[cicus]

xcurt, on May 13 2009, 11:44 AM, said:

If there was a BIT, I agree with the bridge logic that a heart is a LA suggested by the BIT.

I finally understood what LA means (BIT was quicker).

[pirate22]

As a spectator watching this match and the supposed incident-may i ask the following

When a match in the closed room is on Vu graph-is there a taped record-if not why not?

Today, is there a person recording by hand the bidding,and card play sequence,for record purposes

overall, there must be a record of results -how many bid 3n/t-or alternative contracts,, for this particular board-also with leads -that would make interesting reading.

I sympathise with the 1 cl opener-a non hesitant 1d bid--- pass-- 1ht(non hesitant)
pass -- 3nt very quick pass-- pass all fairly quick (i now think the the 1 clubber had the wind knocked out of his sails,and after a long day,and pressurethere may have been a hesitation,
Quote the commentators comment "Take no Prisioners" 3n/t, that bid was, in my eyes out of tempo, a typical rubber bridge bid.

having asked the above questions,one derives great pleasure,in watching vu-graph
and would hate to see mandatory 3 mins for each player to make a bid, be it pass or 4n/t:) if you get my drift---perhaps all players should wear "Web Cams"

[Cascade]

jdonn, on May 14 2009, 03:23 AM, said:

Hanoi5, on May 13 2009, 09:58 AM, said:

Erm, if the players who were ruled against felt they were misjudged, why didn't they appeal?

Probably because they had no chance of cashing for either the session or event, and thus it would be a giant waste of everyone's time and probably looked upon very badly.

Its a sad state of affairs when getting the correct ruling is less important than inconveniencing a few people a little for a few minutes.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on May 13 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 14 2009, 03:23 AM, said:

Hanoi5, on May 13 2009, 09:58 AM, said:

Erm, if the players who were ruled against felt they were misjudged, why didn't they appeal?

Probably because they had no chance of cashing for either the session or event, and thus it would be a giant waste of everyone's time and probably looked upon very badly.

Its a sad state of affairs when getting the correct ruling is less important than inconveniencing a few people a little for a few minutes.

On that I disagree, though prefer not to get involved in a long discussion about it since it's just an opinion either way. I would much rather live in a world where a lot of people don't get inconvenienced for a lot of minutes (much more accurate representation of what would have happened) because someone believes "it's the principle of the thing".

[TimG]

jdonn, on May 13 2009, 10:23 AM, said:

Hanoi5, on May 13 2009, 09:58 AM, said:

Erm, if the players who were ruled against felt they were misjudged, why didn't they appeal?

Probably because they had no chance of cashing for either the session or event, and thus it would be a giant waste of everyone's time and probably looked upon very badly.

Isn't whether their opponents were cashing also relevant? A scoring change involving two non-cashing pairs could also have an affect on the cashing pairs.

[Cascade]

Walddk, on May 14 2009, 01:28 AM, said:

Rik, your post is very good, and everything is correct, given that there was no UI for East to use. However, we disagree regarding screens on this issue.

South and West were on the same side of the screen. When the tray came back to North and East, it had pass, pass on it. Provided that there was a BIT, which we must presume that there was, it takes no Einstein to figure out who hesitated.

The player (South) who passed initially and bid a mere 1♥ after partner's 1♦ overcall can't have had a problem over 3NT. The other player (West), however, who opened the bidding could well have had a problem. We can't know which problem that was, but one might have been doubling 3NT for the lead.

I do not agree that using screens had any effect here. It sometimes has, but mostly on competitive auctions. There was nothing competitive on this deal once North's rebid was 3NT.

Since I was not present, I can't be 100% certain, but my feeling is that the TDs ruling was based on the facts that ...

- 1. There was a BIT.
- 2. UI was transmitted and used.

Therefore, a heart lead is illegal.

Roland

The proper procedure if South bid quickly even because he had nothing to think about as you contend is for the tray to be delayed in returning to the other side so as to disguise the situation where no one thought compared with the situation where one or other player had a problem or thought they had a problem.

The ACBL screen conditions state: “It is considered that there can be no implication if a tray returns after 25 seconds or less. This period may be extended in the later stages of a complicated or competitive auction without necessarily creating implications.”

Further they state:

"During the auction period, after an opponent has acted quickly, it is proper to adjust the tempo back to normal by ether delaying one’s own call (place the bidding card faced in front of, but not on, the tray) or by waiting before passing the tray."

So it would be entirely proper if South passed immediately for West to take up to 25 seconds just in order to maintain normal tempo even with nothing to think about.

