[OleBerg]

Hi all,

I was in a bit of a hurry, when I wrote my first post in this thread, and would like to elaborate.

DISCLAIMER: The next part of this post assumes, that the call for the director was made in a way that is acceptable for protocol.

The ruling is really clear and simple;

If the facts are disputed LAW 85 comes into effect:

http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/Law...awsComplete.pdf

Since there is a case at all, it must be assumed that the director have determined that there was a hesitation.

It also seems quite sure, that there are one or more logical alternatives to a heart lead.

And the hesitation demonstrably suggests that a heart lead is better.

So the adjustment of the score is a trivial matter, where the law is concerned.

END DISCLAIMER

Whether the ruling is fair, could much more easily be an object of debate. Much better players than me are already deeply into this, so I will not go there.

Nonetheless I belive we need to have rules that are pretty much like those enforced in this case; it is whether they were correctly enforced that, in my wiew, is debateable.
In this thread two wiews have been raised, namely that there was a hesitation, and that there wasn't. This is obviously the key-question to answer.

[Gerben42]

Hi, this is my view as a director.

IF there was a hesitation and the correct side of the screen (opening leader's side, not opener's side!) called the director, said director has no choice but to adjust the score to 3NT making.

It was correct procedure to ask other players currently present about the hand. If all of them said "lead a ♥, obvious" then there should be no adjustment. As things are, the case is pretty clear.

[b]BUT[b]

It's up to the director to establish if the facts were as I have stated above, or if they were different. It doesn't matter if BBO noticed the huddle or not, it matters if the other side of the screen noticed it. If it was not visible with the screen (as can often be the case) there is no reason for an adjustment.

[HedyG]

here is the chat from the table as recorded on my computer showing that the hesitation was indeed long enough for the operator (David Stern) to make a remark about it:
poohbear: Taking NO prisoners. Lev bids 3NT
vugraphzpt: Not sure what Feldman is thinking about here
poohbear: need a !h lead to beat it
vugraphzpt: Maybe doubling for !H lead
poohbear: If the spade honors were split then 2 rounds of spades and a !h play would work as well . Revert to spades after the King wins
vugraphzpt: EW 42nd before this session
poohbear: I like the lead
poohbear: where are we beating this ?
poohbear: I have 2 chances to lead. Better make the most of them
poohbear: Everyone suggesting West hesitated. I didnt see that
vugraphzpt: Director being summoned
vugraphzpt: If I commented on it then you can assume so
poohbear: ok. If this goes to committee and they indeed agree that West hesitated then the score will revert to 3NT making

[jdonn]

cicus, on May 12 2009, 04:15 AM, said:

OleBerg, on May 12 2009, 02:43 AM, said:

So it all depends on one thing:

Was there a hesitation?

(There might be something with protocol too, but thats a technicality.)

Watching it on BBO, it was clear that the final pass was preceeded by a significant huddle.

All you see on bbo is how long the vugraph operator takes to input the bid, not how long the player takes to act. Needless to say, this is often not the same amount of time for a lot of reasons (such as potentially in this case, the vugraph operator contributing to the commentary).

[cicus]

jdonn, on May 12 2009, 09:49 AM, said:

cicus, on May 12 2009, 04:15 AM, said:

OleBerg, on May 12 2009, 02:43 AM, said:

So it all depends on one thing:

Was there a hesitation?

(There might be something with protocol too, but thats a technicality.)

Watching it on BBO, it was clear that the final pass was preceeded by a significant huddle.

All you see on bbo is how long the vugraph operator takes to input the bid, not how long the player takes to act. Needless to say, this is often not the same amount of time for a lot of reasons (such as potentially in this case, the vugraph operator contributing to the commentary).

I am aware of that.

Anyway, if the score was adjusted then Feldman-Zagorin didn't deny the hesitation, so it is immaterial what we saw on BBO.

[jdonn]

cicus, on May 12 2009, 10:05 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 12 2009, 09:49 AM, said:

cicus, on May 12 2009, 04:15 AM, said:

OleBerg, on May 12 2009, 02:43 AM, said:

So it all depends on one thing:

Was there a hesitation?

(There might be something with protocol too, but thats a technicality.)

Watching it on BBO, it was clear that the final pass was preceeded by a significant huddle.

