Lev-Pszczola vs. Feldman-Zagorin

[cicus]

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

[fred]

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

I am fairly sure the result was changed to 3NT making.

 

I was one of the players the TDs consulted before making their ruling (it is normal nowadays for good TDs to do this). I was given the opening leader's hand and the auction and asked what I would lead. My response was something to the effect of:

 

A club lead is completely automatic in my view.

 

Then the TD asked me something like "there was a hesitation - would that suggest a heart lead might work better?". I said something like:

 

The hesitation tells you that partner has an unbalanced hand, but you don't know if he was thinking of doubling (takeout), bidding 1S, or bidding 2C. The hesitation does increase the chances that partner has 4 cards in hearts, but partner is also allowed to double the final contract if he wants a heart lead.

 

I don't know what the Laws are in this area (ie if the hesitation has to suggest that specifically a heart lead will work in order for the TD to adjust the score). To me it seems right that, if a club lead is deemed to be "automatic", then you have to lead a club in this situation (ie whether or not there is a connection between the hesitation and "hearts" doesn't matter).

 

So FWIW (probably not much), I agree with the ruling (though I can't say I know exactly why the TDs ruled the way they did).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Gerben42]

I don't know what the Laws are in this area (ie if the hesitation has to suggest that specifically a heart lead will work in order for the TD to adjust the score). To me it seems right that, if a club lead is deemed to be "automatic", then you have to lead a club in this situation (ie whether or not there is a connection between the hesitation and "hearts" doesn't matter).

 

A player should carefully avoid choosing among logical alternatives one that could have been suggested by the hesitation. In English this means that:

 

* If a ♣ lead is obvious, hesitation or not, you can lead a ♣ and if it's right you're fine.

 

* If the hesitation makes a ♥ lead more likely to succeed, even by a bit, you should not lead ♥. It doesn't matter if the hesitation suggested ♥ directly, or if you went from 100% ♣ lead to 70% ♣ lead and 10% each of the other suits.

[jdonn]

The result was changed to 3NT making. I hung out with (many people including) Feldman and Zagorin yesterday for a long time, who both thought this entire episode was ridiculous. There were essentially 2 things that bothered them.

 

- They feel there was no perceptible hesitation on the other side of the screen. Although it's clear Feldman thought about something (I was told the vugraph operator even said something to that effect), there was no director call by either opponent before the hand, and the director call after the hand came from the same side of the screen as Feldman rather than from the other side. I believe both players claimed that neither even knew what the director call was for until the opponent told the director.

 

- Interestingly, the other reason they were upset was that the director said he had asked a former Cavendish champion what he would lead, and that he claimed a club was completely automatic. (Found him!) I was around when about 10 different expert players were given the lead problem with no hesitation. One, who is on Fred's level, interestingly led a spade. The others were I believe 8-1 in favor of a heart over a club, although they were mostly not on Fred's level (on my level?) Additionally about half the heart leaders considered that choice completely automatic, half merely preferred it. So essentially, they couldn't believe that the directors claimed a mystery-champion considered a club lead so automatic. They thought either this person was simply weird, or was being way too dogmatic regarding his choice (perhaps in the knowledge it would be used to make a ruling, and that even though the directors wouldn't have informed him of a hesitation it would still have been obvious that any hesitation suggests a heart, since of course when the directors give you a problem like this you know something is up....)

 

Anyway I am not arguing with the ruling, in fact if the directors did judge there was a hesitation they really had no choice but to rule in this way imo. I am simply giving the "offenders" side of the story since I got it first hand.

 

Edit: Fred, when did the director tell you there was a hesitation? It looks like over 1♥ but I believe it was actually over 3NT, which seems to clearly suggest a heart lead (if it occured).

[Phil]

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.

[MarkDean]

I was watching on Vugraph. The pause was over 3NT. The hesitation was long enough that the vugraph operator commenting on wondering what Feldman was thinking about. Of course that does not mean it was obvious to the other side of the screen that there was a break in tempo.

 

I gave the lead problem to a few people not of Zangorin's level, and they lead a club, and all said that the hesitation suggested a heart lead.

