Lev-Pszczola vs. Feldman-Zagorin

[jdonn]

I just had lunch with someone who played in the Cavendish, and was told the following:

 

- All four players agreed the amount of time the tray was on that side of the screen was around 15-20 seconds. They did disagree on whether or not this constituted a noticeable break in tempo in the given situation.

- The regulations (emailed to every player who entered) not only state that up to 25 seconds means there is a presumption of no break in tempo, but also give the power to the second player on either side of the screen to slow down the tray in order to maintain an even tempo.

- Like me, he also called the director from the 'wrong' side of the screen in the past (in last year's Cavendish) and was told by a director that it seriously damaged the credibility of his claim. Apparently this doesn't apply if your nickname is that of a beverage.

- Feldman and Zagorin were informed by the directors after the ruling was made that if they appealed there was no chance they would win, and thus didn't appeal.

[Cascade]

- Feldman and Zagorin were informed by the director's after the ruling was made that if they appealed there was no chance they would win, and thus didn't appeal.

Who was that bully?

 

That seems way out of line to me.

[Cascade]

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.

I don't believe that the chat log makes it that clear. Here are the first few lines of what HedyG posted earlier. She posted another six lines of chat after this but it is clear the lead has already been made.

 

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

 

* Notes the comment from David.

 

** Notes that the lead had been made

 

It is possible that all or none of the intervening comments were made before the lead was made.

 

I have seen and can easily imagine a situation where even David's (vugraph) comment did not appear on the screen until the lead had actually been made.

[the hog]

- Feldman and Zagorin were informed by the director's after the ruling was made that if they appealed there was no chance they would win, and thus didn't appeal.

Who was that bully?

 

That seems way out of line to me.

I agree with Wayne's comment here. If this is correct, the director should be reported.

[jonottawa]

This is pathetic.

 

Blame the vugraph operator.

 

Blame the director (who was trying to help them out by warning against a sure-to-lose appeal, which isn't particularly uncommon last I checked.)

 

Blame the rules.

 

Blame the fact that one of the pairs is 'famous.'

 

Ignore the blatantly self-serving comments, annoyance at the honest, relevant and appropriate testimony of a completely impartial observer, and beyond-dubious arguments.

 

I can't STAND it when people get preferential treatment just because of WHO THEY ARE, but this is not one of those cases.

[Cascade]

This is pathetic.

 

Blame the vugraph operator.

 

Blame the director (who was trying to help them out by warning against a sure-to-lose appeal, which isn't particularly uncommon last I checked.)

 

Blame the rules.

 

Blame the fact that one of the pairs is 'famous.'

 

Ignore the blatantly self-serving comments, annoyance at the honest, relevant and appropriate testimony of a completely impartial observer, and beyond-dubious arguments.

 

I can't STAND it when people get preferential treatment just because of WHO THEY ARE, but this is not one of those cases.

Assuming Josh's friend's statement of the facts is correct in particular that the hesitation/delay was agreed at 15-20 seconds then we have no option but to conclude that the director has done a poor job.

 

The regulation essentially states that a 25 second delay should be ignored and goes further to encourage the players to delay if the other opponent took a short time to call.

 

Whether you like the regulation or not the laws are clear that the director is "bound" by the announced regulation. The director has no power to ignore this clear regulation when making a ruling.

 

Having made a shoddy ruling (assuming the facts as stated above) the director is completely outside his powers to bully a pair into not appealing by saying that they have no case.

 

The director's responsibility is to advise the pair that they have a right of appeal. Given that the director made the ruling it is not his place to prejudge what another body of people would think about that ruling.

 

In this particular case and again assuming the facts as reported by Josh I would be very surprised if an appeal committee did not overturn the director's ruling and further I would hope that the committee would be asking serious questions about why the director was ignoring the announced regulations.

[jdonn]

Blame the vugraph operator.

I certainly don't.

 

Blame the director (who was trying to help them out by warning against a sure-to-lose appeal, which isn't particularly uncommon last I checked.)

Who else do you blame for a bad ruling if you think there was one? As for what he said to them, unlike the last few posters I honestly don't care (which is why I didn't reply to those posts), I merely stated what he said because people asked earlier in the thread why the pair didn't appeal if they thought the ruling is bad.

