[Walddk]

Interesting report Nick. Where are the cocksure asdfg2k and Woolsey when we need them?

"Benefit of the doubt" is a term that does not seem to exist in their vocabulary. Do not jump to conclusions when you are 10,000+ miles away is the lesson to learn! 30 cm makes a lot more sense, at least to me.

I don't want an apology, Hog, I just hope that this will teach asdfg2k to take some things with a grain of salt, and that Kit Woolsey is not bridge's answer to the Oracle of Delphi.

Roland

[daffodil]

It appears that this strand moved from comments concerning 'biased' commentators to a critique of when a director should be called to the table.

My comment concerns the commentators. I love them! I watch regularly and like their humor and partiality, if shown. The volunteer commentators are forthright with their opinions. In any other case, the commentary would be boring. My praises to them as they provide the overall balance between bridge intelligence and spectator fun!

[asdfg2k]

I know I'm going to be jumped on for this, but I really don't see anything to apologize for. That is, I still believe strongly that there should have been a director call. It should not be up to the players on a world championship stage as to whether one was called or not when there is a hesitation that was that noticeable. Can you see Wimbledon without line judges? It is unfair to the potentially NOS. They should not be in a position where it is their choice as to whether a ruling is made. It creates too much pressure. It is cicuitous to claim that since these players were so familiar with each other and the international spotlight that they are not subject to the potential pressure. They need to be insulated from it in order to ensure the appearance of fairness.

We are talking about the world championships here. We are talking about displaying bridge to the entire world, including many who will seek to emulate. Do we really want 8 minute hesitations handled at the table?

As I already said, real time broadcasting carries with it some baggage. When something of this magnitude comes up, clarification is desirable, in real time. Kudos to Justin and Nick for explaining it later, though, as that is clearly the next best thing.

Let me clarify one thing. Upon re-reading some of the prior posts I can see how some might get the impression that I was arguing for a reversal of the 7D bid itself. based solely on the hesitation. I wasn't. I was arguing for the fact that the bid, in the absence of a director ruling that there was no misuse of UI, should be disallowed. I admit that I should have been arguing more clearly for a director being called to sort this out, as that is the appropriate response. For those who thought I was arguing for a summary reversal, without a director properly investigating, I apologize for the disclarity. Yes, I believe that based on the facts as presented, the call would be reversable, but I should have stated that the appropriate course of action is a director call to ensure equity.

[Walddk]

asdfg2k, on Aug 25 2005, 06:56 PM, said:

I know I'm going to be jumped on for this, but I really don't see anything to apologize for.  That is, I still believe strongly that there should have been a director call.  It should not be up to the players on a world championship stage as to whether one was called or not when there is a hesitation that was that noticeable.  Can you see Wimbledon without line judges?  It is unfair to the potentially NOS.  They should not be in a position where it is their choice as to whether a ruling is made.  It creates too much pressure.  It is cicuitous  to claim that since these players were so familiar with each other and the international spotlight that they are not subject to the potential pressure.  They need to be insulated from it in order to ensure the appearance of fairness.

We are talking about the world championships here.  We are talking about displaying bridge to the entire world, including many who will seek to emulate.  Do we really want 8 minute hesitations handled at the table? 

As I already said, real time broadcasting carries with it some baggage.  When something of this magnitude comes up, clarification is desirable, in real time.  Kudos to Justin and Nick for explaining it later, though, as that is clearly the next best thing.

Let me clarify one thing.  Upon re-reading some of the prior posts I can see how some might get the impression that I was arguing for a reversal of the 7D bid itself. based solely on the hesitation. I wasn't.  I was arguing for the fact that the bid, in the absence of a director ruling that there was no misuse of UI, should be disallowed.  I admit that I should have been arguing more clearly for a director being called to sort this out, as that is the appropriate response.  For those who thought I was arguing for a summary reversal, without a director properly investigating, I apologize for the disclarity.  Yes, I believe that based on the facts as presented, the call would be reversable, but I should have stated that the appropriate course of action is a director call to ensure equity.