[fred]

Edit: Fred, when did the director tell you there was a hesitation? It looks like over 1♥ but I believe it was actually over 3NT, which seems to clearly suggest a heart lead (if it occured).

I was told the hesitation was over 1H.

 

I ran into Fu from China (a great player) after the event. He was also polled by the TD and he also thought that a club lead was normal (so I was not the only player who was consulted who thought a club lead was obvious). I talked to some other friends (also A-1 players) about this hand as well. All of them would have led clubs and all of them thought that any non-club lead after a hesitation should be punished.

 

Perhaps I should also mention that I would expect all of the players I asked (as well as me) to open 1H in 3rd seat with most balanced minimums containing weak clubs and 4 strong hearts. If you don't do that then perhaps a club lead is slightly less "automatic".

 

Of course I assumed that the hesitation really did take place (because the TD told me so).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

I was watching on Vugraph.  The pause was over 3NT.  The hesitation was long enough that the vugraph operator commenting on wondering what Feldman was thinking about.  Of course that does not mean it was obvious to the other side of the screen that there was a break in tempo.

 

I gave the lead problem to a few people not of Zangorin's level, and they lead a club, and all said that the hesitation suggested a heart lead.

IMO if the hesitation really was over 3NT then the player who led a heart did a very bad thing. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was not intentional, but he really should have known better.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

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'm very surprised that the director gave Fred the hesitation incorrectly (although that is irrelevant since it's obvious what the one that was claimed would suggest), and also surprised that we get such different answers to our informal polls. I know they were giving the problem fairly, and of course I trust you were too, so I don't know what to make of that.

[fred]

I'm very surprised that the director gave Fred the hesitation incorrectly (although that is irrelevant since it's obvious what the one that was claimed would suggest), and also surprised that we get such different answers to our informal polls. I know they were giving the problem fairly, and of course I trust you were too, so I don't know what to make of that.

Maybe it is a school of thought thing. The school I come from believes:

 

- don't open light unless you want your partner to lead your suit

- in 3rd seat it is appropriate to open a strong 4-card major in preference to any 3-card minor, a weak 4-card minor, and even perhaps even a strong 4-card minor or some hands with a 5-card minor

- when in doubt, lead partner's suit

- don't try to be a genius on opening lead

- double 3NT if you have good reason to believe that a lead of dummy's first bid suit might be necessary

 

If you believe these things then a club lead is (beyond) automatic in my view. Perhaps the players you polled come from a different school of thought.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Hanoi5]

Is there a link to the hand and such?

 

What Jdonn claims is also interesting though I'll play devil's advocate on it. If there's a hesitation on a side of the curtain it should be 'felt' on the other side to have any importance. If the other side was not aware, how would it have affected the player making the weird lead?

 

However, if my partner makes a mistake (like not calling the director in this situation) I can try to 'fix' it as dummy and I'm able to (and legally can) call the Director at the end of the hand to announce that there has been an irregularity. In this case the irregularity was a hesitation on my side of the curtain, so the first thing the Director should do is ascertain the fact that there was such hesitation (meaning asking the players on the other side if they felt it).

[jdonn]

Fred, speaking as someone who would lead a heart but doesn't consider either lead automatic, I agree with most of those points but aren't sure what they have to do with the actual situation, for the following reasons:

- I think there is no inference partner is light. In fact I think there is a stronger inference he isn't, as the opponents' auction is indicitive of being light on values and trying to make based on running a long suit.

- Like you I think "don't be a genius on lead" is good advice, but to me that means don't lead the king of diamonds from KJx after 1NT p 3NT, not don't lead through a suit the opponents have bid. This is just a case of trying to use the available evidence to make the best lead, not of trying to get into the newspapers.

- There are many indications from the auction suggesting a heart over a club that you haven't mentioned. LHO didn't open 2♥. Partner didn't rebid 2♣. RHO's auction suggests short hearts.

- I believe the inference about partner doubling 3NT is very slight since he has no reason to believe declarer isn't about to run 7 diamonds tricks to go with his club stopper and whatever else his side has.

[Trumpace]

Err.. for those who don't know, can someone please post the hands and the auction?

 

Thanks.

