[Phil]

Walddk, on May 12 2009, 11:57 PM, said:

peachy, on May 13 2009, 06:46 AM, said:

The_Hog, on May 12 2009, 10:28 PM, said:

It is pretty clear from the preceeding discussion that the vuegraph operator should not have commented. This particular operator made many comments, some gratuitous, during the times i was watching. I realise it is not that easy to get operators, but perhaps this is one area Roland could address. Operators, unlike commentators, should not be seen nor heard.

IMO, any interesting tidbits about what is happening at the table only add to the enjoyment for spectators, making it feel like you are "there" in the room, so I like to hear those from the operator if he is still able to keep up pace and key in auctions and plays fast and accurate. However, I agree with you that the operator should let the commentators analyse and he should just provide the service he has volunteered to give and not do hand analysis. IMO, his comment about the hesitation was innocuous and in no way improper. It was in the same class as "so-and-so is looking puzzled/deep in though/thinking" or "his cards resting on the table" or some similar comment about what the players are doing at the time.

I agree with you and not The Hog. Comments by the operator add flavour to the presentation as long as it does not hamper his/her ability to do what he/she is there for first of all: operating.

Jan Martel (USA) and Michael Wilkinson (Australia) are two people who can do both. Some try and fail, others don't have time to comment. I don't blame them.

Roland

The Cavendish has an unusual format in that the operators were actively taking place in the commentary. Not just "Cohler has his head in his hands thinking", but commenting on the play. At some tables, the commentary was minimal with a designated commentator along with the vg operator. This didn't make for a great show.

Considering an operator is usually about 2' from the players, I would think this might create problems. Unless someone is a very stealth typist, the players might get a clue about the problems on the hand depending on how much the operator is 'commentating'.

[cicus]

jdonn, on May 12 2009, 03:36 PM, said:

cicus, on May 12 2009, 01:46 PM, said:

Of course BBO can't be relied upon when determining the length of a hesitation.

I should have added: "in general".

You are not easy to argue with either. You say the TD makes his decision based on probabilities. Now in another respect you completely disregard probabilities and coincidences, even facts (that the vugraph operator was there).

[hanp]

I agree with Roland and others that comments from the operator about what is happening at the table add flavour, or flavor as they say here.

[nickf]

The issue of operator or commentator is complex. And it's important to differentiate between comments on what's happening at the table ("Gitelman has his head in hands", "Wald has knocked over his coffee", "Grue can't keep still") as opposed to hand analysis.

I run a lot of VG presentations here and I have a preference for operators not to engage in hand analysis, with few exceptions for the simple reason that operating for most people requires a lot of focus and quite frankly their analysis skills just arent up to the level of Roland's squad.

I also dissuade operators from over-commenting because its clear to some players who arent focussed that the operator is typing away, often for a reason and that opens up the UI can of worms.

And to that extent, I didnt enjoy the Cavendish as much this year, mainly because one of some of the operators were way too chatty and moreover, their analysis was superficial or in some cases inaccurate.

nickf
sydney

[barmar]

jdonn, on May 12 2009, 06:57 PM, said:

Quote

And as I specifically mentioned, if the hesitation is on the last pass in the auction, the other player didn't even have an opportunity to hesitate.

If you are saying what I think you are, that is only true if the hesitation is on the last pass of the auction AND that player is first to act on his side of the screen. If the last pass of the auction is the second to act on that side of the screen then there is no way to know which player broke tempo.

I wrote "when the last pass takes place immediately after the tray is passed, and there's a hesitation there, which I think happened in this case". That's the same as your "first to act" case.

However, even in the second case, if a player has been silent all through an auction, while his screenmate has been active, and there's a hesitation on that side of the table in the last round, you can be 99% sure which of them was doing most of the thinking. It would also be a breach of proprieties for the silent one to hesitate deliberately when he has nothing to think about; it's the bidding equivalent of huddling before following suit with a singleton.

[cherdanno]

I remember a vugraph operator who did better hand analysis than most of the commentators. And faster than all of them. He must be a world class player, I think his name was s.th. like Justin Lall. Anybody heard of him?

[cicus]

Phil, on May 13 2009, 12:06 AM, said:

Considering an operator is usually about 2' from the players, I would think this might create problems. Unless someone is a very stealth typist, the players might get a clue about the problems on the hand depending on how much the operator is 'commentating'.

I don't think we should be afraid of that. In many cases, when there is no action at the table, commentators and operator talk about different things such as sports, or simply tell stories to entertain themselves and the audience.

[HedyG]

IMHO David Stern is both an excellent operator as well as commentator. he did not overanalyse, got the atmosphere at the table across to us spectators and interacted with the commentators of which at times there was only one making his comments all the more precious.
i think the director asking him whether he had noticed a huddle is very normal, surely any director would have done so and been happy that an unbiased person was present to ask.

[HedyG]

online the break in tempo was long enough for David ( and i would assume most of the spectators) to notice and David to type a remark about it. after that it still took a while for the pass to come. i doubt very much that David would hesitate in entering that. he had entered all bids in tempo all day in his usual efficient manner.

