[asdfg2k]

Anybody feel like posting the .lin file for the 4th stanza last night. That seems like a set I'd like to look at!

Thanks

[inquiry]

asdfg2k, on Aug 16 2005, 02:29 PM, said:

Anybody feel like posting the .lin file for the 4th stanza last night. That seems like a set I'd like to look at!

Thanks

Last night would be local to your time...

So here is 4th stanza of the finals
http://bridgebase04.bridgebase.com:81/vug/...inal%204of6.lin

and here are the four stanza of the two semifinals.

http://bridgebase04.bridgebase.com:81/vug/...04%20of%204.lin

http://bridgebase04.bridgebase.com:81/vug/...04%20of%204.lin

You can find all recent BBO vugraph events by clicking on "explore bridge" then "bridge library" then Vugraph archieve, etc... or go to this link...

http://bridgebase04....81/vug/?C=M;O=D

Ben

[Walddk]

It was indeed an amazing set (final as well as playoff for 3rd/4th). It had everything one could ask for, and in the end there was only 5.5 IMPs between Poland and USA1 with 32 boards to go.

http://online.bridge...ph/schedule.php

Don't miss it. Vugraph bridge at its finest! We also had 4200 users logged in to BBO at one point (9 am in New York), 1800 of which were watching live bridge from Sydney. Amazing, and a very unusual high number at that hour.

What is it going to be like when we reach October/November and the Bermuda Bowl & Venice Cup?

Roland

[asdfg2k]

Thanks, Ben.

Appreciated both the file and the tip.

BTW, USA would be up by a few if the 7nt in stanza 3 by Poland was disallowed, as it should have been.

If Kit Woolsey says that it is inappropriate, then I believe him. And he did.

It was amazing watching the commentators. Those with a Polish bias were saying that it was "ok" to bid on, while everyone else was pointing out the fact that there was a distinct BIT and that made it obviously more enticing to bid on. Had the auction gone rapid-fire there is no way, after the 6h bid, that the Polish player that bid 7D would have gone on.

The last 32 ought to be pretty exciting.

[Walddk]

I think it's very dangerous to determine what actually happened at the table if you are 10,000+ miles away from the venue. Kit Woolsey can say anything he likes, but it will only be a guess as far as a hesitation is concerned.

Woolsey is a fine player and analyst, but he is no oracle.

Roland

[asdfg2k]

That is one of the dangers of "real time" broadcasting. It is very difficult to keep information out of the hands of the riff-raff (that would be ME).

There was a distinct hesitation. I wasn't timing it, but I have a feeling I could have made a toasty grilled cheese sandwich right before the 6H bid.

IOW, it was a clear, obvious, BIT. To anybody who doesn't have their minds closed, that is.

Could they have all gotten up and done a few jumping jacks in that time span? Sure. But I would have expected the vugraph operator to say something.

He didn't.

I just hope that the final margin either favors the Poles by more than 12 imps or so or that USA wins. That way, nobody "loses", at least as far as the hand I'm discussing goes.

[Walddk]

You are entitled to your opinion, but since there seems to have been no ruling, let alone an appeal, we must trust that everything went within the framework of the laws.

By the way, I am not sure what you mean by biased commentators. We did indeed have Polish commentary in the closed room, but were you able to understand what they said in this context?

At least we did not have any commentators with Polish bias in the open room with English commentary, unless you assume that European commentators are biased. That would be a dangerous assumption.

Even commentators are human, and they will surely be rooting for their favourites (preferably in their hearts rather than on print), but "bias" is not a word I approve of in this context. Per definition, commentators are impartial, and that is how it should be.

Roland

[mrdct]

Don't necessarily believe the tempos that you see on BBO.

Good operators generally enter bids as the tray passes under the screen so it will often look like North and South and consuming all the time in the bidding and that West and East choose their bids without thought.

Also, the auction provides operators with a moment or two to "tune-out" or attend to other matters such as getting a coffee, checking a player's scorecard, checking a record sheet or just going for a stroll. Accordingly, a break in tempo on BBO will often just be the operator doing something else briefly.