 

[Edit] Hanoi beat me to it [/Edit]

[jdonn]

Hand 26, click on this

Auction was

P P 1♣ 1♦

P 1♥ P 3NT

P P P

 

There was an alleged hesitation by the opening bidder over 3NT (in the passout seat).

 

Firstly admitting my inherent bias in that I am defending my friends, I note that the opening bid itself goes against the style by which Fred thinks a club lead is automatic, in that it is largely based on a hand like the actual one opening a major in third seat (I think). So a club lead can not be considered automatic for the pair at the table, although it can certainly be considered a logical alternative.

[fred]

- I think there is no inference partner is light. In fact I think there is a stronger inference he isn't, as the opponents' auction is indicitive of being light on values and trying to make based on running a long suit.

Agree there is no inference that partner is light, but say he is light 25% of the time. That means 25% of the time you should lead a club for sure (if you trust your partner). What to do the remaining 75% of the time is another issue.

 

- Like you I think "don't be a genius on lead" is good advice, but to me that means don't lead the king of diamonds from KJx after 1NT p 3NT, not don't lead through a suit the opponents have bid. This is just a case of trying to use the available evidence to make the best lead, not of trying to get into the newspapers.

 

Not leading partners suit when he had more than one opportunity to suggest a different lead and when you have no real reason to believe that leading partner's suit is wrong qualifies as "trying to be a genius" in my view.

 

- There are many indications from the auction suggesting a heart over a club that you haven't mentioned. LHO didn't open 2♥. Partner didn't rebid 2♣. RHO's auction suggests short hearts.

 

True that partner rates to have 3 or 4 hearts, but that doesn't mean a heart lead rates to be right. Your LHO is a sound player who was vul in 2nd seat so I don't think his failure to open 2H counts for much. Even though partner rates to have 3.5 hearts and declarer rates to have 1.5 hearts, your partner rates to have more than 3.5 clubs (and, even in the worst case for a club lead, if he is 4-4 then his clubs rate to be stronger than his hearts). Sure partner didn't rebid 2C but he would need a strong 6-card suit (and arguably some extra values) to do that. You don't need him to have a strong 6-card club suit to make a club lead right. Besides that, you know partner doesn't have a stronger 6-card heart suit - even a strong 4-card heart suit is barely a possibility for me.

 

Another possibility: maybe declarer is bidding 3NT not because of long strong diamonds but because he is counting on running hearts.

 

- I believe the inference about partner doubling 3NT is very slight since he has no reason to believe declarer isn't about to run 7 diamonds tricks to go with his club stopper and whatever else his side has.

 

Suppose partner judges that you are not going to find a heart lead unless he doubles, that 3NT is 50-50 to go down if he gets a heart lead, and that the small chances of a redouble and/or overtricks are offset by the small chances that the opponents will sometimes run from 3NT when it is cold.

 

Do the math - I think you will see that it is clearly right to double even though there is a good chance that 3NT doubled will make.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Trumpace]

Hand 26, click on this

Auction was

P P 1♣ 1♦

P 1♥ P 3NT

P P P

 

There was an alleged hesitation by the opening bidder over 3NT (in the passout seat).

 

Firstly admitting my inherent bias in that I am defending my friends, I note that the opening bid itself goes against the style by which Fred thinks a club lead is automatic, in that it is largely based on a hand like the actual one opening a major in third seat (I think). So a club lead can not be considered automatic for the pair at the table, although it can certainly be considered a logical alternative.

Thanks.

 

Just for sake of completeness, making the hand record part of this thread itself:

 

 

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=sqt6hqdaqt987caq9&w=sak74hkj83d5cj874&e=s9852h762dk32c652&s=sj3hat954dj64ckt3]399|300|Scoring: IMP

P - P - 1C - 1D

P - 1H - P - 3NT

P - P - P[/hv]

[MFA]

- They feel there was no perceptible hesitation on the other side of the screen. Although it's clear Feldman thought about something (I was told the vugraph operator even said something to that effect), there was no director call by either opponent before the hand, and the director call after the hand came from the same side of the screen as Feldman rather than from the other side.

