope to hear more about how appeal went.

The law is clear. There was unauthorized information and if playing Kh was logical alternative then the result shouldn't stand.

The only way for Kh not being logical alternative is that they have some very detailed carding agreement here which I seriously doubt (if they had, Rodwell wouldn't think).

The other way is if the facts were different to what we have been told here. As Fluffy says, the source of information doesn't seem particularly objective.

[Fluffy]

sorry, its a language misshap, I should say break rules unintentionally instead of cheating unintentionally.

[nige1]

Wow....the more detailed my agreements, the more I have to think about them. True, Rodwell has a tad more experience than I do, but otoh he has a tad more agreements than I do. In fact, one of the commentators spoke about how she was inthe seat ahead of them on a cross-country flight and Meckwell spent the entire flight discussing finely detailed agreements. I don't care how smart they are....with the details they have, and the changes they make, I would expect thought more often than not.

I agree with mikeh that we can only speculate until we read the appeal write-up. For example, if detailed agreements apply in such contexts, then Meckwell are unlikely to regard "attitude" as adequate disclosure.

[TimG]

After the long tank Moss was reported to have pointedly asked Meckstroth if the 3 was upside-down attitude. Then Meckstroth switched. I'm wondering if he could take inference from the question as well as from the tank (not legal inference from the tank, more a question of if there was no tank, would you expect to be able to take any inferences from a strong declarer asking that question)?

 

I was watching the vugraph when this hand was played. My impression was that Moss asked about the 3 after Meckstroth switched. Maybe others got a different impression? The order in which the card was played and Moss's question was asked could easily have been backwards from the way it appeared on vugraph.

[barmar]

There's a difference between playing deliberately and going into a long tank.

 

In the interview with Fred in the BBO lobby news, he said "Jeff's main argument was that he had already planned a clever defense and that Eric's signal and the length of time he took to make it were not relevant. Apparently he convinced both the TD and the Appeals Committee."

 

This seems wrong. It sounds like they ruled based on the "I was always going to do that" explanation. But when UI is involved, this is not supposed to be a sufficient excuse. He should have to convince the TD and AC that believing his partner's signal was not a logical alternative.

[JLOGIC]

He might have argued that he switched to an anti-systemic heart (I think this is true, but not 100 % sure, he shifted to the Q from KQ), ergo he was planning a deception, while also deceiving his partner who he knew would encourage with the ten, ergo he was clearly flying solo and "had a plan."

 

Not saying whether this is a good or bad argument, just that this might have been his argument.

[bluecalm]

In the interview with Fred in the BBO lobby news, he said "Jeff's main argument was that he had already planned a clever defense and that Eric's signal and the length of time he took to make it were not relevant. Apparently he convinced both the TD and the Appeals Committee."

 

I can't wait to read this appeal I sure hope they didn't consider what he was planning to do anyway as argument there...

[JLOGIC]

Playing devils advocate, if you shift to an anti systemic card, presumably you are aware you will mislead partner and get the wrong signal (eg, if you show QJ when you don't have it, your partner will encourage with the ten). If you are doing such a thing in the middle of the hand, you could argue that logically you did not care about your partners signal, you thought your only chance to beat it was an elaborate deception (which worked), and that the proof you had made that decision is in the play of the queen rather than the king.

 

I am guessing from freds interview that this was mecks argument, I actually have not discussed the hand with Fred or Brad yet so I'm not sure.