cicus

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).

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

Watching it on BBO, it was clear that the final pass was preceeded by a significant huddle. I did not notice that the operator said something to that effect, I only noticed the break in tempo. In fact it was not a simple break in tempo, it was quite long (BBO logs, if they have time stamps, may reveal actually how long). When the heart was led I told my wife there might be a TD call here.

Hi all, I could not stay up to learn what (and why) the ruling was, anyone know? Thanks in advance. I mean the case with the huddle and the heart lead. Gábor

Thanks, Gerardo. I prefer the second method. As for the translation, due to structural differences it is very hard to translate English to Hungarian (so that it remains concise). Regards, Gábor

One of my main concerns with the BBO web client is that I can't select the language. Somehow it detects that I am from Hungary and switches to this language automatically. The same goes for the BBO site, incidentally. The problem is that the Hungarian translation of the software is so awful that I would like to use the client in English instead. How do I do that if at all? Gabor Szots (cicus)

It is practically impossible to do it. Who will switch GIB on and off for them?

Yes.

I am pretty sure this lineup is not going to occur. As I read in an interview, signora Lavazza said she was sure Fantoni-Nunes will return to the Italian team. In my interpretation this is equivalent to claiming that 'as long as I'm alive, Fantoni and Nunes will never play for Italy again'. Well, I am as good at predicting as ever. The Italian team for Beijing: Maria Teresa LAVAZZA NPC Massimo ORTENSI Coach Giorgio DUBOIN Fulvio FANTONI Lorenzo LAURIA Claudio NUNES Antonio SEMENTA Alfredo VERSACE

I never play with privates but it is tiresome to check every player whom I'd like to partner. I would like BBO software to display name and skill level privates in a different colour. Or at least make their colour settable. Please...

5♠ now, pass later.

Thanks for the answers. I think a feature like 'table is breaking up, please try somewhere else' button would be needed to solve this problem. The table might even disappear from the list. Last time we were in the middle of a hand, dummy has left, we did not want to play more but players wanting to join popped up one after the other. When I rejected them (it was a tedious task and distracted my attention from playing), some of them even felt offended and sent me messages what problem I had with them. It was an unpleasant experience.

Several times we are waiting for a friend or an opponent has left and we are about to break the table. However, a lot of people want to sit in and I as a host would like to reject them all. I though that is what the 'Cose and reject all' button was for. No, even if I click on it, they are still coming and and coming. So what is the 'Cloese and reject all' button for?

I am pretty sure this lineup is not going to occur. As I read in an interview, signora Lavazza said she was sure Fantoni-Nunes will return to the Italian team. In my interpretation this is equivalent to claiming that 'as long as I'm alive, Fantoni and Nunes will never play for Italy again'. To make it clear for you what I am talking about, here is a link to the Lavazza interview. http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Re...6/msg00046.html If Bocchi and Duboin intended to part with each other why did Lavazza not discarded them in favour of Fantoni-Nunes? Because, it seems clear to me, her only goal was to get rid of Fantoni-Nunes. And then why would she want to take them back?

This is politican's vocabulary. 'I am sure they will etc.' always means 'They will never etc.'

I am pretty sure this lineup is not going to occur. As I read in an interview, signora Lavazza said she was sure Fantoni-Nunes will return to the Italian team. In my interpretation this is equivalent to claiming that 'as long as I'm alive, Fantoni and Nunes will never play for Italy again'.

You are right, unlikely. Thanks again.

Thank you. I don't like the anonymous method because I also like to play under my own name and sometimes I also act as a commentator, when switching rooms is uncomfortable during hands.

When watching vugraph, I am always warned that I can watch multiple tables by opening a browser window for each table. However, I don't know how to do it. If I open a new browser window, it is empty. If I open BBOflash in that window, a login window appears but if I log in my previous BBOflash login account is closed. If I select a new table from the list, my previous table is closed. Some help here would be appreciated. Gabor Szots

However, commentators have the multiple task of commenting on the bidding and play, watching each other's comments, give background information, and all this possibly in an entertaining and instructive style. During all this we are regularly talked to by spectators. There is also the home background, like having to talk to wife. I find that quite a burden already, and I simply can't always cope with the task of regularly giving the link.