That would mean that dummy called the TD, right? This is strange. I could understand declarer wanting to call TD from the wrong side of the screen, since he couldn't expect partner to be observant about what happened.

[fred]

Hand 26, click on this

Auction was

P P 1♣ 1♦

P 1♥ P 3NT

P P P

 

There was an alleged hesitation by the opening bidder over 3NT (in the passout seat).

 

Firstly admitting my inherent bias in that I am defending my friends, I note that the opening bid itself goes against the style by which Fred thinks a club lead is automatic, in that it is largely based on a hand like the actual one opening a major in third seat (I think). So a club lead can not be considered automatic for the pair at the table, although it can certainly be considered a logical alternative.

I actually think a 1C opening is fine on this hand (though I should say that my partner chose to open 1H).

 

However, it is hard to be objective but I think that if I did open 1C I would double 3NT and be prepared to live with the possible disaster.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[cherdanno]

I don't think there can be a debate about whether a club lead is a logical alternative. (I don't have an opinion on the ruling, though.)

[jdonn]

Agree there is no inference that partner is light, but say he is light 25% of the time. That means 25% of the time you should lead a club for sure (if you trust your partner). What to do the remaining 75% of the time is another issue.

- I think 25% is high (I assume light means less than a normal opening bid) given the auction and the weakness of our hand.

- If partner is light our chances of setting 3NT go down in any case, so I don't think that situation merits as much weight.

 

Not leading partners suit when he had more than one opportunity to suggest a different lead and when you have no real reason to believe that leading partner's suit is wrong qualifies as "trying to be a genius" in my view.

I see one potential opportunity to suggest a heart lead (double 3NT) and one to suggest a club lead (rebid 2♣). I also find your reasoning about this a bit circular. If you think a club is automatic then of course leading a heart is trying to be a genius. If you don't think a club is automatic then you are simply trying to make the best lead. I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree about this point, but I really think you are being too harsh about it.

 

True that partner rates to have 3 or 4 hearts, but that doesn't mean a heart lead rates to be right. Your LHO is a sound player who was vul in 2nd seat so I don't think his failure to open 2H counts for much. Even though partner rates to have 3.5 hearts and declarer rates to have 1.5 hearts, your partner rates to have more than 3.5 clubs (and, even in the worst case for a club lead, if he is 4-4 then his clubs rate to be stronger than his hearts).

Again, looking at the actual hand makes it clear the pair wasn't using the opening bid style based on which you personally answer. They opened clubs on Jxxx rather than a major on AKxx or KJxx despite holding a minimum opener.

 

Another possibility: maybe declarer is bidding 3NT not because of long strong diamonds but because he is counting on running hearts.

Seriously? I think it's a big reach to even suggest that, I give that possibility no credence. His partner shows no more than 5 (or even 4) hearts, so this is akin to saying the overcaller is strong and balanced in which case he would either double or bid 1NT to begin with or rebid 2NT.

 

Suppose partner judges that you are not going to find a heart lead unless he doubles, that 3NT is 50-50 to go down if he gets a heart lead, and that the small chances of a redouble and/or overtricks are offset by the small chances that the opponents will sometimes run from 3NT when it is cold.

 

Do the math - I think you will see that it is clearly right to double even though there is a good chance that 3NT doubled will make.

- I don't know why you think the chances of overtricks are small. I don't.

- This is another instance of applying a style not in use. A player who opens the bidding as you do probably has to double to get a heart lead. A player who opens the bidding as the hand shows they do has a much better chance of getting a heart lead without needing to double.

- Unfortunately, doing the math seems to leave one in the unenviable position of barring partner from making the best lead, that he may have found, if the math suggests not doubling.

[hanp]

Josh, I don't think this auction suggests the opponents are light.

[fred]

Suppose partner judges that you are not going to find a heart lead unless he doubles, that 3NT is 50-50 to go down if he gets a heart lead, and that the small chances of a redouble and/or overtricks are offset by the small chances that the opponents will sometimes run from 3NT when it is cold.

 

Do the math - I think you will see that it is clearly right to double even though there is a good chance that 3NT doubled will make.

- I don't know why you think the chances of overtricks are small. I don't.

