[pescetom]

Gilithin, on 2021-September-21, 09:41, said:

The advantage of this approach over the WBF commentary is that it does not penalise players that are honest rather than quick-thinking SBs who will tell the TD whatever gives them the best options.

Yes, the "WBF commentary" approach offers an occasional opportunity to a qtSB who spots a fruitful alternative to a genuine mistake he already made.
But this "English" approach would surely offer a qtSB more frequent and wider opportunities by tempting him to intentionally make an IB, counting on a greater variety of possible replacements and immunity from any hint of control about how he came to IB in the first place.

In any case I think this point is somewhat moot: the laws are pretty much based on the assumption that players are gentlemen and infractions are accidents. Having one more case where the TD cannot do much in the face of a blatant lie is not going to change things very much.

[blackshoe]

Should a TD be afraid to say "I don't believe you" to a player?

[Gilithin]

blackshoe, on 2021-September-22, 10:43, said:

Should a TD be afraid to say "I don't believe you" to a player?

If Rodwell or Meckstroth told you that they were unable to defend a Multi 2♦ opening without a freshly printed written defence, would you be willing to say that to them?

[blackshoe]

Yes.

[sfi]

Gilithin, on 2021-September-22, 14:28, said:

If Rodwell or Meckstroth told you that they were unable to defend a Multi 2♦ opening without a freshly printed written defence, would you be willing to say that to them?

I'm not quite sure what you are asking. If the regulations allow them to have a defence, then they are entitled to one. If they want it freshly printed, then not so much. If the regulations do not allow them to have a defence, then yes I would be willing to tell them as much.

If the pair only had one copy at the table and the opponents argued that they were entitled to two, I would tell them to share (unless behind screens). This situation actually arose some years ago and the director did not allow the pair to play Multi because they only had one copy. As a director, I find that extraordinary.

As I see it, the director has two main jobs - to enforce the laws fairly and to ensure the event runs smoothly. Neither of these requires kowtowing to any subset of the playing community.

On a side note, we played Bessis - Lorenzini in a US nationals some years ago. They had forgotten their multi-defence printouts, but we were perfectly happy for them to play it anyway. They didn't, and I had the "pleasure" of watching my opponents play the closest to a day of perfect bridge I have ever seen. It turned out Multi was not their primary weapon.

[Gilithin]

sfi, on 2021-September-22, 18:16, said:

I'm not quite sure what you are asking. If the regulations allow them to have a defence, then they are entitled to one. If they want it freshly printed, then not so much. If the regulations do not allow them to have a defence, then yes I would be willing to tell them as much.

It was a slightly oblique reference to something that happened many years ago (over a decade) in, I think, the Vanderbilt. A team of juniors from Singapore was playing a match against Nickell. Due to local conditions, they were unable to access printing resources and TDs were also unable to provide them with any defences when asked. So they instead made the effort to copy out the entire set of official ACBL written defences by hand and were willing to switch to 3 Weak 2s if any opponents objected. In the first part of the match the Singapore pair informed the opponents (Nickell-Katz) before the segment and Nickell responded by producing their own defence. In a later segment, with Nickell unexpectedly trailing, Meckwell played against this pair. Again they explained the situation at the start of the round and were told "Let's see how it goes." During this round the Singapore pair did end up opening a (mini) Multi 2♦ and Meckstroth reacted by calling the TD and suggesting that the opponents not only be barred from using the convention but also be awarded a PP. It is rather a famous case in the ACBL that I am sure blackshoe is more than acquainted with. Obviously I could have picked any of hundreds of bridge incidents where common sense suggests one or more of the players was being economic with the truth and created an example based around it for this thread.

