[Vampyr]

From a thread that most people have probably read:

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"),

I have to say that this sounds as if Meckwell are taking the piss. A series of checkboxes on a convention card is sub-optimal for a variety of reasons, but is it really the condoned practice, if none of the checkboxes fits your agreements, to tick a box that is closer than any of the others, instead of ignoring the boxes and writing in your actual agreement?

[jjbrr]

Everyone has to accept that there is no viable solution to the inadequacies that result from the current state of the convention cards and alert procedures.

[ArtK78]

It is not difficult to note variations from the choices offered on the convention card. No one is forced to merely choose from the available alternatives.

I have no personal knowledge of what Meckwell do or don't do. But if a pair was playing mixed jump raises over their one of a major opening bids, it is easy enough to print the word MIXED on top of the check boxes.

Stop blaming the convention cards and the alert procedure. Full disclosure is every player's responsibility.

[kfay]

wtp? I just ask when they alert.

[rogerclee]

kfay, on Mar 18 2010, 12:20 PM, said:

wtp?

agree

[Vampyr]

jjbrr, on Mar 18 2010, 08:16 PM, said:

Everyone has to accept that there is no viable solution to the inadequacies that result from the current state of the convention cards and alert procedures.

I am sure you are correct but I do not see the relationship between your statement and the question I posed.

[jjbrr]

Vampyr, on Mar 18 2010, 02:30 PM, said:

jjbrr, on Mar 18 2010, 08:16 PM, said:

Everyone has to accept that there is no viable solution to the inadequacies that result from the current state of the convention cards and alert procedures.

I am sure you are correct but I do not see the relationship between your statement and the question I posed.

Well, you've identified an issue that you seem to be concerned about. I was merely suggesting there is nothing anyone can do about it to satisfy everyone, so it probably isn't worth worrying about.

I personally don't want jibberish scribbled all over a CC with things crossed out and printed in margins and everything else.

Basically I was echoing the "wtp" camp.

But since you didn't see the relationship, I wonder what exactly you're saying in your OP. I interpreted it to mean "If there is no convenient place on your CC to put an agreement, what do you do?" My answer was "The best you can with what you've got."

[jjbrr]

Unless of course this has nothing to do with that and you just wanted to take jabs at Meckwell. It's a bit unclear to me.

[Vampyr]

jjbrr, on Mar 18 2010, 08:42 PM, said:

But since you didn't see the relationship, I wonder what exactly you're saying in your OP. I interpreted it to mean "If there is no convenient place on your CC to put an agreement, what do you do?" My answer was "The best you can with what you've got."

Perhaps I should have guessed that that was your answer, rather than what you wrote!

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.

[gnasher]

I suspect that inaccuracies on the convention card matter less in the ACBL than in the EBU, because in the ACBL people are much more likely to ask than to look at the card.

(This doesn't mean that I agree that there are any inaccuracies on Meckwell's convention card - I'm merely commenting on the difference in attitude apparent in this thread.)

[Phil]

Knowledge of the other pairs system is important. In a long match I will try to read their card and glean whatever I can. In Meckwell's case, wouldn't you like to know that they play Mixed Raises? Wouldn't this help you infer that when they make a single raise its usually with 3 pieces? Even standard convention cards have plenty of places to write things. I admit I do this for my own benefit (bewteen rounds) when I might forget what we play.

Wouldn't you like to be able to read the other pairs cc, instead of looking at some pencil-smeared mess that looks like it was dragged out of a player's back pants pocket along with the claim check from the valet?

Either you make full disclosure or you don't.

[MFA]

[X] Check boxes are LOL

[Bbradley62]

jjbrr, on Mar 18 2010, 02:42 PM, said:

Vampyr, on Mar 18 2010, 02:30 PM, said:

jjbrr, on Mar 18 2010, 08:16 PM, said:

Everyone has to accept that there is no viable solution to the inadequacies that result from the current state of the convention cards and alert procedures.

I am sure you are correct but I do not see the relationship between your statement and the question I posed.

Well, you've identified an issue that you seem to be concerned about. I was merely suggesting there is nothing anyone can do about it to satisfy everyone, so it probably isn't worth worrying about.

I personally don't want jibberish scribbled all over a CC with things crossed out and printed in margins and everything else.

Basically I was echoing the "wtp" camp.

But since you didn't see the relationship, I wonder what exactly you're saying in your OP. I interpreted it to mean "If there is no convenient place on your CC to put an agreement, what do you do?" My answer was "The best you can with what you've got."

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.)

[jjbrr]

Bbradley62, on Mar 18 2010, 03:45 PM, said:

jjbrr, on Mar 18 2010, 02:42 PM, said:

Vampyr, on Mar 18 2010, 02:30 PM, said:

jjbrr, on Mar 18 2010, 08:16 PM, said:

Everyone has to accept that there is no viable solution to the inadequacies that result from the current state of the convention cards and alert procedures.