On the actual hand you might be right, but my "suppose" had nothing to do with the actual hand (even though I think I probably would double with the actual hand).

 

My point is that partner should not have to wait until he is even close to a sure set in order to double for a heart lead. If partner is a strong player he will double 3NT when he has a hand that is like what I "supposed" (in addition to those hands with which he knows 3NT is going down if you lead a heart).

 

Your post that I quoted seemed to imply otherwise - that partner should not be doubling 3NT if he thinks "they might make it". Sorry if I misunderstood.

 

Given that partner should double 3NT more often than one might think, that significantly reduces the chances of a heart lead being right.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[uday]

The Laws are clear on this stuff. Even Uday understands them.

 

BIT? Suggested an action or inaction? Can't take advantage of it as long as LAs exist.

 

Assume the BIT existed. If not, no case.

Assume a club lead is a LA on the auction. Assume a H lead is also a LA, if you like.

Assume the BIT suggested something other than the routine LA.

 

Leader isn't allowed to do anything that is suggested by the BIT

 

Thus, if the BIT suggests a H lead, a H lead is verboten.

 

Whatever the BIT suggests, it isnt "lead a club" , we trust. So the BIT suggests a non-club lead.

 

i believe that leading a non-club on this auction (with an acknowledged BIT, with a club an LA and a nonclub a LA suggested by the BIT ) is ethically neutral (like a revoke) , but like a revoke, has to be corrected.

[fred]

Not leading partners suit when he had more than one opportunity to suggest a different lead and when you have no real reason to believe that leading partner's suit is wrong qualifies as "trying to be a genius" in my view.

I see one potential opportunity to suggest a heart lead (double 3NT) and one to suggest a club lead (rebid 2♣).

Are you saying your friends would never (or only very rarely) open 1H with a 4-card suit in 3rd seat? If yes, then you are right, but I would respectfully suggest that your friends rethink this approach before next year's Cavendish.

 

Again, looking at the actual hand makes it clear the pair wasn't using the opening bid style based on which you personally answer. They opened clubs on Jxxx rather than a major on AKxx or KJxx despite holding a minimum opener.

 

The actual hand proves nothing about style differences since (as I said) I have no problem with a 1C opening with the actual hand. The actual hand, although minimum in HCP, has a singleton and strong support for both majors. I would be concerned that opening 1H or 1S would make it difficult or impossible to reach a potential major suit game (because the other major might be lost and because I would be terrified to cooperate if partner got excited about the major suit I opened).

 

But if I had a hand like:

 

AJx

KQJx

xx

Jxxx

 

I would certainly open 1H. Wouldn't your friends?

 

And with something like:

 

KQxx

AQ109

Jx

xxx

 

I think it is truly awful to open 1C. Don't you think your friends would agree?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

Your post that I quoted seemed to imply otherwise - that partner should not be doubling 3NT if he thinks "they might make it". Sorry if I misunderstood.

My partners might confirm I double more often when they have a sure make than when I have a sure set. :)

 

The actual hand proves nothing about style differences since (as I said) I have no problem with a 1C opening with the actual hand.

Perhaps I was simply reading too much into the parts I have bolded of this earlier statement then:

Maybe it is a school of thought thing. The school I come from believes:

....

- in 3rd seat it is appropriate to open a strong 4-card major in preference to any 3-card minor, a weak 4-card minor, and even perhaps even a strong 4-card minor or some hands with a 5-card minor

That makes no reference to being light or having a particular hand type like 4414, but anyway I understand what you mean now.

 

Suffice to say in all this,

- I don't blame you for giving your honest bridge opinion, even though I don't completely agree with it.

- I don't blame the directors for their ruling, given the determination of a break in tempo.

- I don't blame Feldman/Zagorin for being upset that the director did determine there was a noticeable break in tempo, given that they feel there wasn't one and that the opponents seem to have been given a great deal of leeway in their handling of the situation. When one time his partner calls from the wrong side of the screen and the director doesn't even want to rule after that, and the next time his (much better known) opponent calls from the wrong side of the screen (after the hand instead of at the time of the potential infraction) and the director not only listens but agrees with his claim, it's hard to have great faith in the fairness of the system.