Lev-Pszczola vs. Feldman-Zagorin

[Tomi2]

have one qestion:

 

is there only a black and a white for the TD in this situation?

 

wouldn't it be possible to find out a P and a (1-P) with

P=finding winning lead and 1-P = not and calculate some kind of mixed score?

P*-100+ (1-p)*600

 

of course when in doubt how big this P can be, you can decide in favor of the side who had no BIT.

 

For me first of all the BIT aspcet is not so clear, it was no minutes of thinking, so the delay could have been:

one of the player is writing and explaination of some bid

one of the players drinks some coffee before putting the pass card on the tray

one of the players has dropped his pen and picks it up

south intentionally did not put the tray directly back (it is his right)

one of the players saw a beautiful female kibitzer walking around and did not notice for a moment that it was his turn to pass

 

all those aspects (that can take 5 seconds extra) don't suggest a heart lead, last one even suggests a club lead :)

 

 

I thnik its unfair, that both questions "was there a BIT?" and "do we allow the lead" can only be answered with 0 or 1

 

 

 

and for the discussion what lead is automatic in that situation I agree with Josh, it's important what your style in opening bids (and your system) is. I like to play system where all bal. hands are opened 1C, even allowing 5 medicore dias and bad 5M holdings. So the fact partner opens 1C is one of the last aspects I think about when I try to find an opening lead. I don't know their style but you have to concider it

[ulven]

If there were a BIT, a heart lead is out. Otherwise I think a heart would be my choice; I don't consider a club automatic in any way. In fact, it's only my third choice for reasons below.

 

You can pretty much take the fact that declarer has at most one heart "to the bank" (ok, maybe xx once in a blue moon). Overcalling 1D and then jumping to 3NT is a sure indicator as with more tolerance, I'd expect a cuebid first to check on alternative denominations. I'd also expect declarer to have a double stopper in clubs and a non-running suit or a single stopper and a running suit. As I have the K of diamonds, I know the suit isn't solid -> double stopper.

 

Could still be right to lead a club knowing about the double stopper, but my second choice would in fact probably be a spade. Only with a good 5+card suit and strength in both majors would a club lead have any chance of success (declarer will have at least 5 diamond and 2 club tricks; if partner only stops one M, declarer can take at least 2 in the other). And then partner would have to find a lot of discards and may be subject to an endplay. A heart lead may then break communications for that endplay.

 

In fact unless partner has both major suit aces, I don't think a club is ever gonna do it - and if he has, he still need that good club suit. There are many more layouts were a major suit lead turns out successful. If declarer has KQx in clubs he may not be able to lead up to the honors twice for one thing (unless we lead one).

 

FYI, I'm not in the "open good 4-card major in 3rd" category (that school of thought).

[fred]

As I have the K of diamonds, I know the suit isn't solid -> double stopper.

I agree with you (and others) who claim that partnership style is important. If you really open 1C in 3rd seat with xxx of clubs and KQ10x of hearts then of course that makes a difference. FWIW this type of problem is one of several reasons why I prefer to open 1H with such hands.

 

But with respect to the above quote, I think you are way off base. Would you really not bid 3NT with a hand like this (which contains only a single club stopper and non-solid diamonds):

 

AKx

x

AQJ10xx

QJx

 

?

 

To me bidding anything other than 3NT, even though you don't *know* you will take 9 tricks, is at least as bad as only doubling 3NT for a heart lead when you *know* it is going down. Of course you might not make 3NT with this hand, but given that you want to be there facing many terrible hands like:

 

Qxx

QJ10xx

9x

xxx

 

(which is hardly a 1H bid) 3NT seems pretty clear to me.

 

I would think it would be even more clear for you to bid 3NT with a single club stopper since apparently you don't expect your opponents to lead clubs on this auction. In fact, against you I might risk bidding 3NT with some hands don't contain a club stopper at all :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[ulven]

Would you really not bid 3NT with a hand like this (which contains only a single club stopper and non-solid diamonds):

 

AKx

x

AQJ10xx

QJx

I don't like 3NT with that hand, I think that's odds against. But we do seem to agree that short hearts is an almost lock. Even if I play against you or someone bidding the same way, I'd still need to find partner with 5+ clubs or AK and the ace of hearts.

 

A heart lead still wins if dummy hits with something as

 

Qxx

AJTxx

xx

xxx

 

Given that dummy is unlikely to have 6 hearts (no weak 2 opening) and that declarer and I have at least 9 diamonds, it seems likely that dummy has at most 2 diamonds and often 3 clubs. On that layout (i.e. declarer has QJx in clubs), a club isn't good enough yet again; I have to many of those buggers for partner to be long.

