Lev-Pszczola vs. Feldman-Zagorin

[cherdanno]

I WAS JOKING!!!!!!

[jdonn]

I WAS JOKING!!!!!!

I thought he was too...

[the hog]

Josh it is actually not that uncommon for a TD to appeal his own decisions - well, not uncommon in Oz anyway. Another common action is for the TD to rule and then to encourage an appeal.

[benlessard]

In our case BIT is 2-2. So director has to rule if there was BIT. Im pretty sure the screen were NE-- SW but can someone confirm this ?

 

Its obvious that calling from the wrong side put NS at a disadvantage. But its possible (even likely) that from south POV he has a clearcut pass of 3Nt and may have bid it quickly, West took the extra time and hesitated a bit more. So even if the hesitation is clearcut for south and hes thinking about a grossly unethical lead it is more subtle for NE. So south may have convinced his partner that there was BIT and it became 2-2. Its also clear there is UI, since east has no hope of defeating the contract facing a south that hesitate he can make the forced assumption that the hesitation came from West no matter how small is the delay in the tray. (edited south is a passed hand so its clear there is UI)

 

Finding the H lead (wich is clearly an offbeat lead for me) and the fact that X of 3Nt is very tempting (like Fred I either would have opened 1H or X 3Nt, but even for those who dont, are likely to find it hard to pass 3Nt in tempo) is enough to convince me to rule in NS favor.

 

 

If the vugraph operator or many kibbitzers noticed a break in tempo its simply overkill. If that is the case and EW still make an appeal i would "keep the money"

[paulg]

Josh it is actually not that uncommon for a TD to appeal his own decisions - well, not uncommon in Oz anyway. Another common action is for the TD to rule and then to encourage an appeal.

In the UK, and I thought most jurisdictions nowadays, TDs are told to make what they believe is the right ruling. They will not make a ruling that is clearly generous to one side (usually the non-offenders) and then encourage an appeal - although this was the practice in past.

 

This is why appeals in WBF, EBL, ACBL and UK tournaments where the top TDs are present are less successful nowadays.

[Trinidad]

Josh it is actually not that uncommon for a TD to appeal his own decisions - well, not uncommon in Oz anyway. Another common action is for the TD to rule and then to encourage an appeal.

In the UK, and I thought most jurisdictions nowadays, TDs are told to make what they believe is the right ruling. They will not make a ruling that is clearly generous to one side (usually the non-offenders) and then encourage an appeal - although this was the practice in past.

 

This is why appeals in WBF, EBL, ACBL and UK tournaments where the top TDs are present are less successful nowadays.

Trying to come up with the right ruling rightaway and encouraging an appeal aren't excluding each other.

 

As you say, a TD should try to give the correct ruling rightaway. But there can be instances where a TD knows that it is a borderline case. In that case he can encourage a side to appeal. Already just the fact that a TD writes on a form that he encouraged the players to appeal makes it pretty much impossible for the AC to rule that the appeal has no merit.

 

A TD can also feel that his bridge judgement is insufficient. At the Cavendish, that is not really a problem since there are enough top players to poll. But if you are a TD at a local bridge club (and a mediocre player) and have to rule on a judgement question between the top rated pairs at the club, this can be a problem. In that case, a TD can make a ruling and appeal his own ruling, usually to the AC of the national bridge league. They will have the necessary bridge judgement.

 

A side effect of appealing his own ruling is that the TD will improve his own bridge judgement. That can't be bad either.

 

Rik

[OleBerg]

Josh it is actually not that uncommon for a TD to appeal his own decisions - well, not uncommon in Oz anyway. Another common action is for the TD to rule and then to encourage an appeal.

It is in Law 81 C.7

 

(...to refer any matter to an appropriate committee.)

 

In Denmark this is intepreted in the way, that the TD can appeal his own ruling.

 

As a TD it is not seldom that I encourage an appeal. Not only does this insure a more fair treatment of players, it also helps towards building a reputation as a fair and unbiased TD. (Making an effort to be fair and unbiased doesn't hurt. :) )

 

This has, for me, in turn, actually meant that I have fewer appeals, and that the players are generally satisfied.

[the hog]

Josh it is actually not that uncommon for a TD to appeal his own decisions - well, not uncommon in Oz anyway. Another common action is for the TD to rule and then to encourage an appeal.

It is in Law 81 C.7

 

(...to refer any matter to an appropriate committee.)

 

In Denmark this is intepreted in the way, that the TD can appeal his own ruling.