So even given it was a situation in which you argue that only West could be thinking a delay of up to 25 sec. Which is plenty of time for a reasonably long huddle.

[Cascade]

TimG, on May 14 2009, 08:24 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 13 2009, 10:23 AM, said:

Hanoi5, on May 13 2009, 09:58 AM, said:

Erm, if the players who were ruled against felt they were misjudged, why didn't they appeal?

Probably because they had no chance of cashing for either the session or event, and thus it would be a giant waste of everyone's time and probably looked upon very badly.

Isn't whether their opponents were cashing also relevant? A scoring change involving two non-cashing pairs could also have an affect on the cashing pairs.

Exactly.

The game is about the score. If the score is incorrect then the integrity of the entire event is compromised.

If the ruling is incorrect then the score is incorrect so it needs to be fixed.

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on May 13 2009, 03:15 PM, said:

On that I disagree, though prefer not to get involved in a long discussion about it since it's just an opinion either way. I would much rather live in a world where a lot of people don't get inconvenienced for a lot of minutes (much more accurate representation of what would have happened) because someone believes "it's the principle of the thing".

I agree with Fred. It was disregard for principle that got us into the "torture" morass.

That said, I don't want to get into a long discussion of it, either.

A very quick call is as much a BIT as is a hesitation. In the case at hand, of course, that may be mitigated by the fact that the player who very quickly passed immediately after 3NT had already passed twice. That may mean that there would be no UI consequent to this BIT, but it's still a BIT.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on May 14 2009, 03:23 AM, said:

Hanoi5, on May 13 2009, 09:58 AM, said:

Erm, if the players who were ruled against felt they were misjudged, why didn't they appeal?

Probably because they had no chance of cashing for either the session or event, and thus it would be a giant waste of everyone's time and probably looked upon very badly.

Additional to my previous comments it appears that Lev Pszczola finished 4th not 5th (or maybe worse) based on this ruling.

Just because I am not cashing doesn't seem sufficient reason to give my opponents some free IMPs if I think that the director's ruling is incorrect.

In the worst case doing this opens oneself for critcism especially when $1000s are involved for your opponents.

[cherdanno]

I thought the Cavendish didn't allow appeals?

[xcurt]

Walddk, on May 13 2009, 12:19 PM, said:

xcurt, on May 13 2009, 06:44 PM, said:

Walddk, on May 13 2009, 08:28 AM, said:

South and West were on the same side of the screen. When the tray came back to North and East, it had pass, pass on it. Provided that there was a BIT, which we must presume that there was, it takes no Einstein to figure out who hesitated.

The commentary about the screen placement relative to the auction is incorrect, and it might be important.

The 3NT bidder was north: http://www.cavendish...09/PAIRS5HR.pdf.

So Feldman saw the screen go under with P-P-1C-1D; P-1H-P

and saw it come back with P-P-1C-1D; P-1H-P-3NT; P

Which is exactly what I said, please read my post again. Lev was North, Zagorin East, Pepsi South and Feldman West. Pepsi and Feldman were on the same side of the screen, and when the tray came back to North and East, 3NT had pass, pass on it. So auction over.

Zagorin (East) was the player to lead and chose a heart. Ruled illegal by the director.

Roland

I was talking about the sequence of events from the perspective of Feldman (who saw a surprising call that his RHO would have no trouble passing). That means we need to question whether the vugraph operators remark about Feldman thinking was about his first 20 seconds (he's entitled to that without any ethical constraints on partner) or additional time beyond that (might constrain partner, probably should in this case).

I read your post as "Feldman passed, saw 3NT from LHO, saw the tray disappear, it came back with Pass, Pass. He had all the time the tray was on the other side to consider what to do over 3NT, why was he taking additional time?" I see now that's not what you said, but it wasn't clear (and some prior discussion in this thread was confusing about this issue). Josh Donn mentioned the issue of "surprise" ito Feldman and what would be appropriate tempo in this position, but nobody remarked on it at the time.

[Walddk]

cherdanno, on May 13 2009, 11:09 PM, said:

I thought the Cavendish didn't allow appeals?

16. Any Director’s ruling (other than penalties under sections 4, 5, 6 and 7) may be appealed to the Appeals Committee designated by the Tournament Committee. If a pair or team wishes to lodge an appeal, it must post US $50 which will be forfeited if the Appeals Committee deems the appeal to be substantially without merit. Decisions of the Appeals Committee are not subject to further appeal; however see 20 below.

http://www.cavendishinvitational.com/index...id=16&Itemid=39

So yes, the offending side could have appealed if they had wished.