I am sure you are correct but I do not see the relationship between your statement and the question I posed.

Well, you've identified an issue that you seem to be concerned about. I was merely suggesting there is nothing anyone can do about it to satisfy everyone, so it probably isn't worth worrying about.

I personally don't want jibberish scribbled all over a CC with things crossed out and printed in margins and everything else.

Basically I was echoing the "wtp" camp.

But since you didn't see the relationship, I wonder what exactly you're saying in your OP. I interpreted it to mean "If there is no convenient place on your CC to put an agreement, what do you do?" My answer was "The best you can with what you've got."

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?

If the former, we have a place for questions of that nature.
If the latter, my own misguided and uninformed answer is that afaik the practice isn't not condoned, so my answer of "do the best you can" is the practical solution. There are other similar examples besides the Meckwell one, which maybe isn't the best example of the problem because in the context of a system with limited openings, a mixed raise is pretty weak to be jumping with in the auction. A weak hand (0-6?) opposite another weak hand (10-15) is easier to double if they go jumping around with it. So the relative term "weak" in this context could be applied to what a mixed raise is in a different context.

Another example is if you play invitational or better fit jumps after the opponents make a takeout double, where do you mark that? None of the boxes are adequate, and I suspect that someday that will be changed. For reference, here is a here is a link to an ACBL CC . The box I refer to is the second column on the left, third box down.

But to answer "yes" or "no", my answer is that I personally have never heard anyone say no, and I personally have marked boxes that are the least untrue but not in hopes of being misleading or trying to get away with anything, as the OP seems to indicate Meckwell's intent might be.

[Trinidad]

When I was playing in the USA, a long time ago, we used to make our own convention cards in Word. They were exactly the same as the standard card, except for where our system was different. We simply replaced the standard meaning with our meaning and gave it a different color.

Any time opponents couldn't say anything nice about our play they would say something nice about our CC.

Rik

[fiskew]

I have not read the thread to which the opening poster refers. It would be helpful if a link could be provided.

There may or may not be a more general problem with check boxes on the ACBL card.

What is ironic, however, is that Meckwell are not guilty of the accusation specifically made. Their ACBL card can be seen on the USBF site:

http://usbf.org/docs/2009usbc/acblcards/Me...rothRodwell.jpg

In the section for Major Suit Jump Raises, they have crossed out "Weak" and written "Mixed" instead.

[kenrexford]

Yeah, I think that's what they are trying to do. Catch someone who forgets to discuss their defense to mixed raises before the round starts. Or, even better, prevent second seat from making that systemic call that preemptively protects partner from a mixed raise.

[peachy]

Bbradley62, on Mar 18 2010, 03:45 PM, said:

jjbrr, on Mar 18 2010, 02:42 PM, said:

Vampyr, on Mar 18 2010, 02:30 PM, said:

jjbrr, on Mar 18 2010, 08:16 PM, said:

Everyone has to accept that there is no viable solution to the inadequacies that result from the current state of the convention cards and alert procedures.

I am sure you are correct but I do not see the relationship between your statement and the question I posed.

Well, you've identified an issue that you seem to be concerned about. I was merely suggesting there is nothing anyone can do about it to satisfy everyone, so it probably isn't worth worrying about.

I personally don't want jibberish scribbled all over a CC with things crossed out and printed in margins and everything else.

Basically I was echoing the "wtp" camp.

But since you didn't see the relationship, I wonder what exactly you're saying in your OP. I interpreted it to mean "If there is no convenient place on your CC to put an agreement, what do you do?" My answer was "The best you can with what you've got."

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.)

None of the posters here are qualified to answer Vampyr's question. Ask ACBL.

My unqualified answer to the question "Which box to tick if there is no box that matches my agreement?" is to write it by hand over one of the boxes. It is unfortunate that there is not enough space, and also unfortunate that a pair with several unusual agreements cannot produce a fully typed card and must finetune it with handwritten scribblings all over the place to each copy printed out.

All in all, switching over to a WBF card is not an improvement, IMO!!!! The ACBL card has obvious flaws but it is still easy to read at a glance.

[PeterGill]

As Fiskew pointed out, the (2009 US Trials) Meckwell ACBL CC at
http://usbf.org/docs/2009usbc/acblcards/Me...rothRodwell.jpg
clearly says MIXED. Not weak.

I wonder if the "accusation" in the other Meckwell thread was similarly inaccurate.

[cherdanno]

In the sessions we played against Meckwell 3 years ago I found their disclosure quite precise and helpful. I guess that's partly because they had very clear agreements in all the auctions that came up. So I find it a little surprising that they often get singled out for attacks such as Adam's. I would think there must be easier targets around...

(Btw, I would never assume that 1H (P) 3H=alert is weak without asking. Why would anyone? Anyone sensible knows mixed is superior, after all...)