 

Blame the rules.

If you are referring to the side of the screen that called the director, do you realize both the purpose of that rule and why it's very relevant to the ruling when it's not followed? Because it doesn't seem so.

 

If you are referring to the time taken, what would you think when there is a clear guideline about the time that should be taken that is completely ignored?

 

Blame the fact that one of the pairs is 'famous.'

I know of three cases in which a director was called about the break in tempo from the side of the screen from which it occurred. In one of those cases the player was not famous and had to work hard just to convince the director to listen to his complaint, and he was ruled against. In one of those cases the player was not famous and was informed by the director his complaint would be heard but would have reduced credibility, and he was ruled against. In one of those cases the player was famous and the director listened to the complaint and ruled in his favor.

 

Please draw your own conclusion.

 

Ignore the blatantly self-serving comments, annoyance at the honest, relevant and appropriate testimony of a completely impartial observer, and beyond-dubious arguments.

- Which blatantly self-serving comments?

- Which beyond-dubious arguments?

- The annoyance wasn't at the testimony of the vugraph operator, in fact I don't even think they are aware he testified. It was at his comment to the vugraph audience because it made them look like cheaters.

[Trinidad]

I just had lunch with someone who played in the Cavendish, and was told the following:

 

- All four players agreed the amount of time the tray was on that side of the screen was around 15-20 seconds. They did disagree on whether or not this constituted a noticeable break in tempo in the given situation.

- The regulations (emailed to every player who entered) not only state that up to 25 seconds means there is a presumption of no break in tempo, but also give the power to the second player on either side of the screen to slow down the tray in order to maintain an even tempo.

- Like me, he also called the director from the 'wrong' side of the screen in the past (in last year's Cavendish) and was told by a director that it seriously damaged the credibility of his claim. Apparently this doesn't apply if your nickname is that of a beverage.

- Feldman and Zagorin were informed by the directors after the ruling was made that if they appealed there was no chance they would win, and thus didn't appeal.

If these were the facts as the TDs had them, it is clear that the ruling should have been: No irregularity, next board please.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

This is pathetic.

 

Blame the vugraph operator.

 

Blame the director (who was trying to help them out by warning against a sure-to-lose appeal, which isn't particularly uncommon last I checked.)

 

Blame the rules.

 

Blame the fact that one of the pairs is 'famous.'

 

Ignore the blatantly self-serving comments, annoyance at the honest, relevant and appropriate testimony of a completely impartial observer, and beyond-dubious arguments.

 

I can't STAND it when people get preferential treatment just because of WHO THEY ARE, but this is not one of those cases.

Assuming Josh' account of the story is true then the VuGraph operator didn't do much wrong, the rules were perfect, the fact that one pair is even more famous than the other is irrelevant and the observations of the VuGraph operator were confirmed.

 

The full blame goes to the TD: He established that there was UI when the regulations clearly state that there can't have been any. And I can't find any words for a TD at the level of the Cavendish who tells a pair that they don't have a chance with an AC when the situation was such that he should have encouraged an appeal (or even appeal his own ruling).

 

Rik

[MFA]

Just thinking that it could be possible that this "someone who played in the Cavendish" might not be 100% spot on about all details as they happened at the table.

[cherdanno]

Just thinking that it could be possible that this "someone who played in the Cavendish" might not be 100% spot on about all details as they happened at the table.

Yeah. I am sure jonattawa knows what happened, though.

[Trinidad]

Just thinking that it could be possible that this "someone who played in the Cavendish" might not be 100% spot on about all details as they happened at the table.

That is why I put the if... part prominently in my two recent postings.

 

However, given that Fred said that the TD told him that the BIT was after 1♥, whereas the players, the VuGraph operator and the VuGraph audience saw that West was thinking over 3NT, it seems that the TD wasn't "100% spot on about all the details as they happened at the table" either.

 

Rik

[Hanoi5]

As I think I was the one to raise the appeal question, I'm also going to ask this. Can Feld-Zago complain to a higher authority stating all the facts mentioned here? I think more than the final standings are in line at this moment.