 

Give dummy

 

QJx

KQT9x

xx

xxx

 

... and a heart is still a winner. And I bet you'd open 1C and never dream of doubling for a heart lead with

 

xxx

AJxx

xx

AKTx

 

Bottom line. We have to many minor suit cards for clubs to be a likely winner. Many layouts where a club beats it, a heart will still be alright (partner wins trick 1 and shifts to a low club). It's not that I'd never lead a club on this auction, just not with this shape, holding and auction.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[fred]

Would you really not bid 3NT with a hand like this (which contains only a single club stopper and non-solid diamonds):

 

AKx

x

AQJ10xx

QJx

I don't like 3NT with that hand, I think that's odds against. But we do seem to agree that short hearts is an almost lock. Even if I play against you or someone bidding the same way, I'd still need to find partner with 5+ clubs or AK and the ace of hearts.

 

A heart lead still wins if dummy hits with something as

 

Qxx

AJTxx

xx

xxx

 

We are talking about 2 different things.

 

I was responding to your contention that the presence of the King of diamonds in the actual hand suggests that declarer has a double club stopper.

 

I completely disagreed with this and showed an example hand with which I think it is clearly right to bid 3NT despite non-solid diamonds and only one club stopper.

 

You are still talking about the opening lead problem (by showing an example hand opposite my example hand where a heart lead is the winning lead if the opening leader happens to be dealt the hand that real opening leader was dealt).

 

But my post was not about the opening lead. It was about your statement concerning the double club stopper (that I disagree with).

 

The point is, you want to be in 3NT with my example hand opposite your example hand, even though it might go down if the King of diamonds is in the hand of the non-opening bidder and if the opponents find the killing opening lead (which will sometimes be a only heart, sometimes be only a club, and sometimes be either a heart or a club).

 

You also want to be in 3NT with my example hand opposite many other bad hands that are even worse than your example hand (which is why I think it is so obvious to bid 3NT with my example hand).

 

Meanwhile, you say you would not bid 3NT with my example hand, but you do not offer any better alternatives.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Mbodell]

- 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.

I've seen this type of issue mentioned before in other places. As someone who has yet to play with screens, what is the proper procedure for BIT. Is it a requirement that a director call *MUST* come from the other side of the screen? Or just that it usually should? In the non-screen case I know that some partnerships have one player who is much more likely to comment on a BIT than the other, but I'm not sure how that would translate to the screened world.

[MFA]

- 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.

I've seen this type of issue mentioned before in other places. As someone who has yet to play with screens, what is the proper procedure for BIT. Is it a requirement that a director call *MUST* come from the other side of the screen? Or just that it usually should? In the non-screen case I know that some partnerships have one player who is much more likely to comment on a BIT than the other, but I'm not sure how that would translate to the screened world.

'Must' is too strong, but just barely. It's wrong procedure to call from the wrong side of the screen, and the director should be very quick to neglect the claim of a BIT if there is any doubt about it at all. It's the main point of the screen that it 'absorbs' a lot of huddles.

 

So with screens both players have to look after themselves and the partnership can't appoint a sherif to take care of all the nasty things.

[Cascade]

This is what the WBF conditions of contest say:

 

"D. If a player takes more than a normal amount of time to

decide upon his call neither player on his side of the screen shall call

attention to the fact."

 

I am not sure if a regulation with a different intent was in force for the Cavendish.

[debrose]

This is what the WBF conditions of contest say:

 

"D. If a player takes more than a normal amount of time to

decide upon his call neither player on his side of the screen shall call

attention to the fact."

I have always assumed this prohibition applies only before the hand is over. That makes sense, since a director call can draw attention to a break in tempo, or clarify who was thinking, so is inappropriate when such information can be relevant to the bidding or play. After the hand is over, I can't see what the problem is with any player calling the director. It does seem a disputed contention that there was a noticeable break in tempo should have more weight if the call comes from the other side of the screen. But I don't see any reason to automatically discount the claim just because it came from the same side of the screen.

[ulven]

Would you really not bid 3NT with a hand like this (which contains only a single club stopper and non-solid diamonds):

 

AKx

x

AQJ10xx

QJx

I don't like 3NT with that hand, I think that's odds against. But we do seem to agree that short hearts is an almost lock. Even if I play against you or someone bidding the same way, I'd still need to find partner with 5+ clubs or AK and the ace of hearts.

 

We are talking about 2 different things.

 

I was responding to your contention that the presence of the King of diamonds in the actual hand suggests that declarer has a double club stopper.

 

I completely disagreed with this and showed an example hand with which I think it is clearly right to bid 3NT despite non-solid diamonds and only one club stopper.

 

/snip/

 

But my post was not about the opening lead. It was about your statement concerning the double club stopper (that I disagree with).