Roland

[Walddk]

Cascade, on May 13 2009, 10:43 PM, said:

TimG, on May 14 2009, 08:24 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 13 2009, 10:23 AM, said:

Hanoi5, on May 13 2009, 09:58 AM, said:

Erm, if the players who were ruled against felt they were misjudged, why didn't they appeal?

Probably because they had no chance of cashing for either the session or event, and thus it would be a giant waste of everyone's time and probably looked upon very badly.

Isn't whether their opponents were cashing also relevant? A scoring change involving two non-cashing pairs could also have an affect on the cashing pairs.

Exactly.

The game is about the score. If the score is incorrect then the integrity of the entire event is compromised.

If the ruling is incorrect then the score is incorrect so it needs to be fixed.

Wayne, have you ever been on an AC that did not forfeit the deposit in a case of BIT and consequent UI? I haven't and I have been on a few ACs, domestically and internationally.

Roland

[barmar]

Trinidad, on May 13 2009, 09:54 AM, said:

In my opinion, but I can easily see that others see this differently, it doesn't really matter that we are talking about the last bid of the auction. It happens very frequently that the deal is passed out in normal tempo but that the tray remains on the other side for a while.

I've been a VuGraph operator several times, and I don't think I've ever seen the tray linger long after the last pass. The players instantly scoop up their bidding cards and pass the tray, eager to get on with the play. In my experience, world champion-class players are not much different from club players in this regard. These folks may be brilliant when it comes to hand analysis, but I don't think most of them waste a significant number of brain cells on the more mundane aspects of the game.

For instance, I wonder if anyone has noticed whether these experts are better, as a group, at following the skip bid rule than most ordinary folks. I think they don't bother much with it when playing with screens, as the slow tempo used with screends tends to take its place. I haven't kibitzed them enough at ordinary tables to tell.

[MFA]

Walddk, on May 13 2009, 05:26 PM, said:

Cascade, on May 13 2009, 10:43 PM, said:

TimG, on May 14 2009, 08:24 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 13 2009, 10:23 AM, said:

Hanoi5, on May 13 2009, 09:58 AM, said:

Erm, if the players who were ruled against felt they were misjudged, why didn't they appeal?

Probably because they had no chance of cashing for either the session or event, and thus it would be a giant waste of everyone's time and probably looked upon very badly.

Isn't whether their opponents were cashing also relevant? A scoring change involving two non-cashing pairs could also have an affect on the cashing pairs.

Exactly.

The game is about the score. If the score is incorrect then the integrity of the entire event is compromised.

If the ruling is incorrect then the score is incorrect so it needs to be fixed.

Wayne, have you ever been on an AC that did not forfeit the deposit in a case of BIT and consequent UI? I haven't and I have been on a few ACs, domestically and internationally.

Roland

I don't think that there can be any ethical obligations to appeal a ruling when one disagrees. Regardless of what difference the score of the board means for the rest of the field.
One could easily lose a deposit. I don't agree with Roland, however, that EW should be particularly likely to do so in this case.

[Cascade]

Walddk, on May 14 2009, 10:26 AM, said:

Cascade, on May 13 2009, 10:43 PM, said:

TimG, on May 14 2009, 08:24 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 13 2009, 10:23 AM, said:

Hanoi5, on May 13 2009, 09:58 AM, said:

Erm, if the players who were ruled against felt they were misjudged, why didn't they appeal?

Probably because they had no chance of cashing for either the session or event, and thus it would be a giant waste of everyone's time and probably looked upon very badly.

Isn't whether their opponents were cashing also relevant? A scoring change involving two non-cashing pairs could also have an affect on the cashing pairs.

Exactly.

The game is about the score. If the score is incorrect then the integrity of the entire event is compromised.

If the ruling is incorrect then the score is incorrect so it needs to be fixed.

Wayne, have you ever been on an AC that did not forfeit the deposit in a case of BIT and consequent UI? I haven't and I have been on a few ACs, domestically and internationally.

Roland

1. I think requiring a deposit's for an appeal is a repugnant notion. It means that if you are rich you can appeal willy nilly but if you are poor you may choose not to appeal even when you have a good case.

2. I have never been on an appeal committee that did fine an opponent in a BIT situation. A year or so ago when my opponent broke tempo and an her partner subsequently bid at the five-level and we called the director and the director adjusted the score. The opponents appealed which was dismissed. I asked the appeal chairperson when given the ruling whether a fine (procedural penalty) for a frivolous appeal since I believed they had no case. This chairperson's response that in a judgement situation they always have a case.