[sanst]

Gilithin, on 2021-September-22, 19:42, said:

It was a slightly oblique reference to something that happened many years ago (over a decade) in, I think, the Vanderbilt. A team of juniors from Singapore was playing a match against Nickell. Due to local conditions, they were unable to access printing resources and TDs were also unable to provide them with any defences when asked. So they instead made the effort to copy out the entire set of official ACBL written defences by hand and were willing to switch to 3 Weak 2s if any opponents objected. In the first part of the match the Singapore pair informed the opponents (Nickell-Katz) before the segment and Nickell responded by producing their own defence. In a later segment, with Nickell unexpectedly trailing, Meckwell played against this pair. Again they explained the situation at the start of the round and were told "Let's see how it goes." During this round the Singapore pair did end up opening a (mini) Multi 2♦ and Meckstroth reacted by calling the TD and suggesting that the opponents not only be barred from using the convention but also be awarded a PP. It is rather a famous case in the ACBL that I am sure blackshoe is more than acquainted with. Obviously I could have picked any of hundreds of bridge incidents where common sense suggests one or more of the players was being economic with the truth and created an example based around it for this thread.

If this really happened the way you describe it, I think the PP should be given to Meckstroth. His behavior is a clear breach of Law 74A1and B5 and of Law 81C. You tell the TD what’s the matter, not what (s)he should or shouldn’t do. And a player of his class should be very careful not to be domineering to the lesser gods of the game. Besides, I would expect a regular pair at this level to have a defense available without consulting a printed version. Does the regulations prescribe a printed defense or just a defense?

[sfi]

Gilithin, on 2021-September-22, 19:42, said:

It was a slightly oblique reference to something that happened many years ago (over a decade) in, I think, the Vanderbilt.

I hadn't heard of that incident. But behaviour of that description is pathetic, particularly from a top player.

[nige1]

sanst, on 2021-September-23, 02:05, said:

If this really happened the way you describe it, I think the PP should be given to Meckstroth. His behavior is a clear breach of Law 74A1and B5 and of Law 81C. You tell the TD what's the matter, not what (s)he should or shouldn't do. And a player of his class should be very careful not to be domineering to the lesser gods of the game. Besides, I would expect a regular pair at this level to have a defense available without consulting a printed version. Does the regulations prescribe a printed defense or just a defense?

On Bridge Winners, several commentators endorsed the basic facts of this case. Meckstroth and Rodwell use Multi themselves, so they already had copies of the published defence. It's a reflection on the morals and ethics of Bridge players; and makes cheating allegations more credible.

[axman]

sfi, on 2021-September-22, 18:16, said:

If the pair only had one copy at the table and the opponents argued that they were entitled to two, I would tell them to share (unless behind screens).

I was watching Wolff one day when the defense book rose to the occasion. I ought to use the plural. It took Wolff 7 minutes to read it.

[Gilithin]

sanst, on 2021-September-23, 02:05, said:

If this really happened the way you describe it, I think the PP should be given to Meckstroth. His behavior is a clear breach of Law 74A1and B5 and of Law 81C. You tell the TD what’s the matter, not what (s)he should or shouldn’t do. And a player of his class should be very careful not to be domineering to the lesser gods of the game. Besides, I would expect a regular pair at this level to have a defense available without consulting a printed version. Does the regulations prescribe a printed defense or just a defense?

Everyone agrees that Meckstroth was courteous and respectful at all times both to the opponents and to the TD, so neither 74A1 or 74B5 would apply. He suggested a possible remedy to the TD rather than making an illegal table ruling, so 81C would also be inappropriate. The playing conditions for the Vanderbilt (and most ACBL events) states that written defences must be provided. I believe it is silent on whether those must be printed (Meckstroth claimed that he could not read it after the TD call).

nige1, on 2021-September-23, 04:19, said:

On Bridge Winners, several commentators endorsed the basic facts of this case. Meckstroth and Rodwell use Multi themselves, so they already had copies of the published defence. It's a reflection on the morals and ethics of Bridge players; and makes cheating allegations more credible.

I think it needs to be made clear that there are no allegations of cheating against Meckwell in this case. They took a situation and used it to maximum advantage within the rules. It would be fair to call it a$$hole behaviour for sure but this is what playing "Hardball" is all about. I was more interested in whether a top TD would find it appropriate to call out a TD-favourite player like Meckstroth to his face. Blackshoe answered with a very clear "Yes"; as far as I know the TD in this case (nor in the similar but less discussed case that occurred 2 years later) did not.