[Trinidad]

As a TD, I think that many are going after the wrong question. Everyone seems to be interested in the question: "Was there a BIT?". The answer to that question is easy: "Yes, there was. We can believe the VuGraph operator. And he had a clear view on the player who tanked." But this question is completely irrelevant.

The relevant question is: "Was there UI transmitted through the screen?" If there is no UI transmitted through the screen, there cannot be any use of UI. That is one of the reasons we use screens in the first place.

Since the player(s) on the one side of the screen did not draw any attention to a BIT on the other side (and Lev-Pszscola are more than experienced enough to know that they should do that if UI was transmitted through the screen), the conclusion must be that there was no UI transmitted. And if the UI wasn't transmitted, it cannot have been used.

Players of the level of Lev and Pszscola should be familiar with the basics of the screen regulations. TD's are emphasizing over and over again that pointing out a BIT on the same side of the screen defies the idea behind using screens in the first place.

The conclusion should be that the player on the other side of the screen had not noticed the BIT, otherwise he would have done something anything. But he didn't. Hence no UI, no AS. Next board.

Therefore, whether the VuGraph operator saw a BIT is irrelevant. A relevant question to the VuGraph operator could have been: "Did you see a player on the other side of the screen pointing out to the other that there was a BIT?" but I think that question wasn't asked.

In a way, this is a very sad case. Organizers are trying to invent methods (bidding boxes, screens, etc.) to prevent UI. In this case, the method worked. There was a BIT but, thanks to the screen, no UI was transmitted. Hooray! Except that it seems that the TD has overlooked the fact that there is no evidence that the UI made it to the other side of the screen. Sad.

Rik

[Walddk]

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

[Gerben42]

Quote

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

Yes, I think so too. The part "UI was transmitted" is really the tough part with screens. When the wrong side calls, he can ask spectators like the operator if the hesitation was long enough that the other side would have noticed a significant delay.

[Trinidad]

Gerben42, on May 13 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

Quote

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

Yes, I think so too. The part "UI was transmitted" is really the tough part with screens. When the wrong side calls, he can ask spectators like the operator if the hesitation was long enough that the other side would have noticed a significant delay.

I agree that this is tough, but the key thing is (and I am glad we agree on this): Was UI transmitted through the screen? (As you say, the TD could have asked the VuGraph operator this question, but this question is pretty hard to answer for the operator if he has just been looking at the player who tanked.) And it should be clear that this tough part could have been avoided if the other side of the screen had drawn attention to the BIT, in any way.

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. There are several reasons for this:

- It is the proper procedure to hold the tray. (This should end the discussion, but I know that it won't since players violate proper procedure all the time. )
- Various trivial things may be going on on the other side of the screen ranging from moving coffee cups or pencils to asking questions about the auction while all the bids are still in view.

Therefore, while the VuGraph operator may have clearly seen that a player was thinking, this may not have dawned on the other side of the screen. When I started playing with screens myself, it happened quite often that I was wondering why it took so long to finish a trivial auction (of the type 1NT-Pass-3NT-Pass; Pass-Pass). But the fact is that some players do follow proper procedure. I have had several screen mates who held the tray in trivial situations like that. While we are waiting they start entering the contract on the score sheet, lay out the dummy or do something else useful to save time. Personally, I like playing against this type of players.

Rik

[Hanoi5]

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

[jdonn]

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

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 think the responder to the overcall is MUCH more likely to have a problem than the opening bidder who has already passed over 1♥. I don't know how you could possibly say he can't have a problem. Maybe he has diamond support and a singleton club. Maybe he is 5-6 in the majors. His partner made a totally unexpected rebid and additionally he was first to act on his side of the screen so he had less time to think.

[jdonn]

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.

[OleBerg]

Hanoi5, on May 13 2009, 04:58 PM, said:

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

Also, if the TD had determined that UI was passed (through the screen), a committee could not change that.

[JanM]

nickf, on May 13 2009, 01:55 AM, said:

The issue of operator or commentator is complex.  And it's important to differentiate between comments on what's happening at the table ("Gitelman has his head in hands", "Wald has knocked over his coffee", "Grue can't keep still") as opposed to hand analysis.

I run a lot of VG presentations here and I have a preference for operators not to engage in hand analysis, with few exceptions for the simple reason that operating for most people requires a lot of focus and quite frankly their analysis skills just arent up to the level of Roland's squad.

I also dissuade operators from over-commenting because its clear to some players who arent focussed that the operator is typing away, often for a reason and that opens up the UI can of worms.

I agree with Nick (except the final sentence which I have deleted from the quote). When I am an operator, I don't have time to do analysis and therefore try to limit my comments to what is going on in the room. Having said that, I think there are a few operators who are capable of quick, accurate and insightful analysis and particularly if there aren't very many commentators, their contributions are useful.

[xcurt]

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

We can assume Pepsi passed within a second or two, his hand has nothing to consider. The screen regulations say that no huddle under 20 seconds implies a BIT (since, to prevent UI from a shotgunned call, either player can introduce a screen huddle) so the issue of whether there was a BIT comes down to whether the huddle was significantly more than 20 seconds.

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

[Walddk]

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