[jdonn]

As I think I was the one to raise the appeal question, I'm also going to ask this. Can Feld-Zago complain to a higher authority stating all the facts mentioned here? I think more than the final standings are in line at this moment.

I'm sure there is no further recourse, and I'm sure even if there were they wouldn't want to pursue it.

 

I also feel the need to point out, not that I'm lying about anything, but I am a secondhand source and was not there. Everything I say is what I was told by either people who were there or by people who talked to people who were there. So objectively I have to say that anyone who has played the game of telephone before knows that the posts I have made should not cause anyone to lose their heads.

[Hanoi5]

Better as a private.

[cicus]

- All four players agreed the amount of time the tray was on that side of the screen was around 15-20 seconds. They did disagree on whether or not this constituted a noticeable break in tempo in the given situation.

- The regulations (emailed to every player who entered) not only state that up to 25 seconds means there is a presumption of no break in tempo, but also give the power to the second player on either side of the screen to slow down the tray in order to maintain an even tempo.

I simply don't believe that. Even Lev-Pszczola agreed it was at most 20 seconds, and the TD, who should know best that 25 seconds is the allowed delay, decides there was UI? This would mean either that at the Cavendish TD's without full knowledge of the rules are employed or this particular TD deliberately cheated in favour of L-P and he even told them not to appeal. And F-Z, who were also aware that 25 s is allowed, behave like timid children.

Please have lunch with someone more reliable. Anyway, "I had lunch with someone who was told etc." is not the way to start a convincing argument.

[jdonn]

Let me help you out with one thing. The 25 seconds is a guideline. It's perfectly legal for the director to rule that 15 seconds in a situation was a break in tempo, and 45 seconds in another situation wasn't. I have read the email sent to the players, and will be so bold as to assume that you have not.

 

On that note, I have reasonable sources of information (including speaking directly with the pair involved about two hours after the incident) and I have stated what they are all along. You have diddly but your own feelings which so far have been proven wrong every time there is a way to check on them, even when you were insistent. Further, it's utterly obvious that you made up your mind after about 10 seconds of thought and have then searched for evidence to support that rather than the other way around. So believe or don't believe what you want but I could not care less.

[cicus]

I have reasonable sources of information (including speaking directly with the pair involved about two hours after the incident)

There were two pairs involved.

[Trinidad]

- All four players agreed the amount of time the tray was on that side of the screen was around 15-20 seconds. They did disagree on whether or not this constituted a noticeable break in tempo in the given situation.

- The regulations (emailed to every player who entered) not only state that up to 25 seconds means there is a presumption of no break in tempo, but also give the power to the second player on either side of the screen to slow down the tray in order to maintain an even tempo.

I simply don't believe that. Even Lev-Pszczola agreed it was at most 20 seconds, and the TD, who should know best that 25 seconds is the allowed delay, decides there was UI?

Given that the TD seems to have thought that the BIT was after 1♥, I can believe all of what Josh said... and more.

 

This would mean either that at the Cavendish TD's without full knowledge of the rules are employed or this particular TD deliberately cheated in favour of L-P and he even told them not to appeal. And F-Z, who were also aware that 25 s is allowed, behave like timid children.

Why is that so? F-Z didn't have anything at stake. They had every reason to just shrug their shoulders and walk away. That doesn't make them timid children.

 

Please have lunch with someone more reliable. Anyway, "I had lunch with someone who was told etc." is not the way to start a convincing argument.

I hope Josh enjoyed his lunch with his "lunch partner with insufficient reliability". When it comes to how convincing his argument was, Josh had indicated already quite properly in his reply to Hanoi5 that heresay is not the most reliable source of information. This means that it was not necessary for you to point that out. And neither was it necessary to accuse Josh' lunch partner of not being sufficiently reliable.

 

Rik

[paulg]

In my experience top players are notoriously poor at estimating the time that the tray was on the other side of the screen.

 

But they are much better at determining that there was a significant hesitation on the other side, however long the tray was away.

 

So I'm surprised at the ruling when the Director was not called from the correct side of the screen.

 

Paul

[MFA]

- All four players agreed the amount of time the tray was on that side of the screen was around 15-20 seconds. They did disagree on whether or not this constituted a noticeable break in tempo in the given situation.