 

/snip/

 

Meanwhile, you say you would not bid 3NT with my example hand, but you do not offer any better alternatives.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

OK. I was still on the lead topic and tried to show that even if my claim about double stopper was wrong (as you seem positive about), a club lead is STILL far from automatic, I even suggest that it's the third choice. This was my intent.

 

Moving on to the topic regarding a hand jumping to 3NT with a single stopper:

A hand without a solid suit lacking a double stopper would always need cooperation from partner to reach a good game. The chosen path suggested here (1D + 3NT) will lead to a fair number of odds-against 3NT contracts.

 

The alternative I offer, which I clearly omitted from my previous post, was that these hands should start by doubling 1C. I think in fact that should you have your example hand you would yourself start with X and then bid diamonds. It's hard to see how that approach would lead to a missed game that 1D + 3NT would reach AND make.

 

So I still maintain that any hand that's strong enough to jump to 3NT in this auction has a solid suit or double stopper OR is catching up from misbidding his hand previously. AND, if that is the case, a club lead is still a sub-optimal choice.

[Cascade]

This is what the WBF conditions of contest say:

 

"D. If a player takes more than a normal amount of time to

decide upon his call neither player on his side of the screen shall call

attention to the fact."

I have always assumed this prohibition applies only before the hand is over. That makes sense, since a director call can draw attention to a break in tempo, or clarify who was thinking, so is inappropriate when such information can be relevant to the bidding or play. After the hand is over, I can't see what the problem is with any player calling the director. It does seem a disputed contention that there was a noticeable break in tempo should have more weight if the call comes from the other side of the screen. But I don't see any reason to automatically discount the claim just because it came from the same side of the screen.

The quoted regulation goes on to say:

 

"If a player on the side of the screen receiving the

tray considers there may be unauthorized information consequent upon

an abnormally slow return of the tray the procedure in Law 16B2

applies.

In no circumstances will a delay of up to 20 seconds be considered to

have implications."

 

Which makes it clear that it is the player on the other side of the screen who can call the director.

 

I think it is clear from this context that the "shall call" prohibition extends beyond the end of the auction.

[paulg]

This is what the WBF conditions of contest say:

 

"D. If a player takes more than a normal amount of time to

decide upon his call neither player on his side of the screen shall call

attention to the fact."

I have always assumed this prohibition applies only before the hand is over.  That makes sense, since a director call can draw attention to a break in tempo, or clarify who was thinking, so is inappropriate when such information can be relevant to the bidding or play.  After the hand is over, I can't see what the problem is with any player calling the director.  It does seem a disputed contention that there was a noticeable break in tempo should have more weight if the call comes from the other side of the screen.   But I don't see any reason to automatically discount the claim just because it came from the same side of the screen.

The quoted regulation goes on to say:

 

"If a player on the side of the screen receiving the

tray considers there may be unauthorized information consequent upon

an abnormally slow return of the tray the procedure in Law 16B2

applies.

In no circumstances will a delay of up to 20 seconds be considered to

have implications."

 

Which makes it clear that it is the player on the other side of the screen who can call the director.

 

I think it is clear from this context that the "shall call" prohibition extends beyond the end of the auction.

When I was the NPC at a European Championships, it was explained that calling a hesitation from the same side of the screen would seriously jeopardise your rights but would not automatically forfeit them.

 

Essentially, if the other side of the screen has not complained then there is strong probability that there was not a noticeable or relevant hesitation. But the Director can still rule that there was one, but the level of 'proof' required is much higher.

 

Paul

[OleBerg]

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.)

And neither can there be any doubt that any hesitation before passing 3NT, suggests that a heart lead might be better.

 

So it all depends on one thing:

 

Was there a hesitation?

 

(There might be something with protocol too, but thats a technicality.)

[gnasher]

is there only a black and a white for the TD in this situation?

 

wouldn't it be possible to find out a P and a (1-P) with

P=finding winning lead and 1-P = not and calculate some kind of mixed score?

P*-100+ (1-p)*600

If the TD adjusts the score, that means that he thinks that a heart lead is illegal. If a heart lead is illegal, he can't give any percentage of the result for a heart lead.

 

Suppose that two players faced the same problem with the same unauthorised information; one of them led a club, but the other led a heart anyway. If we gave some percentage of a heart lead to the player who led a heart, we're allowing him to gain from his illegal action.

 

The director can award a score that is split between legal actions. For example, he can give

  60% of the result for a club lead + 40% of the result for a spade lead

[cicus]

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. 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.

[OleBerg]

Hi all,

 

I was in a bit of a hurry, when I wrote my first post in this thread, and would like to elaborate.