As has already been pointed out, there was no ruling or appeal on the board so obviously none of the people who were actually at the table had any problem.

[asdfg2k]

You crack me up, Roland. If they have their favorites, then they are biased. If you don't like the connotation of the word, that is your problem, not mine.

I don't know whether they were European or from the Bronx. Go read the chat. I'm simply stating the obvious. The folks that said that 7D was "normal" were biased.

How somebody can understand the laws, see a huge (and I mean absolutely unmistakably huge - your protests notwithstanding) BIT, see partner sign off with a 6H bid and then see that the player bids on with a void in partner's suit, with a doubleton that has no control in the only unbid suit, when you recount your controls and find that you have the number you announced to partner when he inquired (that is, you didn't just sort of "find" an ace) and claim that everything is "normal" is beyond me. Quite simply, it means you have to be BIASED to think such an action is remotely within the laws. In this case, "you" doesn't mean you, Roland, it means the commentators.

I'm not saying that the commentators being biased is good or bad. Just that it was what it was and should be recognized as such.

These are not paid announcers who have some sort of professional code they have to adhere to or else risk losing their income and therefore starving their families. They *will* have a favorite and their comments should be taken in view of that, that's all.

It was pretty obvious.

Your comment about must trust the result is pure pablum.

People make mistakes. Real time broadcasting presents the bare truth to the multitudes and has frequently laid bare actions which are inconsistent with the rules by the participants/referees.

You are entitled to your opinion as to what actually happened, as am I.

But don't try to tell me that just because it wasn't ruled on by a director (or appeals committee) that it shouldn't have been ruled on by a director (or an appeals committee).

That kind of circuitous logic will lead one to conclude that the Canadian figure skaters who were awarded the Gold medal after a review of the official "ruling" should have just accepted the unjust result (which they were willing to do, mind you, but the public wouldn't let it die, IIRC).

[asdfg2k]

mrdct, I don't recall whether you were at the table at the time or not. Were you?

This was pretty high drama and every effort was made by the vugraph operator to keep folks informed. Comments something like "he has his head on his hands and is thinking", IIRC.

Sure, I admit that there will always be the possibility that delays are apparent to the participants for reasons that are not apparent to the audience.

That doesn't mean, conversely, that every delay that is apparent to the audience is not also apparent to the participants.

In this case, it clearly was, or do you seriously think that they took a coffee break right smack dab in the middle of a slam auction? I'd love to see the timing on the delay. Had to be at least 3 full minutes. Maybe more.

Some people will stretch the incredible to great lengths in order to make it seem credible. The 7D bid stunk to high heaven and the fact that the USA team didn't ask for a ruling is something that should be discouraged, not encouraged. And, although I'm sure folks will believe otherwise, I'd be saying the same thing if the Americans had bid to 7nt in that same manner.

If we can't look to the world championships, even the youth world championships, for examples for how the rest of us are to bid, where can we look?

[Walddk]

asdfg2k, on Aug 17 2005, 12:09 AM, said:

I don't know whether they were European or from the Bronx.  Go read the chat.  I'm simply stating the obvious.  The folks that said that 7D was "normal" were biased.

<snip>

I'm not saying that the commentators being biased is good or bad.  Just that it was what it was and should be recognized as such.

<snip>

People make mistakes.  Real time broadcasting presents the bare truth to the multitudes.

1. You can't state anything obvious. Read mrdct's post.

2. It was as it was to you it appears, but apparently not to the players on site. I can't understand how you can be the judge light years away from the venue. In my opinion you should rather apply the "benefit of the doubt".

3. Real time broadcasts do not reflect all aspects and is not the whole truth. Read mrdct's post again. As far as I know, you have never been an operator yourself. You are assuming something you can't know anything about.

Dave Thompson (mrdct) and I have been operating on numerous occasions. We know perfectly well what real time broadcasts involve. Sometimes the operator is the one who hesitates. S/he has lots of things to do.