- The regulations (emailed to every player who entered) not only state that up to 25 seconds means there is a presumption of no break in tempo, but also give the power to the second player on either side of the screen to slow down the tray in order to maintain an even tempo.

I simply don't believe that. Even Lev-Pszczola agreed it was at most 20 seconds, and the TD, who should know best that 25 seconds is the allowed delay, decides there was UI?

Given that the TD seems to have thought that the BIT was after 1♥, I can believe all of what Josh said... and more.

I have an extremely hard time believing that TD could have thought that.

 

If the BIT were after 1♥ there is clearly no case.

 

The tray would then have been pushed in with: pass-1♣-1♦-pass...

 

and had come back (after a delay) with: pass-1♣-1♦-pass-1♥-pass

 

How on earth could that suggest a heart lead? It might have been the 1♥-bidder, who was thinking, and even if we knew it were opener, he would surely have thought about bidding 1♠, 2♣ or X. He would never think with a heart stack.

 

No I don't buy this. I'm not participating in any crucifixion of the TD based on the very little we can be sure of at this point.

[jdonn]

I have reasonable sources of information (including speaking directly with the pair involved about two hours after the incident)

There were two pairs involved.

Fantastic. I have spoken to one of the two. How many have you spoken to?

[Trinidad]

Given that the TD seems to have thought that the BIT was after 1♥, I can believe all of what Josh said... and more.

I have an extremely hard time believing that TD could have thought that.

Well, that piece of information we can be reasonably sure of. Fred was one of the players polled. He was also asked what LAs were made more attractive by the UI (or some similar question). Since there was some confusion early in this thread (everybody who had watched the VuGraph assumed that we were talking about a BIT after 3NT, while Fred's comments suggested that he thought that the BIT came after 1♥) Josh asked Fred specifically. Here is Josh' question and Fred's answer:

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.

So, if we believe Fred (and I really don't see any reason not to believe him), the TD told Fred that the hesitation was after 1♥. From there, it is a very small assumption that the TD indeed thought the hesitation was over 1♥. Much bigger assumptions have been made on BBF. :blink:

 

If the BIT were after 1♥ there is clearly no case.

 

The tray would then have been pushed in with: pass-1♣-1♦-pass...

 

and had come back (after a delay) with: pass-1♣-1♦-pass-1♥-pass

 

How on earth could that suggest a heart lead? It might have been the 1♥-bidder, who was thinking, and even if we knew it were opener, he would surely have thought about bidding 1♠, 2♣ or X. He would never think with a heart stack.

Hence my conclusion (with the usual disclaimers) that the TD was confused about this whole case and made a couple of mistakes.

 

No I don't buy this. I'm not participating in any crucifixion of the TD based on the very little we can be sure of at this point.

I am certainly not aiming at a crucifixion of the TD. To err is human and the last time I looked TDs were still human. But to me (with the usual ifs and disclaimers) it seems clear that the TD erred.

 

Rik

[barmar]

In my experience top players are notoriously poor at estimating the time that the tray was on the other side of the screen.

 

But they are much better at determining that there was a significant hesitation on the other side, however long the tray was away.

 

So I'm surprised at the ruling when the Director was not called from the correct side of the screen.

 

Paul

In my experience, people in general are notoriously poor at estimating the time anything takes. Unless you're actively looking at the second hand on your watch, or counting "1 mississippi, 2 mississippi, ...", you're almost certainly going to be way off. But no one actually does anything to measure the time, because you don't know beforehand that the time is going to be important. So we're forced to deal with estimates made after the fact, which are most likely widely inaccurate. Even when all players agree "15-20 seconds", I'm dubious.

 

With all that said, I guess I should admit my own estimate, from watching on VuGraph, could be just as inaccurate.

 

I'm not sure what to make of the director being called by the wrong player, though. It could be that the his partner didn't notice, but it could also simply be that he forgot about the proper procedure and beat him to the punch. Someone mentioned that this partnership has made this mistake before -- it could be that he's implicitly the "designated caller".

[Elianna]

Even snooker is cooler than bridge in this regard :(

I can think of at least one director in the local clubs who I (and the majority of players in my area) would describe as appealing.