[blackshoe]

Gilithin, on 2021-September-22, 19:42, said:

Meckstroth reacted by calling the TD and suggesting that the opponents not only be barred from using the convention but also be awarded a PP. It is rather a famous case in the ACBL that I am sure blackshoe is more than acquainted with.

I've heard of it. Don't know details.

sanst, on 2021-September-23, 02:05, said:

If this really happened the way you describe it, I think the PP should be given to Meckstroth. His behavior is a clear breach of Law 74A1and B5 and of Law 81C. You tell the TD what’s the matter, not what (s)he should or shouldn’t do. And a player of his class should be very careful not to be domineering to the lesser gods of the game. Besides, I would expect a regular pair at this level to have a defense available without consulting a printed version. Does the regulations prescribe a printed defense or just a defense?

The regulations in force at the time (the old convention charts) required (I think) a printed copy of the defense from the ACBL Defense Database be made available by the pair using the convention to each of the opponents. The current Open? and Open+ charts require a "written" defense. The question mark is there because the regulation actually says "Two classes of methods are particularly difficult to defend against, and these methods are allowed only in events governed by the Open+ Chart, and then only in segments of six boards or longer. These methods, based on #3 of the Opening Bids section of the Open Chart and on #3 or #7 of the Opening Bids section of the Open+ Chart, require both a pre-alert and a written defense, including a separate copy of that defense for each opponent." The question is if the methods are only allowed on the Open+ Chart why is the open chart mentioned at all? Conversely, if the methods are allowed on the Open Chart (they, or at least some of them, are) why does the regulation say "only on the Open+ Chart"? This is the kind of error a competent high school student of my generation would not make. Later generations might, I suppose, the state of education having been in a decline since my day.

Note that item 3 on both the open and the open+ charts speaks to openings at the one level that show a suit other than the suit opened (e.g., transfer openings). The multi is currently permitted only on the Open+ chart, and then only in segments of six or more boards.

sfi, on 2021-September-23, 04:16, said:

I hadn't heard of that incident. But behaviour of that description is pathetic, particularly from a top player.

Gilithin, on 2021-September-23, 08:45, said:

Everyone agrees that Meckstroth was courteous and respectful at all times both to the opponents and to the TD, so neither 74A1 or 74B5 would apply. He suggested a possible remedy to the TD rather than making an illegal table ruling, so 81C would also be inappropriate. The playing conditions for the Vanderbilt (and most ACBL events) states that written defences must be provided. I believe it is silent on whether those must be printed (Meckstroth claimed that he could not read it after the TD call).

I think it needs to be made clear that there are no allegations of cheating against Meckwell in this case. They took a situation and used it to maximum advantage within the rules. It would be fair to call it a$$hole behaviour for sure but this is what playing "Hardball" is all about. I was more interested in whether a top TD would find it appropriate to call out a TD-favourite player like Meckstroth to his face. Blackshoe answered with a very clear "Yes"; as far as I know the TD in this case (nor in the similar but less discussed case that occurred 2 years later) did not.

I wouldn't call myself a "top TD". :-) I will say that I don't believe that "stature" or "TD-favourite" should make any difference whatsoever to how a TD rules. And I certainly wouldn't issue a PP just because the aggrieved player thinks I should, even if he were God Almighty.

If the defense was hand written, I found it possibly difficult to read, and Meckstroth told me he couldn't suss it out, I would not tell him I don't believe him — but I'd want to see the document myself before I make a ruling.

The current regulation specifies "written". It does not require "printed" defenses. Although as a matter of common sense the thing should be legible.

The Special CoC for the Vanderbilt currently say "Pairs playing methods which require a written defense to be provided must furnish a description of their methods to the DIC of the event the day prior to putting these methods in play. The DIC must notify the opponents (by indication on the bracket sheet) that these write-ups are available." I don't know what they said when the event in question happened. I haven't checked the CoC for other events.

