[cherdanno]

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

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.

Josh, I think a remark by the vugraph operator ("Not sure what Feldman is thinking about here") is a pretty strong indication that there was a hesitation. He is probably more objective about it than all the players involved.
Of course, none of us, not even the TD KNOWS whether there was a hesitation. But that's often the case in BIT rulings (and of course the TDs will get it wrong some of the times).

[jdonn]

I don't claim there wasn't one, just that they say there wasn't. They were also pretty annoyed when they found out the vugraph operator said that. Who knows, maybe the director asked the operator as a witness and that's why he ruled that way.

[Walddk]

Law 76, B:
A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director.

Consequently, if facts are disputed (in this case hesitation or not), the director can ask spectators. It does not happen often, but it happens. I assume that the vugraph operator was the only person (i.e. spectator) in the 'room'.

If there was a dispute of facts, and if I understand Josh correctly there was, did the director ask the operator? If the operator answers 'yes' or 'no' to hesitation or not, it's easy to ascertain the facts, because we must assume that the operator is unbiased.

If he answers 'not sure, I was busy with other issues', it is much more complicated.

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

JanM, on May 12 2009, 06:30 PM, said:

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.

When you say "the rule" do you mean the Cavendish regulations?

Unfortunately screen regulations are not covered by the Lawbook and are the responsibility of the sponsoring organisation (just like alert regulations). In the EBU you are ONLY allowed to call the TD from the other side of the screen. Calling from the same side will not get a ruling*

Oddly it was not long ago that there was a very very very contentious case in a European tournament that also included a call from the 'wrong' side of the screen which did lead to a ruling and an adjustment. I can't remember the details, but I do (vaguely) remember that it certainly looked as though the screen regulations were going to be tightened up after this.

*unless e.g. one partner is dumb and gives a written note the other side of the screen saying 'please call the TD I noticed a hesitation'

[Elianna]

cherdanno, on May 12 2009, 01:00 PM, said:

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

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.

Josh, I think a remark by the vugraph operator ("Not sure what Feldman is thinking about here") is a pretty strong indication that there was a hesitation. He is probably more objective about it than all the players involved.
Of course, none of us, not even the TD KNOWS whether there was a hesitation. But that's often the case in BIT rulings (and of course the TDs will get it wrong some of the times).

I wasn't there, I didn't even watch it on vugraph.

But as I understand it, the question is whether the other side of the screen noticed a hesitation, and could tell which player was the one hesitating.

I realize that the vugraph operator SAID Jason hesitated for a short while (from reading things here, sounds like it could be anywhere from 10 to 30 seconds) but that doesn't mean that it was noticeable to the other side.

So I don't see that the vugraph operator stating that there was a hesitation pertains to whether the hesitation was actually perceivable to the other side of the screen.

I have a lot of sympathy for Feldman-Zargorin being upset about this ruling, it does seem to be a case of he said-he said. I would have a lot of sympathy for Lev-Pszcola if it went the other way.

[barmar]

jdonn, on May 12 2009, 04:08 PM, said:

I don't claim there wasn't one, just that they say there wasn't. They were also pretty annoyed when they found out the vugraph operator said that. Who knows, maybe the director asked the operator as a witness and that's why he ruled that way.

IIRC, the operator specifically mentioned that he was asked, and showed his chat log to the TD.

Most of the discussion that was quoted above took place during the hesitation.

[barmar]

Elianna, on May 12 2009, 04:41 PM, said:

So I don't see that the vugraph operator stating that there was a hesitation pertains to whether the hesitation was actually perceivable to the other side of the screen.

I don't think the Laws on UI make a distinction about whether a hesitation is perceivable by partner; if any player at the table noticed it, it's perceivable. Either a hesitation occurred or it didn't. The assumption is that if there's a hesitation, partner could take inferences from it, and the Laws prohibit any action that could have been suggested by it.

Screens are supposed to make it harder to tell who hesitated, but in some cases it's easy because of context, and in at least one case it's clear (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). The rule that attention should be drawn to the hesitation by someone on the other side of the screen is intended to work with this, since the opponent on the same side can obviously tell whether the hesitation was due to himself or his screenmate.

[hanp]

Josh, did they think that it was somehow unfair to ask the vugraph commentator if there had been a break in tempo? When you have one side that claims that there wasn't a break in tempo and another that says there was, it seems like a very good idea to ask a spectator, especially a spectator who has been paying close attention.

When the commentator has even commented before the director call that Feldman was thinking over 3NT, it becomes quite hard to argue that there was no break in tempo. And when there was indeed a break in tempo then I don't understand how one could think the director ruling was unfair.

(by which I don't mean to say that I think it is strange that the pair involved finds it unfair, it makes it hard not to be biased.)

[Elianna]

barmar, on May 12 2009, 02:00 PM, said:

Elianna, on May 12 2009, 04:41 PM, said:

So I don't see that the vugraph operator stating that there was a hesitation pertains to whether the hesitation was actually perceivable to the other side of the screen.

I don't think the Laws on UI make a distinction about whether a hesitation is perceivable by partner; if any player at the table noticed it, it's perceivable. Either a hesitation occurred or it didn't. The assumption is that if there's a hesitation, partner could take inferences from it, and the Laws prohibit any action that could have been suggested by it.

Screens are supposed to make it harder to tell who hesitated, but in some cases it's easy because of context, and in at least one case it's clear (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). The rule that attention should be drawn to the hesitation by someone on the other side of the screen is intended to work with this, since the opponent on the same side can obviously tell whether the hesitation was due to himself or his screenmate.

