[cherdanno]

MFA, on May 15 2009, 02:19 AM, said:

Just thinking that it could be possible that this "someone who played in the Cavendish" might not be 100% spot on about all details as they happened at the table.

Yeah. I am sure jonattawa knows what happened, though.

[Trinidad]

MFA, on May 15 2009, 02:19 AM, said:

Just thinking that it could be possible that this "someone who played in the Cavendish" might not be 100% spot on about all details as they happened at the table.

That is why I put the if... part prominently in my two recent postings.

However, given that Fred said that the TD told him that the BIT was after 1♥, whereas the players, the VuGraph operator and the VuGraph audience saw that West was thinking over 3NT, it seems that the TD wasn't "100% spot on about all the details as they happened at the table" either.

Rik

[Hanoi5]

As I think I was the one to raise the appeal question, I'm also going to ask this. Can Feld-Zago complain to a higher authority stating all the facts mentioned here? I think more than the final standings are in line at this moment.

[jdonn]

Hanoi5, on May 15 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

As I think I was the one to raise the appeal question, I'm also going to ask this. Can Feld-Zago complain to a higher authority stating all the facts mentioned here? I think more than the final standings are in line at this moment.

I'm sure there is no further recourse, and I'm sure even if there were they wouldn't want to pursue it.

I also feel the need to point out, not that I'm lying about anything, but I am a secondhand source and was not there. Everything I say is what I was told by either people who were there or by people who talked to people who were there. So objectively I have to say that anyone who has played the game of telephone before knows that the posts I have made should not cause anyone to lose their heads.

[Hanoi5]

Better as a private.

[cicus]

jdonn, on May 14 2009, 05:50 PM, said:

- All four players agreed the amount of time the tray was on that side of the screen was around 15-20 seconds. They did disagree on whether or not this constituted a noticeable break in tempo in the given situation.
- The regulations (emailed to every player who entered) not only state that up to 25 seconds means there is a presumption of no break in tempo, but also give the power to the second player on either side of the screen to slow down the tray in order to maintain an even tempo.

I simply don't believe that. Even Lev-Pszczola agreed it was at most 20 seconds, and the TD, who should know best that 25 seconds is the allowed delay, decides there was UI? This would mean either that at the Cavendish TD's without full knowledge of the rules are employed or this particular TD deliberately cheated in favour of L-P and he even told them not to appeal. And F-Z, who were also aware that 25 s is allowed, behave like timid children.
Please have lunch with someone more reliable. Anyway, "I had lunch with someone who was told etc." is not the way to start a convincing argument.

[jdonn]

Let me help you out with one thing. The 25 seconds is a guideline. It's perfectly legal for the director to rule that 15 seconds in a situation was a break in tempo, and 45 seconds in another situation wasn't. I have read the email sent to the players, and will be so bold as to assume that you have not.

On that note, I have reasonable sources of information (including speaking directly with the pair involved about two hours after the incident) and I have stated what they are all along. You have diddly but your own feelings which so far have been proven wrong every time there is a way to check on them, even when you were insistent. Further, it's utterly obvious that you made up your mind after about 10 seconds of thought and have then searched for evidence to support that rather than the other way around. So believe or don't believe what you want but I could not care less.

[cicus]

jdonn, on May 15 2009, 04:00 AM, said:

I have reasonable sources of information (including speaking directly with the pair involved about two hours after the incident)

There were two pairs involved.

[Trinidad]

cicus, on May 15 2009, 03:39 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 14 2009, 05:50 PM, said:

- All four players agreed the amount of time the tray was on that side of the screen was around 15-20 seconds. They did disagree on whether or not this constituted a noticeable break in tempo in the given situation.
- The regulations (emailed to every player who entered) not only state that up to 25 seconds means there is a presumption of no break in tempo, but also give the power to the second player on either side of the screen to slow down the tray in order to maintain an even tempo.

I simply don't believe that. Even Lev-Pszczola agreed it was at most 20 seconds, and the TD, who should know best that 25 seconds is the allowed delay, decides there was UI?