Finally, why would Kit Woolsey be your hero in this case? "If Kit Woolsey says that it is inappropriate, then I believe him. And he did". You and Kit can say anything you like, but it is nothing more than pure speculation if you are not at the table when an incident occurs, if it occurs.

Roland

[Walddk]

asdfg2k, on Aug 17 2005, 12:09 AM, said:

But don't try to tell me that just because it wasn't ruled on by a director (or appeals committee) that it shouldn't have been ruled on by a director (or an appeals committee).

The American players are very experienced, so rest assured that they would have called the director if they thought that there had been an infraction (significant break of tempo leading to unauthorized information).

I am sorry, but you are not in a position to call the director from where you are even if you think that he should have been called. None of us can do that.

Roland

[mike777]

I know nothing of this specific event but some of these comments are just plain wrong.
1) Judgement, fair and reasonable judgement, can be made light years away. Whether it can be in this specific case is another issue.
2) This judgement made light years away is not wild speculation in all cases. Again in this case I have no idea.


In this case the fact there was no appeal or director call says alot.

edit, btw there was some golf case where a tv viewer called into the golf director and the player got a penalty, this may cause some problems if we start this in bridge but who knows .

[mrdct]

So there you have it! Unless you were actually at the table (or at least get the facts straight from the horse's mouth) you are on very shakey ground as to what the full story was which Justin has now kindly elucidated for us all.

I was lucky enough to operate for a couple of matches involving the Poles and I fully concur with Justin's assessment of them. At the end of the Canada-Poland match, Gavin Wolpert (who was screenmates with Konrad Araszkiewicz) told his opponents what nice guys they were to play against and how much enjoyed the match.

The whole event, and similar to other youth championships that I've been involved with both as a player and official, has been played with a very high level of sportsmanship.

[asdfg2k]

I don't disagree with Justin, of course.

But I think the world of bridge would have been better served if a director had been called, ascertained the facts and let everybody know just what happened.

[mike777]

asdfg2k, on Aug 17 2005, 01:34 AM, said:

I don't disagree with Justin, of course.

But I think the world of bridge would have been better served if a director had been called, ascertained the facts and let everybody know just what happened.

This is a common issue in all facets of life.

Do we just move on or ascertain all the facts and inform everyone?
These juniors will see this issue over and over and over again in life.

My guess is we almost never ascertain all the facts and inform everyone. And when we do not 99.9% of the world moves on and the rest complain.

[the hog]

asdfg2k, on Aug 17 2005, 04:34 PM, said:

I don't disagree with Justin, of course.

But I think the world of bridge would have been better served if a director had been called, ascertained the facts and let everybody know just what happened.

It is not the role of a director to "let everyone know just what happened." In fact its noone's business apart from those at the table. Who is displaying bias now, and who clearly owes Roland an apology?

[Fluffy]

Ahh the truth, sometimes it is so painy that people will refuse to accept it regardless of how sure it seems


BTW, congrats Justin, I sadly was on vacation so couldn't follow the final. I hope you can share a couple of hands with us in the forums .

[nickf]

I feel qualified to comment on this hand as I was closer to the players than anyone else (about 30cm).

Here are the facts as I saw them.

Kranyak's X of 4S muddied the RKC auction and Kalita incorrectly
responded 4NT. Some time in the next five minutes he wrote a note to
Grue (behind the screen of course) that he had made a monumental mistake and that he had an extra Ace.

Kotorowicz took several minutes to bid 6H and then Kalita with an extra
Ace also a few minutes to bid on to 7D. Kotorowicz pulled to 7NT and
after the lead, Kalita dropped his hand on the table and claimed 13.
Grue and Kranyak were not annoyed at the bids after the long
hesitations, just that the Poles had fallen more or less into a 17
trick 7NT.

Grue explained the Kranyak under the screen what Kalita had written and
they moved onto the next board.

nick
sydney