[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-December-12, 12:06, said:

When you refer to a couple of people as "inseparable", do you mean they're Siamese twins?

It's true that this sense is normally reserved for people, not things, but it seemed clear in context that Jilly was using it metaphorically, since it's obvious that they are not physically inseparable. Or rather that the players in question treat them as if they're inseparable, even though they aren't really.

Whether Jilly knows they can be separated is not relevant, we're discussing what OTHER players do -- they don't separate them.

As you say, the word "in this sense" is normally reserved for people, and when used about objects it is hard to imagine another meaning besides literal. The fact that people "treat them as if they're inseparable" is obviously a big part of the problem, but if ACBL players want to give up on the possibility of change to their current situation, it is not something I will worry about.

[jillybean]

Vampyr, on 2012-December-12, 18:44, said:

Don't give it back.

This is a suggestion I like!

[Bbradley62]

jillybean, on 2012-December-12, 18:52, said:

Vampyr, on 2012-December-12, 18:44, said:

Don't give it back.

This is a suggestion I like!

Except, of course, to give it back so opp can write the contract on his scorecard at the end of the auction, and then again so he can write the score at the end of the hand...

[Vampyr]

Bbradley62, on 2012-December-12, 19:12, said:

Except, of course, to give it back so opp can write the contract on his scorecard at the end of the auction, and then again so he can write the score at the end of the hand...

Perhaps the solution here is to use Bridgemate II, so that you can get all the contracts and scores at the end of the round.

[blackshoe]

"Optional" in what sense, Jilly, and what regulations are on it?

[jillybean]

Rules and regulations in this game that are ignored or not uniformly enforced.
CC's, calling the director when there has been an infraction, cell phones, UI all come to mind.
But we are getting off topic, enough has been said about all of this in other threads.

[WellSpyder]

Vampyr, on 2012-December-12, 18:44, said:

Don't give it back.

I remember adopting this approach in England once with a player used to playing in the US. There was no question of her needing the CC back to write scores on, or anything, but she still insisted on grabbing it back. So I asked for it again.....

I ended up calling the TD so he could explain that the CC should be given to the opponents for the duration of the round. Even then, she only allowed me to keep the card while the TD was in the vicinity, so I called him back again....

Some people really do feel that it is for them to decide which rules they should obey and which they don't need to.

[Trinidad]

Bbradley62, on 2012-December-12, 19:12, said:

jillybean, on 2012-December-12, 18:52, said:

Vampyr, on 2012-December-12, 18:44, said:

Don't give it back.

This is a suggestion I like!

Except, of course, to give it back so opp can write the contract on his scorecard at the end of the auction, and then again so he can write the score at the end of the hand...

Why? That CC should be mine for the whole round. It is not my problem that the opponent is as silly as to write his scores on the back of a CC that belongs to me.

Rik

[barmar]

I've never run into any of those players who show any discomfort when asked to see their CC. However, I admit that I don't ask for it on a regular basis, like many players do, I tend to be more of an asker than a looker. Sometimes when an opponent fails to alert a bid that I suspect is artificial, I'll glance at their CC if the appropriate section is visible on the table, so that I don't remind them that the wheels are about to fall off. I've also been fairly lucky in not playing against many of the players who like to put their CC under their butts, so it usually IS visible (but sometimes it's folded and the wrong half is visible).

[RunemPard]

Always a lot of them at our club in Sweden...who feel shocked when you grab their CC, or put yours in front of them. It is mostly the LOLs who have no idea that the CC is not for them to look at after every round as a reminder of methods they are using.

[Zelandakh]

JLOGIC, on 2012-December-11, 23:14, said:

Come on man really?

Irony is often lost on the internet. My idea was to use it to illustrate the point that we can hardly expect club players to observe the spirit of rules when we do not expect it of the very best. Hence there are SBs at every level. Indeed, at the very first "serious" bridge event I played in, a junior affair, one of the opponents asked for a ruling when my partner apparently paused with KJx in second seat. I hadn't noticed anything and noone asked me; indeed I only found out when my partner mentioned it. He had been informed.

It is obviously true that American experts are not worse as a group than experts from other countries and that experts as a whole are much more ethical than non-experts. Indeed, it is my impression that Meckwell are generally highly ethical. This is probably the reason this report came as something of a shock to most. The case you give of an illegal bid coming up in the middle of a round is obviously completely different. In the reports given of the Meck incident, the pairs had specifically discussed the situation regarding the 2♦ opening and the state of the written defence. I doubt anyone (ok this is an overbid, most people) would have any problem with Meckwell objecting to an opening that is illegal in the ACBL but would be legal under WBF rules should it be sprung on them in the middle of a round without warning.