Given that the TD seems to have thought that the BIT was after 1♥, I can believe all of what Josh said... and more.

Quote

This would mean either that at the Cavendish TD's without full knowledge of the rules are employed or this particular TD deliberately cheated in favour of L-P and he even told them not to appeal. And F-Z, who were also aware that 25 s is allowed, behave like timid children.

Why is that so? F-Z didn't have anything at stake. They had every reason to just shrug their shoulders and walk away. That doesn't make them timid children.

Quote

Please have lunch with someone more reliable. Anyway, "I had lunch with someone who was told etc." is not the way to start a convincing argument.

I hope Josh enjoyed his lunch with his "lunch partner with insufficient reliability". When it comes to how convincing his argument was, Josh had indicated already quite properly in his reply to Hanoi5 that heresay is not the most reliable source of information. This means that it was not necessary for you to point that out. And neither was it necessary to accuse Josh' lunch partner of not being sufficiently reliable.

Rik

[paulg]

In my experience top players are notoriously poor at estimating the time that the tray was on the other side of the screen.

But they are much better at determining that there was a significant hesitation on the other side, however long the tray was away.

So I'm surprised at the ruling when the Director was not called from the correct side of the screen.

Paul

[MFA]

Trinidad, on May 15 2009, 05:13 AM, said:

cicus, on May 15 2009, 03:39 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 14 2009, 05:50 PM, said:

- All four players agreed the amount of time the tray was on that side of the screen was around 15-20 seconds. They did disagree on whether or not this constituted a noticeable break in tempo in the given situation.
- The regulations (emailed to every player who entered) not only state that up to 25 seconds means there is a presumption of no break in tempo, but also give the power to the second player on either side of the screen to slow down the tray in order to maintain an even tempo.

I simply don't believe that. Even Lev-Pszczola agreed it was at most 20 seconds, and the TD, who should know best that 25 seconds is the allowed delay, decides there was UI?

Given that the TD seems to have thought that the BIT was after 1♥, I can believe all of what Josh said... and more.

I have an extremely hard time believing that TD could have thought that.

If the BIT were after 1♥ there is clearly no case.

The tray would then have been pushed in with: pass-1♣-1♦-pass...

and had come back (after a delay) with: pass-1♣-1♦-pass-1♥-pass

How on earth could that suggest a heart lead? It might have been the 1♥-bidder, who was thinking, and even if we knew it were opener, he would surely have thought about bidding 1♠, 2♣ or X. He would never think with a heart stack.

No I don't buy this. I'm not participating in any crucifixion of the TD based on the very little we can be sure of at this point.

[jdonn]

cicus, on May 15 2009, 04:18 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 15 2009, 04:00 AM, said:

I have reasonable sources of information (including speaking directly with the pair involved about two hours after the incident)

There were two pairs involved.

Fantastic. I have spoken to one of the two. How many have you spoken to?

[Trinidad]

MFA, on May 15 2009, 09:47 AM, said:

Trinidad, on May 15 2009, 05:13 AM, said:

Given that the TD seems to have thought that the BIT was after 1♥, I can believe all of what Josh said... and more.

I have an extremely hard time believing that TD could have thought that.

Well, that piece of information we can be reasonably sure of. Fred was one of the players polled. He was also asked what LAs were made more attractive by the UI (or some similar question). Since there was some confusion early in this thread (everybody who had watched the VuGraph assumed that we were talking about a BIT after 3NT, while Fred's comments suggested that he thought that the BIT came after 1♥) Josh asked Fred specifically. Here is Josh' question and Fred's answer:

fred, on May 11 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 11 2009, 03:46 PM, said:

Edit: Fred, when did the director tell you there was a hesitation? It looks like over 1♥ but I believe it was actually over 3NT, which seems to clearly suggest a heart lead (if it occured).

I was told the hesitation was over 1H.

So, if we believe Fred (and I really don't see any reason not to believe him), the TD told Fred that the hesitation was after 1♥. From there, it is a very small assumption that the TD indeed thought the hesitation was over 1♥. Much bigger assumptions have been made on BBF.

