Lev-Pszczola vs. Feldman-Zagorin

[jdonn]

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.

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.

[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.

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?

[fred]

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.

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?

Because it far from rare for one side to say the other side hesitated and for the other side to deny it completely. Even if both sides agree that a hesitation took place, more often than not they disagree about the length of the hesitation.

 

In these cases the TD is placed in the difficult position of having to decide who to believe.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

What else can a decision that there was hesitation be based on other than a confession by the accused side?

Law 85: Rulings on Disputed Facts

 

When the director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows:

 

A. Director's Assessment

1. In determining the facts, the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of evidence he is able to collect.

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.

[cicus]

Law 85: Rulings on Disputed Facts

 

When the director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows:

 

A. Director's Assessment

1. In determining the facts, the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of evidence he is able to collect.

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?

[jdonn]

No, Feldman says he thought for a short time but nothing unusual or that would be noticeable to his partner, and his partner says he didn't notice anything.

 

Their other arguments were:

- The 3NT rebid is such an unexpected development that Feldman's "normal" tempo should be a little longer in that position (I sort agree but only a little and it probably doesn't matter much.)

- A heart lead is very obvious or has no alternative (I definitely disagree, although they did find some players who agreed with that.) Essentially that logic is based on someone who rebids 3NT very often being short in his partner's suit.

- The wrong opponent called the director so their claim should be viewed sceptically (I completely agree.)

[JanM]

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 believe that the rule about hesitations when there are screens is that the person on the same side of the screen where the hesitation occurred is allowed to call the Director, but only after the hand is over. So if the player on the hesitator's side of the screen knew the rules, he did the right thing by waiting until the hand was over to call. And accepting the director call here but criticizing you for calling before the hand was over is consistent with the rules.

 

For what it's worth (not much I suspect), the directors asked me about the hand at the tournament and I also said I would lead a club. I agree with Fred that if the opening leader was aware of the hesitation and led a heart that would be a very bad thing to do.

[cicus]

Their other arguments were:

- The 3NT rebid is such an unexpected development that Feldman's "normal" tempo should be a little longer in that position (I sort agree but only a little and it probably doesn't matter much.)

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.

[awm]

The standard meaning of a double of 3NT is to ask for the lead of dummy's first-bid suit.

 

If Feldman-Zagorin had a different agreement, likely they would've mentioned it to the director.

[jdonn]

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.

If you are going to make both of the bolded statements then it will be hard to have a discussion with you. As for the statement in italics, it is a joke to think the vugraph ran at a perfectly exact tempo throughout until that moment. Other times that you probably thought were either tanks or a player thinking were surely the operator lagging behind, either because he missed a card, was commentating, was talking privately to someone, got a cup of coffee....

 

Face it. You weren't there, you can't know what happened. Just like I wasn't there and I can't know what happened. Everything I have said I was told directly by the players who were there, which is all I know, and a much better source than a vugraph show.

[cherdanno]

Face it. You weren't there, you can't know what happened. Just like I wasn't there and I can't know what happened. Everything I have said I was told directly by the players who were there, which is all I know, and a much better source than a vugraph show.

Josh, I think a remark by the vugraph operator ("Not sure what Feldman is thinking about here") is a pretty strong indication that there was a hesitation. He is probably more objective about it than all the players involved.

Of course, none of us, not even the TD KNOWS whether there was a hesitation. But that's often the case in BIT rulings (and of course the TDs will get it wrong some of the times).

[jdonn]

I don't claim there wasn't one, just that they say there wasn't. They were also pretty annoyed when they found out the vugraph operator said that. Who knows, maybe the director asked the operator as a witness and that's why he ruled that way.

[Walddk]

Law 76, B:

A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director.

 

Consequently, if facts are disputed (in this case hesitation or not), the director can ask spectators. It does not happen often, but it happens. I assume that the vugraph operator was the only person (i.e. spectator) in the 'room'.

 

If there was a dispute of facts, and if I understand Josh correctly there was, did the director ask the operator? If the operator answers 'yes' or 'no' to hesitation or not, it's easy to ascertain the facts, because we must assume that the operator is unbiased.

 

If he answers 'not sure, I was busy with other issues', it is much more complicated.

 

Roland

[Finch]

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 believe that the rule about hesitations when there are screens is that the person on the same side of the screen where the hesitation occurred is allowed to call the Director, but only after the hand is over. So if the player on the hesitator's side of the screen knew the rules, he did the right thing by waiting until the hand was over to call. And accepting the director call here but criticizing you for calling before the hand was over is consistent with the rules.

When you say "the rule" do you mean the Cavendish regulations?

 

Unfortunately screen regulations are not covered by the Lawbook and are the responsibility of the sponsoring organisation (just like alert regulations). In the EBU you are ONLY allowed to call the TD from the other side of the screen. Calling from the same side will not get a ruling*

 

Oddly it was not long ago that there was a very very very contentious case in a European tournament that also included a call from the 'wrong' side of the screen which did lead to a ruling and an adjustment. I can't remember the details, but I do (vaguely) remember that it certainly looked as though the screen regulations were going to be tightened up after this.