All you see on bbo is how long the vugraph operator takes to input the bid, not how long the player takes to act. Needless to say, this is often not the same amount of time for a lot of reasons (such as potentially in this case, the vugraph operator contributing to the commentary).

I am aware of that.

Anyway, if the score was adjusted then Feldman-Zagorin didn't deny the hesitation, so it is immaterial what we saw on BBO.

That is completely untrue, both in general and in this case. That's like saying if I'm in jail for murder I must not have denied it.

[OleBerg]

jdonn, on May 12 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

cicus, on May 12 2009, 10:05 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 12 2009, 09:49 AM, said:

cicus, on May 12 2009, 04:15 AM, said:

OleBerg, on May 12 2009, 02:43 AM, said:

So it all depends on one thing:

Was there a hesitation?

(There might be something with protocol too, but thats a technicality.)

Watching it on BBO, it was clear that the final pass was preceeded by a significant huddle.

All you see on bbo is how long the vugraph operator takes to input the bid, not how long the player takes to act. Needless to say, this is often not the same amount of time for a lot of reasons (such as potentially in this case, the vugraph operator contributing to the commentary).

I am aware of that.

Anyway, if the score was adjusted then Feldman-Zagorin didn't deny the hesitation, so it is immaterial what we saw on BBO.

That is completely untrue, both in general and in this case. That's like saying if I'm in jail for murder I must not have denied it.

I'm with jdonn here.

What you can gather from the fact that there was an adjustment, is that the TD determined that there was a hesitation. This means that he will base his ruling on that.

It doesn't mean that Feldman and partner agreed, or that it actually happened. The TD has to determine something, and the hesitation is what he found most likely. (See Law 85, linked above.)

[cicus]

jdonn, on May 12 2009, 10:35 AM, said:

cicus, on May 12 2009, 10:05 AM, said:

Anyway, if the score was adjusted then Feldman-Zagorin didn't deny the hesitation, so it is immaterial what we saw on BBO.

That is completely untrue, both in general and in this case. That's like saying if I'm in jail for murder I must not have denied it.

That is completely untrue. In bridge, if you claim you did not hesitate, nothing can be done as it can't be proved to the contrary. It is entirely up to your honesty.

[fred]

Phil, on May 11 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

Am I the only that finds it odd that a player in the event is being polled about a hand?

1. Fred might (although he is objective as the world is round) benefit from the ruling.

2. Fred might have a bias if he has seen the hand already.

Finding 'peers' might be a challenge, although perhaps you have some WC players available by phone that aren't in the event.

You make a good point.

It turns out that in this particular case, had I known which players were involved, it would have been very much in my best interest to lie to the TD about what I would have led. Lev-Pszczola finished higher than my partner and I in the standings so it would have been good for me to try to convince the TD to rule against them - they would likely lose 100s of IMPs as a result.

I doubt there were actually enough IMPs at stake to allow us to overtake them in this case, but the point is still valid. Other dangers include me having friends and/or pairs that I bet on who might have benefited from Lev-Pszczola being ruled against. It is not hard to imagine scenarios where I might have stood to gain many thousands of dollars by lying to the TD.

Of course the TD did not tell me which players were involved, but there are various ways that I might have known this already. It turns out I had no idea who was involved - if I did then I would have told the TD and suggested that he ask someone else instead of me.

Given that I did not know the names of the players and that my result on this board was -600, it was in my best interest to tell the TD that I would make an opening lead that would allow 3NT to make (as I did). This is because I would lose a sizable swing, 10 IMPs or so, to one unknown pair if 3NT went down at the table in question. It would be unlikely, though certainly possible, that a swing of this magnitude would make a difference in terms of where I placed in the final standings.

So it turns out that, given the information I had, what I told the TD was good for me. Hopefully you will believe me that I was trying to be objective

Still, I think it would be better if I (and other players and/or those involved in the auction) were not put in this position. Phil's phone idea is a good one in my opinion.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[cicus]

OleBerg, on May 12 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

It doesn't mean that Feldman and partner agreed, or that it actually happened. The TD has to determine something, and the hesitation is what he found most likely. (See Law 85, linked above.)

The TD, not being present, can't determine if there was a hesitation. The offending side has to admit it.