My point is that just because it was clear on one side that someone hesitated, it does not mean that it's clear on the other side that there was a hesitation at all.

If you and I were on the same side, and you placed your card in 1 second, and I place mine in 19 seconds, it is clear to you, me, and the vugraph operator that there was a hesitation. But when the board is sent back in 24 seconds (giving a four second reaction time), it's not clear to the other side that a hesitation even OCCURRED. (20-30 seconds seems par for the course for returning a board, from what I've observed in person.)

[barmar]

Elianna, on May 12 2009, 05:05 PM, said:

barmar, on May 12 2009, 02:00 PM, said:

Elianna, on May 12 2009, 04:41 PM, said:

So I don't see that the vugraph operator stating that there was a hesitation pertains to whether the hesitation was actually perceivable to the other side of the screen.

I don't think the Laws on UI make a distinction about whether a hesitation is perceivable by partner; if any player at the table noticed it, it's perceivable. Either a hesitation occurred or it didn't. The assumption is that if there's a hesitation, partner could take inferences from it, and the Laws prohibit any action that could have been suggested by it.

Screens are supposed to make it harder to tell who hesitated, but in some cases it's easy because of context, and in at least one case it's clear (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). The rule that attention should be drawn to the hesitation by someone on the other side of the screen is intended to work with this, since the opponent on the same side can obviously tell whether the hesitation was due to himself or his screenmate.

My point is that just because it was clear on one side that someone hesitated, it does not mean that it's clear on the other side that there was a hesitation at all.

If you and I were on the same side, and you placed your card in 1 second, and I place mine in 19 seconds, it is clear to you, me, and the vugraph operator that there was a hesitation. But when the board is sent back in 24 seconds (giving a four second reaction time), it's not clear to the other side that a hesitation even OCCURRED. (20-30 seconds seems par for the course for returning a board, from what I've observed in person.)

That was part of my point, that screens normally hide which player hesitated.

But if one player has been passing throughout, it's very unlikely that he would have hesitated late in the auction, so it's pretty easy to guess who hesitated. 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.

[jdonn]

hanp, on May 12 2009, 05:02 PM, said:

Josh, did they think that it was somehow unfair to ask the vugraph commentator if there had been a break in tempo?

They didn't mention to me that he had been asked, I only speculated he might have been.

Quote

When you have one side that claims that there wasn't a break in tempo and another that says there was, it seems like a very good idea to ask a spectator, especially a spectator who has been paying close attention.

I agree it's a good idea to ask him, the director should gather any possible evidence he can.

Quote

When the commentator has even commented before the director call that Feldman was thinking over 3NT, it becomes quite hard to argue that there was no break in tempo.

Totally disagree (look at Elianna's example about 1 and 19 seconds). In fact I believe that when the opponent on the other side of the screen (who is one of the most capable players in the world) fails to call the director at any point despite the opening lead being what a break in tempo would suggest, it's hard to argue that that side of the screen detected any break in tempo.

Quote

And when there was indeed a break in tempo then I don't understand how one could think the director ruling was unfair.

Agree.

barmar, on May 12 2009, 05:10 PM, said:

But if one player has been passing throughout, it's very unlikely that he would have hesitated late in the auction, so it's pretty easy to guess who hesitated.

Neither player on that side of the screen had passed throughout.

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.

[Cascade]

cicus, on May 13 2009, 03:05 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.

My experience has been that in a lot of cases there is a presumed guilt that the player hesitated.

[Cascade]

cherdanno, on May 13 2009, 09:00 AM, said:

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

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.

Josh, I think a remark by the vugraph operator ("Not sure what Feldman is thinking about here") is a pretty strong indication that there was a hesitation. He is probably more objective about it than all the players involved.
Of course, none of us, not even the TD KNOWS whether there was a hesitation. But that's often the case in BIT rulings (and of course the TDs will get it wrong some of the times).

But that is not the same nor even close to "the hesitation was transferred through to the other side of the screen".

[Cascade]

FrancesHinden, on May 13 2009, 09:35 AM, said:

JanM, on May 12 2009, 06:30 PM, said:

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.

When you say "the rule" do you mean the Cavendish regulations?

Unfortunately screen regulations are not covered by the Lawbook and are the responsibility of the sponsoring organisation (just like alert regulations). In the EBU you are ONLY allowed to call the TD from the other side of the screen. Calling from the same side will not get a ruling*

Oddly it was not long ago that there was a very very very contentious case in a European tournament that also included a call from the 'wrong' side of the screen which did lead to a ruling and an adjustment. I can't remember the details, but I do (vaguely) remember that it certainly looked as though the screen regulations were going to be tightened up after this.

*unless e.g. one partner is dumb and gives a written note the other side of the screen saying 'please call the TD I noticed a hesitation'

Technically it is not the calling the director that jeopardizes your rights it is drawing attention to the irregularity.

After attention is drawn to the irregularity anyone can call the director.

[the hog]

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.

[nickf]

During the Yeh Bros Cup here a couple of months ago, the BBO operator was asked to provide a statement during an appeal, on a similar issue, length of hesitation.

nickf
sydney

[mike777]

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.

I like and encourage the operator comments.

[the hog]

mike777, on May 13 2009, 11:26 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.

I like and encourage the operator comments.

Operator or commentator, Mike. Commentator I would agree. This particular operator makes comments for the sake of making comments.

[peachy]

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.

[Walddk]

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