[qwery_hi]

RMB1, on Oct 10 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

So the onus would be on Meckwell to have two copies of their chosen defence.

Please don't go about casting unfavorable light on Meckwell. Clearly they were permitted to pass one copy back and forth, so I don't know what is this onus you're talking about.

[paulg]

Cascade, on Oct 10 2010, 08:08 PM, said:

It doesn't quite seem proper to me that a pair should be allowed to pass notes under the screen.

Is this really allowed?

There were passing the printed copy of the defense. They had one copy between them.

[TimG]

qwery_hi, on Oct 10 2010, 04:23 PM, said:

RMB1, on Oct 10 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

So the onus would be on Meckwell to have two copies of their chosen defence.

Please don't go about casting unfavorable light on Meckwell. Clearly they were permitted to pass one copy back and forth, so I don't know what is this onus you're talking about.

The onus would be on Meckwell if there is a policy that a pair must have two copies.

Does anybody know if there is such a policy?

I don't think is is "clear" that conditions of contest allow sharing of one copy just because a pair chose to do it that way. Even if it is against the rules, the opposing pair would likely have to object in order for the rule to be enforced.

[Cascade]

cardsharp, on Oct 11 2010, 10:27 AM, said:

Cascade, on Oct 10 2010, 08:08 PM, said:

It doesn't quite seem proper to me that a pair should be allowed to pass notes under the screen.

Is this really allowed?

There were passing the printed copy of the defense. They had one copy between them.

I understand.

I am surprised that this is allowed.

Screens are designed to stop communication between partners except that based on the bids and plays.

Passing other information from one side of the screen to the other would seem to go against that principle.

[RMB1]

qwery_hi, on Oct 10 2010, 10:23 PM, said:

Please don't go about casting unfavorable light on Meckwell. Clearly they were permitted to pass one copy back and forth, so I don't know what is this onus you're talking about.

Sorry. I didn't realise some pairs were exempt from criticism.

The relevant regulations are.

WBF Systems Policy 2.4 a. ii. said:

A two level opening bid in a minor showing a weak two in either major, whether with or without the option of strong hand types, as described in the WBF Conventions Booklet. Defensive measures are permitted for opponents as in 6 below.

WBF Systems Policy 6. said:

A pair may prepare written defences against the Brown Sticker elements of any system. Such defences will have to be given to the opponents (two clearly legible copies) at an appropriate time and place prior to the start of that segment, to be specified in the Con­di­tions of Contest. Written defences against Brown Sticker conventions are deemed to be part of the opponents' system card.

To me that means that a pair that want to use written defences to multi 2D must have two copies.

[hrothgar]

cardsharp, on Oct 11 2010, 12:27 AM, said:

Cascade, on Oct 10 2010, 08:08 PM, said:

It doesn't quite seem proper to me that a pair should be allowed to pass notes under the screen.

Is this really allowed?

There were passing the printed copy of the defense. They had one copy between them.

I'd like to point people back to a thread titled "The Law's the Law" in the General Bridge Discussion forum:

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...=singapore&st=0

I'm sure you recall this one (Its the one where Meckwell managed to ban the Singapore team from using their preferred methods due to a procedural error involving multi defenses).

At that point in time, I made the following comment:

Quote

Even in the worst case scenario, Meckwell didn't break any Laws.
Case closed.

With this said and done, it would seem entirely appropriate for folks to reciprocate in kind each and every time and opportunity were to arise.

I'd be very interested in understanding the Conditions of Contest for the event, more specifically:

Are players allowed to share a single written defense?
If they are not allowed to do, what's the penalty for having a wire?

Live by the sword, die by a sword...

[paulg]

I think it would be extraordinarily petty to complain about them having a single copy of the defence. This level of detail would never be covered in the CoC and it's hard to see what advantage they are getting.

I think they are misguided to only have one copy, fiddling about with the defence under the screen is just distracting them from playing bridge. But I can't see any basis for complaint.

[blackshoe]

I'm with Cardsharp. More, I wonder what information people think Meckwell are passing under the screen.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Oct 11 2010, 02:10 AM, said:

I'm with Cardsharp. More, I wonder what information people think Meckwell are passing under the screen.

Completely irrelevant...

Meckwell have demonstrated that they will hold the opponents liable to the letter of the law. Why should anyone chose to hold them to different standards?

[the hog]

It is entirely possible to mark the defence with one's fingernails for example. Now no one said this was done, however, IT IS a possibility.

As one is required to have two convention cards, I suspect one is also required to have two written defences. This pair have not shown themselves backward in trying to secure advantages over other players - (remember the incident against the Singapore players?) - so I would have no hesitation in calling the director if one defence were passed under the screen.