Re: Meckwell's (was it Meckstroth or Rodwell?) "Let's see how it goes" without, apparently, looking at the provided defense(s) and then later objecting on the grounds the defense was not readable seems, if not pathetic, certainly questionable. That is, assuming they didn't have their own defense available. If they did, then Meckstroth was playing Secretary Bird in calling out the non-problem based on the letter of the law when they were behind. Should a player who does that be censured? Would a director have any problem doing so if the player concerned was for example me rather than Jeff Meckstroth?

[sanst]

blackshoe, on 2021-September-23, 13:16, said:

Later generations might, I suppose, the state of education having been in a decline since my day.

That’s a complaint I’ve heard many decades ago, even in the first year at school. That was about my handwriting. But didn’t Cicero already complain about the standards being lowered some two thousand years back?

[sfi]

sanst, on 2021-September-24, 01:44, said:

That’s a complaint I’ve heard many decades ago, even in the first year at school. That was about my handwriting. But didn’t Cicero already complain about the standards being lowered some two thousand years back?

I seem to remember Aristotle saying something of the sort, so even Cicero may have been jumping on the bandwagon.

[sanst]

Gilithin, on 2021-September-23, 08:45, said:

Everyone agrees that Meckstroth was courteous and respectful at all times both to the opponents and to the TD, so neither 74A1 or 74B5 would apply. He suggested a possible remedy to the TD rather than making an illegal table ruling, so 81C would also be inappropriate.

[…]

It would be fair to call it a$$hole behaviour for sure but this is what playing "Hardball" is all about. I was more interested in whether a top TD would find it appropriate to call out a TD-favourite player like Meckstroth to his face.

Sorry, I’ve absolutely no idea what “courteous and respectful” “a$$hole behaviour” is. To ask for a PP is not suggesting “a possible remedy” but trying to influence the TD by a world class player. That sounds more like an attempt to intimidate than to prevent the TD from “making an illegal table ruling”, which is anyway not the task of a player. If he doesn’t agree with the decision, he can always appeal.
Law 81C is crystal clear: “The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage” (my emphasis).

[Gilithin]

sanst, on 2021-September-24, 03:56, said:

Sorry, I’ve absolutely no idea what “courteous and respectful” “a$$hole behaviour” is.

Read any SB thread in this forum started by Paul (lamford) for an example.

[sanst]

Gilithin, on 2021-September-24, 08:21, said:

Read any SB thread in this forum started by Paul (lamford) for an example.

SB is neither courteous with his shouting nor respectful with his telling te TD his job.

[barmar]

sanst, on 2021-September-24, 03:56, said:

Law 81C is crystal clear: “The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage” (my emphasis).

That doesn't preclude a player stating their own opinion when explaining the situation to the TD. Saying "I think what they did is worth a PP" is not making a ruling, it's just a suggestion to the TD. The TD still makes the actual ruling.

[blackshoe]

Do we know precisely how Meckstroth expressed his opinion on this? Based on what I've seen so far, my opinion of that expression could go either way.

[Gilithin]

blackshoe, on 2021-September-24, 14:33, said:

Do we know precisely how Meckstroth expressed his opinion on this? Based on what I've seen so far, my opinion of that expression could go either way.

The term I have seen used consistently across several retellings of this story is that he "suggested" a PP to the TD. One of the juniors (Ng) is reported to have been slightly annoyed about the suggestion.

In the case of the Singaporean juniors, the TD ruled that the pair could not open a Multi and a weak 2♠ was opened instead.

In the similar case that happened 2 years later, the TD was able to locate 2 copies of the approved defence and brought them to the table. Meckwell then produced their own printed defence and proceeded to use that instead. The opponents were warned that a subsequent offence would lead to a penalty.

In neither case was there any suggestion that Meckwell had breached any laws or regulations. There was fairly widespread criticism of gamesmanship and equally very strong support for the actions from most American professional players. None of the Nickell team have ever commented about either case as far as I know.