 

DISCLAIMER: The next part of this post assumes, that the call for the director was made in a way that is acceptable for protocol.

 

The ruling is really clear and simple;

 

If the facts are disputed LAW 85 comes into effect:

 

http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/Law...awsComplete.pdf

 

Since there is a case at all, it must be assumed that the director have determined that there was a hesitation.

 

It also seems quite sure, that there are one or more logical alternatives to a heart lead.

 

And the hesitation demonstrably suggests that a heart lead is better.

 

So the adjustment of the score is a trivial matter, where the law is concerned.

 

END DISCLAIMER

 

Whether the ruling is fair, could much more easily be an object of debate. Much better players than me are already deeply into this, so I will not go there.

 

Nonetheless I belive we need to have rules that are pretty much like those enforced in this case; it is whether they were correctly enforced that, in my wiew, is debateable.

In this thread two wiews have been raised, namely that there was a hesitation, and that there wasn't. This is obviously the key-question to answer.

[Gerben42]

Hi, this is my view as a director.

 

IF there was a hesitation and the correct side of the screen (opening leader's side, not opener's side!) called the director, said director has no choice but to adjust the score to 3NT making.

 

It was correct procedure to ask other players currently present about the hand. If all of them said "lead a ♥, obvious" then there should be no adjustment. As things are, the case is pretty clear.

 

BUT

 

It's up to the director to establish if the facts were as I have stated above, or if they were different. It doesn't matter if BBO noticed the huddle or not, it matters if the other side of the screen noticed it. If it was not visible with the screen (as can often be the case) there is no reason for an adjustment.

[HedyG]

here is the chat from the table as recorded on my computer showing that the hesitation was indeed long enough for the operator (David Stern) to make a remark about it:

poohbear: Taking NO prisoners. Lev bids 3NT

vugraphzpt: Not sure what Feldman is thinking about here

poohbear: need a !h lead to beat it

vugraphzpt: Maybe doubling for !H lead

poohbear: If the spade honors were split then 2 rounds of spades and a !h play would work as well . Revert to spades after the King wins

vugraphzpt: EW 42nd before this session

poohbear: I like the lead

poohbear: where are we beating this ?

poohbear: I have 2 chances to lead. Better make the most of them

poohbear: Everyone suggesting West hesitated. I didnt see that

vugraphzpt: Director being summoned

vugraphzpt: If I commented on it then you can assume so

poohbear: ok. If this goes to committee and they indeed agree that West hesitated then the score will revert to 3NT making

[jdonn]

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).

[cicus]

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.

[jdonn]

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.

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.

[OleBerg]

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.

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.

I'm with jdonn here.

 

What you can gather from the fact that there was an adjustment, is that the TD determined that there was a hesitation. This means that he will base his ruling on that.

 

It doesn't mean that Feldman and partner agreed, or that it actually happened. The TD has to determine something, and the hesitation is what he found most likely. (See Law 85, linked above.)

[cicus]

Anyway, if the score was adjusted then Feldman-Zagorin didn't deny the hesitation, so it is immaterial what we saw on BBO.

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.

[fred]

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.

You make a good point.

 

It turns out that in this particular case, had I known which players were involved, it would have been very much in my best interest to lie to the TD about what I would have led. Lev-Pszczola finished higher than my partner and I in the standings so it would have been good for me to try to convince the TD to rule against them - they would likely lose 100s of IMPs as a result.

 

I doubt there were actually enough IMPs at stake to allow us to overtake them in this case, but the point is still valid. Other dangers include me having friends and/or pairs that I bet on who might have benefited from Lev-Pszczola being ruled against. It is not hard to imagine scenarios where I might have stood to gain many thousands of dollars by lying to the TD.

 

Of course the TD did not tell me which players were involved, but there are various ways that I might have known this already. It turns out I had no idea who was involved - if I did then I would have told the TD and suggested that he ask someone else instead of me.

 

Given that I did not know the names of the players and that my result on this board was -600, it was in my best interest to tell the TD that I would make an opening lead that would allow 3NT to make (as I did). This is because I would lose a sizable swing, 10 IMPs or so, to one unknown pair if 3NT went down at the table in question. It would be unlikely, though certainly possible, that a swing of this magnitude would make a difference in terms of where I placed in the final standings.

 

So it turns out that, given the information I had, what I told the TD was good for me. Hopefully you will believe me that I was trying to be objective :)

 

Still, I think it would be better if I (and other players and/or those involved in the auction) were not put in this position. Phil's phone idea is a good one in my opinion.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[cicus]

It doesn't mean that Feldman and partner agreed, or that it actually happened. The TD has to determine something, and the hesitation is what he found most likely. (See Law 85, linked above.)

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