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on Oct 10 2010, 07:15 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Oct 11 2010, 02:10 AM, said:

I'm with Cardsharp. More, I wonder what information people think Meckwell are passing under the screen.

Completely irrelevant...

Meckwell have demonstrated that they will hold the opponents liable to the letter of the law. Why should anyone chose to hold them to different standards?

It's up to the players at the table to call the TD if they want to "hold the opponents to the letter of the law", not posters here. And there was certainly some intimation that Meckwell having only one copy of the defense was somehow dishonest, if not outright cheating.

I have no problem with players who call the TD if Meckwell (or anyone else) are not in compliance with the rules, but I do have a problem with some people suggesting they were passing information in this case. Yes, in theory that could happen. In theory, they could be communicating via the transceivers installed in their heads, too.

[the hog]

blackshoe, on Oct 11 2010, 08:00 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Oct 10 2010, 07:15 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Oct 11 2010, 02:10 AM, said:

I'm with Cardsharp. More, I wonder what information people think Meckwell are passing under the screen.

Completely irrelevant...

Meckwell have demonstrated that they will hold the opponents liable to the letter of the law. Why should anyone chose to hold them to different standards?

It's up to the players at the table to call the TD if they want to "hold the opponents to the letter of the law", not posters here. And there was certainly some intimation that Meckwell having only one copy of the defense was somehow dishonest, if not outright cheating.

I have no problem with players who call the TD if Meckwell (or anyone else) are not in compliance with the rules, but I do have a problem with some people suggesting they were passing information in this case. Yes, in theory that could happen. In theory, they could be communicating via the transceivers installed in their heads, too.

Did anyone say that the opponents SHOULD have called the director? If so, where please? Some posters said THEY would have called the director.
Perhaps you can also quote the post where it was intimated that MW had done something dishonest rather than something inapproriate?

Don't make up things, Blackshoe.

[glen]

blackshoe, on Oct 10 2010, 09:00 PM, said:

... the transceivers installed in their heads, too.

these are not allowed in the playing area - they would have to play headless

[blackshoe]

The_Hog, on Oct 10 2010, 09:09 PM, said:

Don't make up things, Blackshoe.

I based my posts on what I remember of the thread. I'm not "making up things", but I'm not going to go hunting for the precise post(s) involved. If my memory is faulty, ç'est dommage.

[qwery_hi]

TimG, on Oct 10 2010, 01:51 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Oct 10 2010, 04:23 PM, said:

RMB1, on Oct 10 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

So the onus would be on Meckwell to have two copies of their chosen defence.

Please don't go about casting unfavorable light on Meckwell. Clearly they were permitted to pass one copy back and forth, so I don't know what is this onus you're talking about.

The onus would be on Meckwell if there is a policy that a pair must have two copies.

Does anybody know if there is such a policy?

I don't think is is "clear" that conditions of contest allow sharing of one copy just because a pair chose to do it that way. Even if it is against the rules, the opposing pair would likely have to object in order for the rule to be enforced.

Right, so if a table of 4 decides to play counter-clockwise on odd numbered boards, the rules wouldn't apply since the opponents are in compliance? Sounds like a great idea for a prank to me.

[qwery_hi]

glen, on Oct 10 2010, 05:09 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Oct 10 2010, 09:00 PM, said:

... the transceivers installed in their heads, too.

these are not allowed in the playing area - they would have to play headless

It is unclear from the CoC whether homo-headless are allowed to compete in the Rosenblum. Besides, some claim the opponents would have to complain for the rule to be enforced.

[helene_t]

I raised the issue of brain implanted receivers to control Parkinson seizures, but apparently medical devices are exempt.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on Oct 10 2010, 08:00 PM, said:

In theory, they could be communicating via the transceivers installed in their heads, too.

glen, on Oct 10 2010, 08:09 PM, said:

these are not allowed in the playing area - they would have to play headless

Thank you Blackshoe for another interesting revelation. Glen is right: It is not up to opponents to complain about the transceivers installed in MeckWell's heads. Even if ACBL regulations permit such transceivers, the WBF director should cut off their heads, in the interests of fair-play.

[paulg]

It would never occur to Kendrick or Senior, the opposing pair, to complain about any aspect of this. Their own CC was perhaps the most minimal available and there was no complaint about this from Meckwell ("no problem, we'll just ask").

Kendrick-Senior's main reaction was to try and open multi on as many hands as possible. As the final result showed, the Nickell team was not particularly inconvenienced in this round.