MFA, on May 15 2009, 09:47 AM, said:

If the BIT were after 1♥ there is clearly no case.

The tray would then have been pushed in with: pass-1♣-1♦-pass...

and had come back (after a delay) with: pass-1♣-1♦-pass-1♥-pass

How on earth could that suggest a heart lead? It might have been the 1♥-bidder, who was thinking, and even if we knew it were opener, he would surely have thought about bidding 1♠, 2♣ or X. He would never think with a heart stack.

Hence my conclusion (with the usual disclaimers) that the TD was confused about this whole case and made a couple of mistakes.

MFA, on May 15 2009, 09:47 AM, said:

No I don't buy this. I'm not participating in any crucifixion of the TD based on the very little we can be sure of at this point.

I am certainly not aiming at a crucifixion of the TD. To err is human and the last time I looked TDs were still human. But to me (with the usual ifs and disclaimers) it seems clear that the TD erred.

Rik

[barmar]

cardsharp, on May 15 2009, 05:41 AM, said:

In my experience top players are notoriously poor at estimating the time that the tray was on the other side of the screen.

But they are much better at determining that there was a significant hesitation on the other side, however long the tray was away.

So I'm surprised at the ruling when the Director was not called from the correct side of the screen.

Paul

In my experience, people in general are notoriously poor at estimating the time anything takes. Unless you're actively looking at the second hand on your watch, or counting "1 mississippi, 2 mississippi, ...", you're almost certainly going to be way off. But no one actually does anything to measure the time, because you don't know beforehand that the time is going to be important. So we're forced to deal with estimates made after the fact, which are most likely widely inaccurate. Even when all players agree "15-20 seconds", I'm dubious.

With all that said, I guess I should admit my own estimate, from watching on VuGraph, could be just as inaccurate.

I'm not sure what to make of the director being called by the wrong player, though. It could be that the his partner didn't notice, but it could also simply be that he forgot about the proper procedure and beat him to the punch. Someone mentioned that this partnership has made this mistake before -- it could be that he's implicitly the "designated caller".

[Elianna]

gwnn, on May 14 2009, 02:38 PM, said:

Even snooker is cooler than bridge in this regard

I can think of at least one director in the local clubs who I (and the majority of players in my area) would describe as appealing.

[MFA]

Trinidad, on May 15 2009, 12:44 PM, said:

MFA, on May 15 2009, 09:47 AM, said:

Trinidad, on May 15 2009, 05:13 AM, said:

Given that the TD seems to have thought that the BIT was after 1♥, I can believe all of what Josh said... and more.

I have an extremely hard time believing that TD could have thought that.

Well, that piece of information we can be reasonably sure of. Fred was one of the players polled. He was also asked what LAs were made more attractive by the UI (or some similar question). Since there was some confusion early in this thread (everybody who had watched the VuGraph assumed that we were talking about a BIT after 3NT, while Fred's comments suggested that he thought that the BIT came after 1♥) Josh asked Fred specifically. Here is Josh' question and Fred's answer:

fred, on May 11 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 11 2009, 03:46 PM, said:

Edit: Fred, when did the director tell you there was a hesitation? It looks like over 1♥ but I believe it was actually over 3NT, which seems to clearly suggest a heart lead (if it occured).

I was told the hesitation was over 1H.

So, if we believe Fred (and I really don't see any reason not to believe him), the TD told Fred that the hesitation was after 1♥. From there, it is a very small assumption that the TD indeed thought the hesitation was over 1♥. Much bigger assumptions have been made on BBF.

MFA, on May 15 2009, 09:47 AM, said:

If the BIT were after 1♥ there is clearly no case.

The tray would then have been pushed in with: pass-1♣-1♦-pass...

and had come back (after a delay) with: pass-1♣-1♦-pass-1♥-pass

How on earth could that suggest a heart lead? It might have been the 1♥-bidder, who was thinking, and even if we knew it were opener, he would surely have thought about bidding 1♠, 2♣ or X. He would never think with a heart stack.