 

*unless e.g. one partner is dumb and gives a written note the other side of the screen saying 'please call the TD I noticed a hesitation'

[Elianna]

Face it. You weren't there, you can't know what happened. Just like I wasn't there and I can't know what happened. Everything I have said I was told directly by the players who were there, which is all I know, and a much better source than a vugraph show.

Josh, I think a remark by the vugraph operator ("Not sure what Feldman is thinking about here") is a pretty strong indication that there was a hesitation. He is probably more objective about it than all the players involved.

Of course, none of us, not even the TD KNOWS whether there was a hesitation. But that's often the case in BIT rulings (and of course the TDs will get it wrong some of the times).

I wasn't there, I didn't even watch it on vugraph.

 

But as I understand it, the question is whether the other side of the screen noticed a hesitation, and could tell which player was the one hesitating.

 

I realize that the vugraph operator SAID Jason hesitated for a short while (from reading things here, sounds like it could be anywhere from 10 to 30 seconds) but that doesn't mean that it was noticeable to the other side.

 

So I don't see that the vugraph operator stating that there was a hesitation pertains to whether the hesitation was actually perceivable to the other side of the screen.

 

I have a lot of sympathy for Feldman-Zargorin being upset about this ruling, it does seem to be a case of he said-he said. I would have a lot of sympathy for Lev-Pszcola if it went the other way.

[barmar]

I don't claim there wasn't one, just that they say there wasn't. They were also pretty annoyed when they found out the vugraph operator said that. Who knows, maybe the director asked the operator as a witness and that's why he ruled that way.

IIRC, the operator specifically mentioned that he was asked, and showed his chat log to the TD.

 

Most of the discussion that was quoted above took place during the hesitation.

[barmar]

So I don't see that the vugraph operator stating that there was a hesitation pertains to whether the hesitation was actually perceivable to the other side of the screen.

I don't think the Laws on UI make a distinction about whether a hesitation is perceivable by partner; if any player at the table noticed it, it's perceivable. Either a hesitation occurred or it didn't. The assumption is that if there's a hesitation, partner could take inferences from it, and the Laws prohibit any action that could have been suggested by it.

 

Screens are supposed to make it harder to tell who hesitated, but in some cases it's easy because of context, and in at least one case it's clear (when the last pass takes place immediately after the tray is passed, and there's a hesitation there, which I think happened in this case). The rule that attention should be drawn to the hesitation by someone on the other side of the screen is intended to work with this, since the opponent on the same side can obviously tell whether the hesitation was due to himself or his screenmate.

[hanp]

Josh, did they think that it was somehow unfair to ask the vugraph commentator if there had been a break in tempo? When you have one side that claims that there wasn't a break in tempo and another that says there was, it seems like a very good idea to ask a spectator, especially a spectator who has been paying close attention.

 

When the commentator has even commented before the director call that Feldman was thinking over 3NT, it becomes quite hard to argue that there was no break in tempo. And when there was indeed a break in tempo then I don't understand how one could think the director ruling was unfair.

 

(by which I don't mean to say that I think it is strange that the pair involved finds it unfair, it makes it hard not to be biased.)

[Elianna]

So I don't see that the vugraph operator stating that there was a hesitation pertains to whether the hesitation was actually perceivable to the other side of the screen.

I don't think the Laws on UI make a distinction about whether a hesitation is perceivable by partner; if any player at the table noticed it, it's perceivable. Either a hesitation occurred or it didn't. The assumption is that if there's a hesitation, partner could take inferences from it, and the Laws prohibit any action that could have been suggested by it.

 

Screens are supposed to make it harder to tell who hesitated, but in some cases it's easy because of context, and in at least one case it's clear (when the last pass takes place immediately after the tray is passed, and there's a hesitation there, which I think happened in this case). The rule that attention should be drawn to the hesitation by someone on the other side of the screen is intended to work with this, since the opponent on the same side can obviously tell whether the hesitation was due to himself or his screenmate.

My point is that just because it was clear on one side that someone hesitated, it does not mean that it's clear on the other side that there was a hesitation at all.

 

If you and I were on the same side, and you placed your card in 1 second, and I place mine in 19 seconds, it is clear to you, me, and the vugraph operator that there was a hesitation. But when the board is sent back in 24 seconds (giving a four second reaction time), it's not clear to the other side that a hesitation even OCCURRED. (20-30 seconds seems par for the course for returning a board, from what I've observed in person.)

[barmar]

So I don't see that the vugraph operator stating that there was a hesitation pertains to whether the hesitation was actually perceivable to the other side of the screen.

I don't think the Laws on UI make a distinction about whether a hesitation is perceivable by partner; if any player at the table noticed it, it's perceivable. Either a hesitation occurred or it didn't. The assumption is that if there's a hesitation, partner could take inferences from it, and the Laws prohibit any action that could have been suggested by it.