FWiiW, I would love to see a (private) list of the players you think are doing whatever is in the rules to win. I daresay there are one or two working outside of the rules too, although it is naturally heretical to say so publically.

[pigpenz]

aguahombre, on 2012-December-06, 09:44, said:

Behavior attributed to top players in top events, and conveyed in these fora is really a surprise to me.

Wannabe's further down on the food chain, maybe. But except with provocation, I have never encountered or witnessed deliberate rudeness or reluctance to accomodate in any way from the true greats.

I can remember back in the 70s playing against Soloway and Passell
asking a question about a bid and getting the reply from Passell
my partner is a big boy he knows what he is doing.
at the time, I think i had 50mps and we were playing in a swiss team qualifying for KOs at a regional in Lincoln, NE

---

[blackshoe]

"yeah, well, I don't. Enlighten me, please."

Further reluctance to fully disclose their methods would get a director call from me, I don't care who he is.

[jh51]

jillybean, on 2012-December-12, 20:18, said:

Rules and regulations in this game that are ignored or not uniformly enforced.
CC's, calling the director when there has been an infraction, cell phones, UI all come to mind.
But we are getting off topic, enough has been said about all of this in other threads.

But when the are enforced, oh what fun.

Last year I was at a tournament when, during a hospitality break, someone's cell phone rang in the playing area. A full board penalty was assessed. (the dinze of the prnalty had been announced before the start of play.) Even though it was during the hospitality break, it was in the playing area, so there was no excues.

[ArtK78]

aguahombre, on 2012-December-06, 09:44, said:

Behavior attributed to top players in top events, and conveyed in these fora is really a surprise to me.

Wannabe's further down on the food chain, maybe. But except with provocation, I have never encountered or witnessed deliberate rudeness or reluctance to accomodate in any way from the true greats.

I wasn't planning on responding to this post, but I saw that there was a recent response, and it brought to mind an incident from a number of years ago.

In the late rounds of a Swiss Teams at the Lancaster (PA) Regional some years ago, I was playing against a well known pro - a perennial top masterpoint winner (who shall remain nameless). Someone universally recognized as "a true great." There was a throng of kibbitzers at the table.

A few hands into the round, something came up, something of very little significance. I don't remember if I asked about something or if he asked about something. He then made a number of comments calculated to intimidate and humiliate. From what I heard afterward, this was a common occurrence.

So, while it is true that most top level pros and non-pros have the highest ethical standards and best deportment at the table (and away from the table), it is not universally so.

[jillybean]

jh51, on 2012-December-14, 12:44, said:

But when the are enforced, oh what fun.

Last year I was at a tournament when, during a hospitality break, someone's cell phone rang in the playing area. A full board penalty was assessed. (the dinze of the prnalty had been announced before the start of play.) Even though it was during the hospitality break, it was in the playing area, so there was no excues.

At the Nationals in Seattle a cell phone (or phones?) went off no less than THREE times during an open pairs event.
Each time the directors made a joke out of it. Upstairs in another event a team recieved a full board penalty for having
a cell phone on vibrate at the table.

[barmar]

Sometimes police let people off with a warning for an offense that might receive a citation some other time. Penalizing is something that they "reserve the right" to do, but don't necessarily do every time. As long as they occasionally penalize, the mere threat of a penalty should provide a deterrant, since you never know if you're going to be the one they make an example of.

Of course, it doesn't stop me from speeding on a regular basis. But I do turn off my cell phone (but since no one ever calls me these days, it's no big deal).

[Bbradley62]

Trinidad, on 2012-December-13, 04:30, said:

Why? That CC should be mine for the whole round. It is not my problem that the opponent is as silly as to write his scores on the back of a CC that belongs to me.

Rik

You go ahead and keep tilting at that windmill.

[Trinidad]

Bbradley62, on 2012-December-15, 04:15, said:

You go ahead and keep tilting at that windmill.

Why should I? I have enough windmills over here (see to the left).

The point is that when I was playing in the USA, it wasn't this bad. People kept their CCs to themselves, but typically turned them so that opponents could easily see them.

When the situation is like that I don't have any problem. Of course, I will give the CC back. Also when their CC is lying in front of me, they can -of course- borrow it to write down the contract or score, or whatever they want to write down.

But if I know that the CC will disappear in a purse or under someone's butt as soon as I give it back, I would not give it back until the end of the round. It is none of their business when I want to take a peek at the CC.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2012-December-15, 11:31, said:

But if I know that the CC will disappear in a purse or under someone's butt as soon as I give it back, I would not give it back until the end of the round. It is none of their business when I want to take a peek at the CC.

And they will call the director, and he will want to know why you're being so unreasonable.