Absurd Theatre
(Act 1)

Player 1: "Director please".
(Enter director).
Director:: "Hello, how can I help"?
Player 2:: "Witam dyrektorze. Co u ciebie slychac"?
(for those of you who may not be fluent in Polish, this means: "Hello director. How are you today"?).
Player 1: "There has been a clear break of tempo, and we all agree".
Director: "Thanks for stating the facts, call me again after the hand if you think you have been damaged".
Player 1: "No need to".
Director: "What do you mean"?
Player 1: "The hand is over. It took declarer a split second to claim his 17 top tricks in 7NT, and we accepted".
Director: ????
Player 1: "Good question".
Director: "Do you feel that you have been damaged by the break of tempo"?
Player 1: "No".
Director: "So why am I here"?
Player 1: "Not sure, but we are under pressure. It's the World Championship final".
Director: "I think I know that. What about concentrating on playing bridge then"?
Player 1: "Another good question".
Director: "I started by asking how I could help".
Player 1: "You can't. We just wanted you to know that our opponents hesitated".
Director: ?????
Player 3: "You keep asking good questions. I wish our answers were as clear as your questions. Have a nice day, director".
Player 2: "Dziekuje, to jest wspanialy dzien". ("Yes, have a wonderful day").
Player 4:: zzzzzzzzz

Exit director (shaking his head).

....

Any resemblance to a recent event somewhere down under is of course purely coincidental, since this did not happen in real life. Thank goodness.

Roland

[Walddk]

Jlall, on Aug 25 2005, 09:32 PM, said:

... Roland have you ever considered writing screenplays?

Sure Justin. Do you volunteer as an actor? Player 2 or 4? #4 has the easier lines as you see

Roland

[1eyedjack]

I was looking up the laws on this, initially because I had a vague recollection that the laws required the director to be summoned in the event of an irregularity, but I just ended up getting confused. Perhaps someone could clarify?

There may be something additional specified in regulations delegated to the Sponsoring Organisation, to which I do not have access, so I am only going by the primary legislation. Even the primary legislation appears to vary between countries although thankfully not (it appears) in the clauses relevant to this issue.

Whether or not a break in tempo is an "infraction", seems to me to be a point of some ambiguity. On the one hand Law 73A2 expressly states that it is a breach. On the other hand Law 73D1 expressly states that in some circumstances it might not be a breach (although acting on UI would be). I do not intend to consider here which side of the 73D1 fence the facts fall in this case.

Moving on, Law 9A seems to grant players discretion to draw attention to an irregularity, but no compulsion to do so. The point is significant because the authority (and indeed requirement) to call the TD enshrined in Law 9B requires the satisfaction of the condition in Law 9A - that attention first be drawn to the irregularity.

So:

Option 1:

If no irregularity has occurred, there appears to be no way to call the TD. Of course you could invoke some irregularity deliberately to trigger Law 9A and empower Law 9B, at the risk of some trivial penalty.

Option 2:

If an irregularity has occurred but no attention is drawn to it, there is no power to call the TD. If you want the TD you could of course draw attention to the irregularity at which point calling the TD is compulsory.

Option 3:

If an irregularity has occurred and attention is drawn to it, there is no discretion but to call the TD. I cannot see it specified who should call the TD. I have always thought that it is courteous for the offending side to do so, but it should be beyond mere courtesy because failing to call the TD is itself breach of Law 9B and it may be necessary in the assessment of damages to determine who is in breach.

Applying these questions to the hand in the thread, there are two questions of fact to be determined: (1) Was there an infraction and if so (2) was attention drawn to it?

I was not there, was not even in viewgraph, and have only this thread to go on, but I would have said that on that basis that there was an infraction (although this seems to be the more arguable of the two questions), and that the subsequent scribblings between opponents drew attention to it.

What strikes me as a bit peculiar is that I would have expected a director to be present and witnessing the entire match at the table, for an event of this level. How many tables were there in play?

[asdfg2k]

Roland: very, very nice.

However, I'm with Jack on this one.

Roland penned, ever so entertainingly, a script which included:

Director: "Do you feel that you have been damaged by the break of tempo"?
Player 1: "No".

And therein lies the rub. Player 1 is put in a position of having to answer a question that he shouldn't have to answer. If forced to answer, the answer should be: "I don't know."

If you would like, the answer could be spoken with a whispered voice-over explaining the thoughts of Player 1:

"I don't think I've been damaged, but I have teammates at the other table, and, incidentally an entire country, looking to me to make that determination. Frankly, I can't discount the possibility that there has been some miscommunication at this table that I'm not aware of, so in light of the clear BIT, I think it appropriate for the director to weigh in on this, without any bias imparted by me."

[Walddk]

asdfg2k, on Aug 25 2005, 11:27 PM, said:

Director: "Do you feel that you have been damaged by the break of tempo"?
Player 1: "No".

And therein lies the rub.  Player 1 is put in a position of having to answer a question that he shouldn't have to answer.  If forced to answer, the answer should be: "I don't know."