[jdonn]

cicus, on May 12 2009, 11:39 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 12 2009, 10:35 AM, said:

cicus, on May 12 2009, 10:05 AM, said:

Anyway, if the score was adjusted then Feldman-Zagorin didn't deny the hesitation, so it is immaterial what we saw on BBO.

That is completely untrue, both in general and in this case. That's like saying if I'm in jail for murder I must not have denied it.

That is completely untrue. In bridge, if you claim you did not hesitate, nothing can be done as it can't be proved to the contrary. It is entirely up to your honesty.

Lol. You are wrong. There is nothing else to say about it. I hope you aren't a director. Try reading an appeals casebook sometime.

[cicus]

jdonn, on May 12 2009, 11:46 AM, said:

cicus, on May 12 2009, 11:39 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 12 2009, 10:35 AM, said:

cicus, on May 12 2009, 10:05 AM, said:

Anyway, if the score was adjusted then Feldman-Zagorin didn't deny the hesitation, so it is immaterial what we saw on BBO.

That is completely untrue, both in general and in this case. That's like saying if I'm in jail for murder I must not have denied it.

That is completely untrue. In bridge, if you claim you did not hesitate, nothing can be done as it can't be proved to the contrary. It is entirely up to your honesty.

Lol. You are wrong. There is nothing else to say about it. I hope you aren't a director. Try reading an appeals casebook sometime.

To your relief, I am not a director. However, I would like to know why I am wrong. What else can a decision that there was hesitation be based on other than a confession by the accused side?

[fred]

cicus, on May 12 2009, 04:48 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 12 2009, 11:46 AM, said:

cicus, on May 12 2009, 11:39 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 12 2009, 10:35 AM, said:

cicus, on May 12 2009, 10:05 AM, said:

Anyway, if the score was adjusted then Feldman-Zagorin didn't deny the hesitation, so it is immaterial what we saw on BBO.

That is completely untrue, both in general and in this case. That's like saying if I'm in jail for murder I must not have denied it.

That is completely untrue. In bridge, if you claim you did not hesitate, nothing can be done as it can't be proved to the contrary. It is entirely up to your honesty.

Lol. You are wrong. There is nothing else to say about it. I hope you aren't a director. Try reading an appeals casebook sometime.

To your relief, I am not a director. However, I would like to know why I am wrong. What else can a decision that there was hesitation be based on other than a confession by the accused side?

Because it far from rare for one side to say the other side hesitated and for the other side to deny it completely. Even if both sides agree that a hesitation took place, more often than not they disagree about the length of the hesitation.

In these cases the TD is placed in the difficult position of having to decide who to believe.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

cicus, on May 12 2009, 11:48 AM, said:

What else can a decision that there was hesitation be based on other than a confession by the accused side?

Quote

Law 85: Rulings on Disputed Facts

When the director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows:

A. Director's Assessment
1. In determining the facts, the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of evidence he is able to collect.

What this means in practice is he simply makes a decision. For example, consider this case. One piece of evidence suggesting a hesitation is that the hand might well have doubled 3NT (Fred says he would have doubled), so there is a good chance the player had something to think about. But one piece of evidence suggesting there wasn't a hesitation is that the director was called from the same side of the screen as the alleged hesitation, whereas if there is a hesitation that is noticeable on the other side of the screen then the player on that side should be in a position to call. So the director gathers all such evidence, statements from each player, etc, and simply has to make a determination. In this case he determined there was more likely than not a hesitation. It certainly doesn't mean they admitted to it.

[cicus]

jdonn, on May 12 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

Quote

Law 85: Rulings on Disputed Facts

When the director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows:

A. Director's Assessment
1. In determining the facts, the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of evidence he is able to collect.

What this means in practice is he simply makes a decision. For example, consider this case. One piece of evidence suggesting a hesitation is that the hand might well have doubled 3NT (Fred says he would have doubled), so there is a good chance the player had something to think about. But one piece of evidence suggesting there wasn't a hesitation is that the director was called from the same side of the screen as the alleged hesitation, whereas if there is a hesitation that is noticeable on the other side of the screen then the player on that side should be in a position to call. So the director gathers all such evidence, statements from each player, etc, and simply has to make a determination. In this case he determined there was more likely than not a hesitation. It certainly doesn't mean they admitted to it.

OK, understood. Now, did they admit?

[jdonn]

No, Feldman says he thought for a short time but nothing unusual or that would be noticeable to his partner, and his partner says he didn't notice anything.