3. I have appealed a number of times in BIT situations and have never been fined. The only time I have been fined for an appeal was an appeal based on misinformation. Curiously we had managed to generate appeals on consecutive boards in the New Zealand Pairs Championship. My partner a lawyer while we were waiting to be heard said to me " I think we have a great case on the first appeal but I am not sure about the second one" The appeal committee fined us for a frivolous appeal in the first case and overturned the director on the second one - go figure. To this day I know I would have acted differently if I had been given the correct information from the opponents but the committee did not agree.

We had an appeal very similar to the case being discussed here with regard to the screen but it was a bidding not a card play potential use of UI in the National Trials in 2006. Where after I passed in first seat vulnerable with seven hearts to the nine and something less than an opening hand I came back in with 3♥ after my opponent on the other side of the screen opened 3♦. After the play was over that opponent from the wrong side of the screen claimed my partner had taken a long time to make her PASS over 3♦. The director adjusted and we appealed. The committee concurred with the director and we lost the appeal but no penalty was imposed. We further appealed to the National authority and eventually over one year later (unbelievably) they overturned the director's and appeal committee's ruling.

So "yes" I have been on and seen many appeals where in BIT and UI situations deposits have not been forfeited nor other penalties imposed.

[MFA]

barmar, on May 13 2009, 05:31 PM, said:

For instance, I wonder if anyone has noticed whether these experts are better, as a group, at following the skip bid rule than most ordinary folks.  I think they don't bother much with it when playing with screens, as the slow tempo used with screends tends to take its place.  I haven't kibitzed them enough at ordinary tables to tell.

The skip bid rule is off with screens but it's correct procedure anyway to take just a very few seconds even with a clear-cut bid after the skip bid. But one doesn't have to do that.

[Cascade]

barmar, on May 14 2009, 10:31 AM, said:

Trinidad, on May 13 2009, 09:54 AM, said:

In my opinion, but I can easily see that others see this differently, it doesn't really matter that we are talking about the last bid of the auction. It happens very frequently that the deal is passed out in normal tempo but that the tray remains on the other side for a while.

I've been a VuGraph operator several times, and I don't think I've ever seen the tray linger long after the last pass. The players instantly scoop up their bidding cards and pass the tray, eager to get on with the play. In my experience, world champion-class players are not much different from club players in this regard. These folks may be brilliant when it comes to hand analysis, but I don't think most of them waste a significant number of brain cells on the more mundane aspects of the game.

For instance, I wonder if anyone has noticed whether these experts are better, as a group, at following the skip bid rule than most ordinary folks. I think they don't bother much with it when playing with screens, as the slow tempo used with screends tends to take its place. I haven't kibitzed them enough at ordinary tables to tell.

That has been my experience too as an operator and a player.

And in doing so the players create a rod for their own backs. In that when there is a delay it can become obvious who caused the delay. However I think if incorrect procedure is followed then the director cannot rule that a hesitation occurred if the bidding (on this side of the screen) is concluded within the 25 sec limit in the regulations.

The laws are clear that the director is "bound" by the announced regulations. And the regulation is plain when it states "there can be no implications" for delays up to 25 sec and longer in some competitive or complicated auctions.

[barmar]

Cascade, on May 13 2009, 05:47 PM, said:

1. I think requiring a deposit's for an appeal is a repugnant notion. It means that if you are rich you can appeal willy nilly but if you are poor you may choose not to appeal even when you have a good case.

They got rid of them in NABC tournaments. Instead, punishment for frivolous appeals by experienced players is Appeal Without Merit Points. If you get 3 strikes within 3 years, you may get a disciplinary hearing for abuse of the appeals process.

http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/Glossar...eritPoints.html

Is a $50 deposit really much of a deterrent at the Cavendish? This is an event where players are effectively paying thousands of dollars in entry fees (although with a chance of getting it back if they do well). How poor could any of them be if they can afford to enter this tournament?

[Fluffy]

Agree with barman, we get bigger (50€) fees for our local tournaments lol, but I haven't ever seen an AC not giving the money back anyway.


I didn't like the coments related with "Lev-Pepsi have enough experience to know.....", "they are good enough to....".

I dunno if there is anything in the rules related with this, but if it is I don't understand, the fact that you are a good player, doesn't mean that you are better with the rules of the game. no matter how you take it, on this situations I am sure a profesional lawyer will get better advantage of the rules than someone who is not.

I also hate to hear something like "yes, because of the UI the defence made the best switch, but Anyoninski is good and he could have still have made it if he realiced there was a squeeze in the end as the cards lying".

Rules should apply the same to everyone (maybe the rules say the contrary, but if they do I disagree)