I may have to write an Act 2, but before I do, I had better address this particular issue (hat off, I am not a script writer any more):

The American players judged and agreed that they had not been damaged, and therefore they didn't call the director. Afterwards, when presented with the facts, the USA1 NPC agreed with the players. End of story. No ruling, and rest assured that the director knew the whole story too. He did not address the team to tell them that they had done something wrong.

Now, let's pretend that a director should have been called and Player 1 was asked that question ("Do you feel that you have been damaged by the break of tempo"?).

Do you really mean that his reply should have been "I don't know", when he and his partner are convinced that the answer is "No"? Why would they say something that goes against their conviction? They have used their bridge judgement to determine that there had been no infraction. Accordingly, they did not call the director. A break of tempo is not an irregularity in itself (using UI is), and the players are not obliged to call the director. They have the right to do so, yes, but it's not compulsory.

The American players did not think that any of the opponents had taken advantage of possible UI. This sums it up very clearly.

You may want to change Law 9(A), but that will have to happen first then.

Ultimately (heaven forbids), if the director really should have been called, and that USA as a consequence of not complying with this procedure were liable to a procedural penalty (let's say 3 IMPs), do you then think that they must cancel the extra 8 boards and declare Poland World Champions by 3 IMPs? That the players must exchange their gold and silver medals across the Atlantic Ocean?

It gives me goose bumps to even think about it. Let the players decide the result of the bridge match at the table when no irregularity has occurred, and let the directors knock each other over with their law books if they have nothing better to do.

Roland

[asdfg2k]

Of course, if, as a consequence of an impartial review, it is determined, in a timely manner, that a PP applies then it must be applied. If the consequence of the PP is that the 8 hands should not have been played, so be it. That part isn't difficult at all. Whether the PP goes against P or U doesn't matter. If it applies, it applies.

I don't think it was part of the conditions of contest for this event, but I seem to recall that at least one championship event I reviewed had a mandatory 3-imp PP for misinformation. Does anybody recall that? I forget why that rule was in place, but I don't think it was intended to cover situations where the offender mis-heard the auction. But then again, maybe it was.

In any event, I think Jack has it right and I'm curious as to your response to his line of reasoning.

[Walddk]

asdfg2k, on Aug 26 2005, 02:49 AM, said:

In any event, I think Jack has it right and I'm curious as to your response to his line of reasoning.

It is not difficult at all. Firstly, there was no irregularity, and secondly, even if there had been, please note the use of the word may. If it had been compulsory the word would have been must.


LAW 9
PROCEDURE FOLLOWING AN IRREGULARITY

A. Calling Attention to an Irregularity
1. During the Auction Period
Unless prohibited by Law, any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction, whether or not it is his turn to call.
2. During the Play Period
(a) Declarer or Either Defender
Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may call attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period.

But the bottom line is that there was no irregularity, so calling the director is (at best) waste of everyone's time.

Roland

[asdfg2k]

Can you address Jack's posting?

[Walddk]

asdfg2k, on Aug 26 2005, 06:47 AM, said:

Can you address Jack's posting?

I did. His Option 1 applies. There was no irregularity that warranted a call of the director.

"But the bottom line is that there was no irregularity, so calling the director is (at best) waste of everyone's time", I wrote. So in the end USA1 won after extra time by taking more tricks than Poland. Many congratulations to them!



Roland

[asdfg2k]

I guess that is where we differ. If misinformation is provided and then attention is drawn to that, doesn't that satisfy the definition of requiring a director call?

I'm not saying the irregularity caused any damage, but I think it is pretty clear that the director should have been called. (Cue Roland to provide a slightly modified screenplay, no doubt.)

As you can guess, I disagree with you when you state that it is a good thing for the players to determine the outcome. They need to play their cards and make their bids to the best of their ability, but asking them to also function as directors is a bit much.

[Walddk]

asdfg2k, on Aug 26 2005, 07:43 AM, said:

I'm not saying the irregularity caused any damage, but I think it is pretty clear that the director should have been called.

If the "irregularity" did not cause any damage, then please explain to the bewildered Forum members what you meant when you (in an earlier post) wrote:

"The 7D bid stunk to high heaven".

Does that not imply than one of the Poles took advantage of Unauthorized Information? If so, you are indeed saying that the "irregularity" caused damaged to the Americans.

Roland

[1eyedjack]

In my initial post I considered that the only possible infraction was BIT, and I expressed confusion over the precedence of Laws 73A2 and 73D1 in dealing with that aspect. I think now that 73D1 must take precedence in light of the fact that 73A2 deals with generalities and 73D1 deals with specifics (that are consistent with the circumstances described). That interpretation supports the possibility that there need be no infraction of BIT per se, for which we can all be thankful. I had not considered the possibility that MI might be the infraction.