Hence my conclusion (with the usual disclaimers) that the TD was confused about this whole case and made a couple of mistakes.

MFA, on May 15 2009, 09:47 AM, said:

No I don't buy this. I'm not participating in any crucifixion of the TD based on the very little we can be sure of at this point.

I am certainly not aiming at a crucifixion of the TD. To err is human and the last time I looked TDs were still human. But to me (with the usual ifs and disclaimers) it seems clear that the TD erred.

Rik

My best judgement from the entire thread is that TD didn't confuse where the BIT was when he made the ruling. And I feel very confident about it. Perhaps Fred did confuse it or the TD did when he approached Fred, that I'm more unsure of.

From what I've read, I am not ready at all to say that TD made a mistake. It could still be that his ruling was perfect. Therefore my reservations. You can have your own opinion, of course.

[fred]

MFA, on May 16 2009, 02:05 AM, said:

My best judgement from the entire thread is that TD didn't confuse where the BIT was when he made the ruling. And I feel very confident about it. Perhaps Fred did confuse it or the TD did when he approached Fred, that I'm more unsure of.

I was definitely told that the BIT was over 1H. My conversation with the TD went something like what follows. Of course I do not remember the exact words that were spoken.

TD: Can I ask you about a hand?

Me: Sure.

TD: You hold blah blah blah. The bidding goes blah blah blah. What would you lead?

Me (thinks for second or 2): I would certainly lead a club.

TD: You sure?

Me (thinks for maybe 5 seconds more): Yes.

TD: Would a BIT by partner over 1H suggest that some other particular suit might be more effective?

Me (thinks for at least 10 seconds): Hmmmm

TD: Let me ask you this instead: What could partner be thinking about?

Me: He might have been considering bidding 2C. If so that would make it even more obvious to lead a club.

TD: And he didn't because?

Me: Either he was concerned that his 6-card club suit was not strong enough or that his overall hand was not strong enough.

TD: Anything else he could have been thinking about?

Me: He might have been thinking of bidding 1S, but perhaps he needed some time to decide his hand was not quite strong enough for that action. If so that would make a spade lead more attractive, but since any hand that would bid 1S would likely also contain 5+ clubs, it would also makes a club lead more attractive.

TD: Anything else he could have been thinking about?

Me: I don't think so. It is basically impossible that he was thinking of either doubling or bidding 1NT. My hand and the opponents' auction suggest that partner's hand is not strong enough to take either of those actions.

TD: Do you think that the BIT makes a heart lead more attractive?

Me (thinks for 5 seconds or so): No. If anything the BIT makes a heart lead less attractive, but it still doesn't feel quite right to me to lead a non-club after any BIT by partner.

TD: Maybe not, but the Laws say the BIT has to make the action that was taken more attractive in order for there to be an adjusted score. Thanks for your time.

Then the TD and I went our separate ways and I thought about the hand for a few minutes. It seemed strange to me that the player with the hand in question (I did not know his identity) would think over 1H but not over 3NT. I thought maybe the TD had made a mistake so I approached the TD and said something like:

Me: If the BIT was over 3NT it would be a completely different story. Such a BIT would definitely suggest a heart lead and IMO should be severely punished.

TD: Thanks.

It does appear that the TD had the facts wrong during our initial conversation, but I am guessing that he got the right story before he made his ruling. I do not know if my later unsolicited comment helped him to see the light.

IMO this particular TD is one of the best and most professional TDs in the world. I speak from experience here - I have interacted with this TD in many tournaments over the years.

But obviously even the best sometimes make mistakes.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[crazy4hoop]

Elianna, on May 15 2009, 08:28 PM, said:

gwnn, on May 14 2009, 02:38 PM, said:

Even snooker is cooler than bridge in this regard

I can think of at least one director in the local clubs who I (and the majority of players in my area) would describe as appealing.

Thank you very much but I no longer live in the Los Angeles area.  

[Elianna]

That's why I didn't include you, but I probably should have said another in the NY area!

[hanp]

So Adam's a director now?