 

As a TD it is not seldom that I encourage an appeal. Not only does this insure a more fair treatment of players, it also helps towards building a reputation as a fair and unbiased TD. (Making an effort to be fair and unbiased doesn't hurt. :) )

 

This has, for me, in turn, actually meant that I have fewer appeals, and that the players are generally satisfied.

Agree totally with this. By the way, this practice was used by a well known international director. This director was a senior director also in US and World champs.

[MFA]

In our case BIT is 2-2. So director has to rule if there was BIT. Im pretty sure the screen were NE-- SW but can someone confirm this ?

 

Its obvious that calling from the wrong side put NS at a disadvantage.  But its possible (even likely) that from south POV he has a clearcut pass of 3Nt and may have bid it quickly, West took the extra time and hesitated a bit more. So even if the hesitation is clearcut for south and hes thinking about a grossly unethical lead it is more subtle for NE. So south may have convinced his partner that there was BIT and it became 2-2. Its also clear there is UI, since east has no hope of defeating the contract facing a south that hesitate he can make the forced assumption that the hesitation came from West no matter how small is the delay in the tray.  (edited south is a passed hand so its clear there is UI)

 

Finding the H lead (wich is clearly an offbeat lead for me) and the fact that X of 3Nt is very tempting (like Fred I either would have opened 1H or X 3Nt, but even for those who dont, are likely to find it hard to pass 3Nt in tempo) is enough to convince me to rule in NS favor.

 

 

If the vugraph operator or many kibbitzers noticed a break in tempo its simply overkill. If that is the case and EW still make an appeal i would "keep the money"

Yes, NE same side, SW same side.

 

I think you are making this sound way too 'easy'.

 

If TD finds, as you describe it, that S may have been convincing N that there was a BIT, then TD should dismiss the case.

 

When the call comes from the wrong side, there is a firm initial conjecture that there was nothing noticable on the other side, since that is where one would expect the call to come from, if there indeed were a problem. It's not a problem that W is thinking if the other side doesn't notice.

 

So when the TD rules as he does, we must assume that he feels quite certain that N didn't need any convincing from S because the UI was crystal clear, and that the wrong procedure of S calling the TD was due to either S not knowing the rules or that he just got too eager in the heat of the battle.

[jdonn]

Instead of having a tournament director appeal his own ruling, why not just send the ruling directly to a committee to begin with? I can't think of any situation in anything where an official appeals his own ruling, in fact it seems meaningless. What if neither side wants to appeal?

[OleBerg]

Instead of having a tournament director appeal his own ruling, why not just send the ruling directly to a committee to begin with? I can't think of any situation in anything where an official appeals his own ruling, in fact it seems meaningless. What if neither side wants to appeal?

Well, thats what I do, send it directly to committee, without a ruling.

[benlessard]

If TD finds, as you describe it, that S may have been convincing N that there was a BIT, then TD should dismiss the case.

 

Of course, this possibility is in EW favor. I was just pointing out as an argument in EW favor. If there is a majority on the table the director cannot break it off.

 

When the call comes from the wrong side, there is a firm initial conjecture that there was nothing noticable on the other side

 

Here I slightly disagree, IMO the call from the wrong side is simply lowering your credibility. In laws its better if the witness is a stranger than if hes the victim. I agree that its the BIT in the tray that matters, so when you ask the kibbitzer you tell them was a BIT perceptible from the otherside of the table ? Not if west BIT.

 

When there is no majority for bit at the table director has to break it off using all bits and pieces of infos and by doing some sound inference.

 

Here the offbeat lead and the possibly tough pass of west make me in NS favor even if there was no kibbitzer or vug operator around.

[jdonn]

Here the offbeat lead and the possibly tough pass of west make me in NS favor even if there was no kibbitzer or vug operator around.

I want to reiterate that in spite of Fred's opinion and of those he asked, the majority of those I saw asked led a heart, some thinking it was completely automatic. Calling it offbeat is really not fair. There are player who believe very strongly in leading dummy's suit on auctions where an opener or overcaller rebids 3NT since there is such a strong implication that he is short in his partner's suit.

[mike777]

Instead of having a tournament director appeal his own ruling, why not just send the ruling directly to a committee to begin with? I can't think of any situation in anything where an official appeals his own ruling, in fact it seems meaningless. What if neither side wants to appeal?

Well, thats what I do, send it directly to committee, without a ruling.

I do not understand how do you appeal a ruling when there is no ruling? I assume the committee is an appeals committee not a ruling committee.

 

It seems wierd to have a TD appeal his/her own ruling but not the players or to not make a ruling in the first place.