 

Screens are supposed to make it harder to tell who hesitated, but in some cases it's easy because of context, and in at least one case it's clear (when the last pass takes place immediately after the tray is passed, and there's a hesitation there, which I think happened in this case). The rule that attention should be drawn to the hesitation by someone on the other side of the screen is intended to work with this, since the opponent on the same side can obviously tell whether the hesitation was due to himself or his screenmate.

My point is that just because it was clear on one side that someone hesitated, it does not mean that it's clear on the other side that there was a hesitation at all.

 

If you and I were on the same side, and you placed your card in 1 second, and I place mine in 19 seconds, it is clear to you, me, and the vugraph operator that there was a hesitation. But when the board is sent back in 24 seconds (giving a four second reaction time), it's not clear to the other side that a hesitation even OCCURRED. (20-30 seconds seems par for the course for returning a board, from what I've observed in person.)

That was part of my point, that screens normally hide which player hesitated.

 

But if one player has been passing throughout, it's very unlikely that he would have hesitated late in the auction, so it's pretty easy to guess who hesitated. And as I specifically mentioned, if the hesitation is on the last pass in the auction, the other player didn't even have an opportunity to hesitate.

[jdonn]

Josh, did they think that it was somehow unfair to ask the vugraph commentator if there had been a break in tempo?

They didn't mention to me that he had been asked, I only speculated he might have been.

 

When you have one side that claims that there wasn't a break in tempo and another that says there was, it seems like a very good idea to ask a spectator, especially a spectator who has been paying close attention.

I agree it's a good idea to ask him, the director should gather any possible evidence he can.

 

When the commentator has even commented before the director call that Feldman was thinking over 3NT, it becomes quite hard to argue that there was no break in tempo.

Totally disagree (look at Elianna's example about 1 and 19 seconds). In fact I believe that when the opponent on the other side of the screen (who is one of the most capable players in the world) fails to call the director at any point despite the opening lead being what a break in tempo would suggest, it's hard to argue that that side of the screen detected any break in tempo.

 

And when there was indeed a break in tempo then I don't understand how one could think the director ruling was unfair.

Agree.

 

But if one player has been passing throughout, it's very unlikely that he would have hesitated late in the auction, so it's pretty easy to guess who hesitated.

Neither player on that side of the screen had passed throughout.

 

And as I specifically mentioned, if the hesitation is on the last pass in the auction, the other player didn't even have an opportunity to hesitate.

If you are saying what I think you are, that is only true if the hesitation is on the last pass of the auction AND that player is first to act on his side of the screen. If the last pass of the auction is the second to act on that side of the screen then there is no way to know which player broke tempo.

[Cascade]

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.

My experience has been that in a lot of cases there is a presumed guilt that the player hesitated.

[Cascade]

Face it. You weren't there, you can't know what happened. Just like I wasn't there and I can't know what happened. Everything I have said I was told directly by the players who were there, which is all I know, and a much better source than a vugraph show.

Josh, I think a remark by the vugraph operator ("Not sure what Feldman is thinking about here") is a pretty strong indication that there was a hesitation. He is probably more objective about it than all the players involved.

Of course, none of us, not even the TD KNOWS whether there was a hesitation. But that's often the case in BIT rulings (and of course the TDs will get it wrong some of the times).

But that is not the same nor even close to "the hesitation was transferred through to the other side of the screen".

[Cascade]

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 believe that the rule about hesitations when there are screens is that the person on the same side of the screen where the hesitation occurred is allowed to call the Director, but only after the hand is over. So if the player on the hesitator's side of the screen knew the rules, he did the right thing by waiting until the hand was over to call. And accepting the director call here but criticizing you for calling before the hand was over is consistent with the rules.

When you say "the rule" do you mean the Cavendish regulations?

 

Unfortunately screen regulations are not covered by the Lawbook and are the responsibility of the sponsoring organisation (just like alert regulations). In the EBU you are ONLY allowed to call the TD from the other side of the screen. Calling from the same side will not get a ruling*

 

Oddly it was not long ago that there was a very very very contentious case in a European tournament that also included a call from the 'wrong' side of the screen which did lead to a ruling and an adjustment. I can't remember the details, but I do (vaguely) remember that it certainly looked as though the screen regulations were going to be tightened up after this.

 

*unless e.g. one partner is dumb and gives a written note the other side of the screen saying 'please call the TD I noticed a hesitation'

Technically it is not the calling the director that jeopardizes your rights it is drawing attention to the irregularity.

 

After attention is drawn to the irregularity anyone can call the director.

[the hog]

It is pretty clear from the preceeding discussion that the vuegraph operator should not have commented. This particular operator made many comments, some gratuitous, during the times i was watching. I realise it is not that easy to get operators, but perhaps this is one area Roland could address. Operators, unlike commentators, should not be seen nor heard.