Personally I think that the wording of Laws 9 and 73 could do with improvement, and I only looked at them as a technical "exercise for the student".

Where there are more than 2 teams remaining in the event there is a case for removing from the offended side the discretion to decide for themselves whether there has been an infraction, if a potential adjustment arising affects the progress or ranking of a team not involved in the incident. That proposal leads to horrendous practical difficulties in implementation (effectively requiring director review of everything, perhaps possible in a final of a KO teams?), and whatever its merits it does appear from Law 9 that it is for the players directly affected to make that assessment. Furthermore the case for that (proposed) removal of discretion rather dissipates when there are no indirectly affected parties, even if that is the only situation where its implementation may be a practical option.

I am generally not in favour of laws that are drafted in a woolly manner in order to give those in authority flexibility in wielding them, but here I reckon sense prevailed.

[asdfg2k]

Roland, the context of all messages has changed since the details were published. Based on the information available at the time, the bid stunk. I'm not convinced that the bid still didn't stink, but I'm willing to entertain the possibility that a director would have come to the same conclusion that the participants did.

What is being discussed now is whether the participants should have been able to self-adjudicate or not. I think not, you think so.

I can live with that. But I think it puts bridge on a low-brow plane that it should try to avoid.

[Echognome]

I will only comment to state that in my opinion, bridge is more like golf than like other team sports when it comes to "refereeing". That is that the players determine themselves if an irregularity has been committed, not a referee or kibitzer. It is not as though we have TDs watching over the table at all times to determine whether there has been an irregularity. The TDs are there to adjudicate if they are called to the table. If neither side feels the need to call the TD, then what problem does that render in our game? I will add that this is especially true when there are no other participants that will be affected by any "missed calls". As the laws are written, you do not get any recourse if you do not ask for any.* Wtp?

* Yes I know that if a TD overhears or witnesses an irregularity they must act upon it, but my feeling is that this is more in the spirit of helping beginners, not those that can help themselves.

[cherdano]

I don't understand this discussion. There was a long hesitation; but even if a (mis-)interpretation of the law suggests calling the director after every hesitation, this has nothing to do with the reality of bridge.

As for MI: the 4NT bidder misbid, and volunteered this information to his RHO the moment he realized that. Where is misinformation?? Should you call the TD whenever your opponent has misbid? (Would keep my poor opponents pretty busy )

I agree with Matt that in bridge, it is the players' (or possibly their captain's) responsiblity to claim damage when they have been damaged by MI or misuse of UI or whatever. Of course they will always call the TD when they are in doubt or think it's a close judgement call.

Arend

[1eyedjack]

I regularly see attempts to draw parallels between bridge and golf and I have yet to find any comparison convincing. Even conceding (which I have yet to do) that a comparison is valid, I have yet to see a convincing argument that golf is some sort of ideal to which bridge should aspire. Indeed the attempt to justify this is rarely made; it seems to be an axiom, assumed (by those who seek to draw the comparison) to be universally accepted and not requiring of the effort.

As I see it there are two reasons why (in bridge) director calls are (circumstances fitting) mandatory.

Reason (1): To protect players from their own ignorance of the laws of the game (and this applies to the offending as well as non offending side).

If the analogy with golf is to be accepted, in principle I would have thought it equally beneficial in both bridge and golf to uphold this objective, so in this regard I would have thought that the rules of bridge are superior.

However a possible distinction that invalidates the comparison is that the laws of bridge are necessarily more complex, having, as they do, to cope with issues such as UI and MI, which are concepts alien to golf. Likewise, attempts to achieve an equitable solution when action is taken out of turn, or cards are inadvertently exposed etc, are issues with a complexity unique to bridge. I am sure that we have all seen the travesties of rulings that have taken place at club level when players attempt to resolve issues at the table without involving directors. The risk of players being in ignorance of the laws of bridge is an order of magnitude greater than in golf, so I do not believe that the comparison should be accepted at all.

Reason (2): To protect the field.

In golf, whether you accept or challenge a penalty imposed upon you, that decision will affect only your own ranking in the field. The results of others relative to one another are unaffected. In bridge, if you accept a penalty then, subject to certain exceptions, the opponents at the table at the time benefit relative to players at other tables. As this fundamental reason for the compulsory involvement of a TD in bridge is wholly absent from golf it again challenges the relevance of a comparison.

Of course, neither of these two reasons is relevant in a world championship event in which there are only two opposing sides, which is why turning a blind eye to this particular law (requiring a director call) causes no offence in the case that originates this thread, even if it is in point (which appears to be contentious).