[jdonn]

Instead of having a tournament director appeal his own ruling, why not just send the ruling directly to a committee to begin with? I can't think of any situation in anything where an official appeals his own ruling, in fact it seems meaningless. What if neither side wants to appeal?

Well, thats what I do, send it directly to committee, without a ruling.

I do not understand how do you appeal a ruling when there is no ruling? I assume the committee is an appeals committee not a ruling committee.

I assume the director is a ruling director not an appealing director?

[Trinidad]

Instead of having a tournament director appeal his own ruling, why not just send the ruling directly to a committee to begin with? I can't think of any situation in anything where an official appeals his own ruling, in fact it seems meaningless. What if neither side wants to appeal?

Well, thats what I do, send it directly to committee, without a ruling.

I forgot what recent international championship (last year) it was that suffered from this problem. The TD didn't give a ruling but moved the case to the AC immediately. It seem to recall that one of the parties involved (Italy?) wasn't even aware that there was an AC meeting.

 

Even if the TD is going to appeal his own ruling, he has to make his ruling first (otherwise there is nothing to appeal). The opinion of the TD also matters to the AC.

 

Rik

[Cascade]

Instead of having a tournament director appeal his own ruling, why not just send the ruling directly to a committee to begin with? I can't think of any situation in anything where an official appeals his own ruling, in fact it seems meaningless. What if neither side wants to appeal?

Well, thats what I do, send it directly to committee, without a ruling.

I do not understand how do you appeal a ruling when there is no ruling? I assume the committee is an appeals committee not a ruling committee.

I assume the director is a ruling director not an appealing director?

In my experience there are very few appealing directors :lol:

[MFA]

Instead of having a tournament director appeal his own ruling, why not just send the ruling directly to a committee to begin with? I can't think of any situation in anything where an official appeals his own ruling, in fact it seems meaningless. What if neither side wants to appeal?

Well, thats what I do, send it directly to committee, without a ruling.

I do not understand how do you appeal a ruling when there is no ruling? I assume the committee is an appeals committee not a ruling committee.

I assume the director is a ruling director not an appealing director?

In my experience there are very few appealing directors ;)

Hahaha.

 

Perhaps the bad appealing directors got tired of having their initial rulings changed, and the good appealing directors got tired of losing frivolous appeals' deposits, when their rulings were fine in the first place.

 

So now there a only very few of them left. :P

[barmar]

Methinks MFA didn't get the pun.

 

But I guess that's a common problem in a forum with heavy international participation.

[Cascade]

Methinks MFA didn't get the pun.

 

But I guess that's a common problem in a forum with heavy international participation.

He did laugh.

[MFA]

Methinks MFA didn't get the pun.

 

But I guess that's a common problem in a forum with heavy international participation.

Hmm. ;)

 

Methinks that barman didn't get my joke about a director losing a deposit for appealing his own ruling. But I admit it was extremely bad. :D

 

Edit, ok I get your point :P.

[barmar]

Methinks MFA didn't get the pun.

 

But I guess that's a common problem in a forum with heavy international participation.

He did laugh.

Yeah, that confused me, too, but the rest of his response doesn't fit. I think the joke he "got" wasn't the joke that was intended.

[jonottawa]

I watched the hand on Vugraph.

 

I agree with Fred and Jan. If the opening leader perceived a BIT, he did a very bad thing.

 

I find efforts to cast aspersions on the vugraph operator to be disgusting. I would want an objective witness at the table regardless of which side I was on. I would not be 'annoyed', I would be relieved, in such an instance. I think the vugraph operator did a fantastic job and I would, in almost all circumstances (barring some weird axe-to-grind situation,) trust the opinion of a vugraph operator over the opinion of any of the participants.

 

Self-serving arguments, shudder, etc. This wasn't a close decision in any way, shape, or form.

[barmar]

Tempo problems are some of the trickiest issues in duplicate bridge. I'm sure most of us can recall many times where one player said "He took forever to make that bid", while another says "it was 5 seconds, 10 at most." Most people don't have a good sense of time (the 10 seconds you're supposed to wait after a skip bid feels really long when you don't actually have anything to think about).

 

Even the VuGraph operator might not be the best judge in most cases. If he wasn't specifically paying attention to the tempo, he might have as hard a time saying what happened after the fact (a number of psychological studies have shown that eyewitness testimony isn't really as good as we'd like to think). But that's not what happened in this case. His chat log made it clear that he noticed the hesitation as it was occurring, and then there were several lines of dialogue from commentators before the bid was made.

[gwnn]

Even snooker is cooler than bridge in this regard ;)