Their other arguments were:
- The 3NT rebid is such an unexpected development that Feldman's "normal" tempo should be a little longer in that position (I sort agree but only a little and it probably doesn't matter much.)
- A heart lead is very obvious or has no alternative (I definitely disagree, although they did find some players who agreed with that.) Essentially that logic is based on someone who rebids 3NT very often being short in his partner's suit.
- The wrong opponent called the director so their claim should be viewed sceptically (I completely agree.)

[JanM]

jdonn, on May 11 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

Just for full background, I played with Feldman in the world junior championship in 2006. At one point I called the director about a (very very long) hesitation on my own side of the screen that it seemed to me was taken advantage of. I was pretty much lambasted because I was told proper protocal is to call from the opposite side of the screen, and it took some convincing to even get the director to consider hearing what happened. So I'm not surprised that they were bothered that the director call came from the same side of the screen as the hesitation in this case (and even worse, after the hand was completed) and still the director not only heard it but agreed there was a hesitation. I suppose different regulations might have been in place, but I thought that this was more of a generally accepted procedure with screens than an event-specific regulation.

I believe that the rule about hesitations when there are screens is that the person on the same side of the screen where the hesitation occurred is allowed to call the Director, but only after the hand is over. So if the player on the hesitator's side of the screen knew the rules, he did the right thing by waiting until the hand was over to call. And accepting the director call here but criticizing you for calling before the hand was over is consistent with the rules.

For what it's worth (not much I suspect), the directors asked me about the hand at the tournament and I also said I would lead a club. I agree with Fred that if the opening leader was aware of the hesitation and led a heart that would be a very bad thing to do.

[cicus]

jdonn, on May 12 2009, 12:15 PM, said:

Their other arguments were:
- The 3NT rebid is such an unexpected development that Feldman's "normal" tempo should be a little longer in that position (I sort agree but only a little and it probably doesn't matter much.)

With his 4414 12-count Feldman knew he would not make another bid after he passed over 1♥. Therefore I can't see why he'd need more time to pass just because the tray came back with 3NT.

Of course BBO can't be relied upon when determining the length of a hesitation. But please tell me how on earth can the vugraph run smoothly for hours then get stuck or lag just when it's Feldman's turn in the passout position? And at the same time the operator at the venue (not over the net) making a remark on Feldman's hesitation? And after this remark the commentators still have time exchanging a couple of comments before he finally passes?

No, it is obvious the TD made the right decision about the hesitation. The question that arises: did he make the right decision adjusting the score? Did the hesitation necessarily suggest a heart lead? I don't think so. I and my regular partner have an agreement that the double of 3NT demands a lead of our bid suit. Did Feldman-Zagorin have such an agreement? If so, Feldman's first thought may have been to double but refrained from it remembering it would direct the wrong lead. Or he had to remember what their agreement was, if they had one at all. What if in other cases they play the double to demand a lead in dummy's suit? Which is the stronger rule, my suit or dummy's suit? To go through these thoughts may have required some time. But the hesitation may have actually suggested a club lead in which case it was most sportsmanlike from Zagorin to lead a heart.

[awm]

The standard meaning of a double of 3NT is to ask for the lead of dummy's first-bid suit.

If Feldman-Zagorin had a different agreement, likely they would've mentioned it to the director.

[jdonn]

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

Of course BBO can't be relied upon when determining the length of a hesitation. But please tell me how on earth can the vugraph run smoothly for hours then get stuck or lag just when it's Feldman's turn in the passout position? And at the same time the operator at the venue (not over the net) making a remark on Feldman's hesitation? And after this remark the commentators still have time exchanging a couple of comments before he finally passes?

No, it is obvious the TD made the right decision about the hesitation.

If you are going to make both of the bolded statements then it will be hard to have a discussion with you. As for the statement in italics, it is a joke to think the vugraph ran at a perfectly exact tempo throughout until that moment. Other times that you probably thought were either tanks or a player thinking were surely the operator lagging behind, either because he missed a card, was commentating, was talking privately to someone, got a cup of coffee....

Face it. You weren't there, you can't know what happened. Just like I wasn't there and I can't know what happened. Everything I have said I was told directly by the players who were there, which is all I know, and a much better source than a vugraph show.