Lev-Pszczola vs. Feldman-Zagorin

[MFA]

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. :(

 

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

My best judgement from the entire thread is that TD didn't confuse where the BIT was when he made the ruling. And I feel very confident about it. Perhaps Fred did confuse it or the TD did when he approached Fred, that I'm more unsure of.

 

From what I've read, I am not ready at all to say that TD made a mistake. It could still be that his ruling was perfect. Therefore my reservations. You can have your own opinion, of course.

[fred]

My best judgement from the entire thread is that TD didn't confuse where the BIT was when he made the ruling. And I feel very confident about it. Perhaps Fred did confuse it or the TD did when he approached Fred, that I'm more unsure of.

I was definitely told that the BIT was over 1H. My conversation with the TD went something like what follows. Of course I do not remember the exact words that were spoken.

 

TD: Can I ask you about a hand?

 

Me: Sure.

 

TD: You hold blah blah blah. The bidding goes blah blah blah. What would you lead?

 

Me (thinks for second or 2): I would certainly lead a club.

 

TD: You sure?

 

Me (thinks for maybe 5 seconds more): Yes.

 

TD: Would a BIT by partner over 1H suggest that some other particular suit might be more effective?

 

Me (thinks for at least 10 seconds): Hmmmm

 

TD: Let me ask you this instead: What could partner be thinking about?

 

Me: He might have been considering bidding 2C. If so that would make it even more obvious to lead a club.

 

TD: And he didn't because?

 

Me: Either he was concerned that his 6-card club suit was not strong enough or that his overall hand was not strong enough.

 

TD: Anything else he could have been thinking about?

 

Me: He might have been thinking of bidding 1S, but perhaps he needed some time to decide his hand was not quite strong enough for that action. If so that would make a spade lead more attractive, but since any hand that would bid 1S would likely also contain 5+ clubs, it would also makes a club lead more attractive.

 

TD: Anything else he could have been thinking about?

 

Me: I don't think so. It is basically impossible that he was thinking of either doubling or bidding 1NT. My hand and the opponents' auction suggest that partner's hand is not strong enough to take either of those actions.

 

TD: Do you think that the BIT makes a heart lead more attractive?

 

Me (thinks for 5 seconds or so): No. If anything the BIT makes a heart lead less attractive, but it still doesn't feel quite right to me to lead a non-club after any BIT by partner.

 

TD: Maybe not, but the Laws say the BIT has to make the action that was taken more attractive in order for there to be an adjusted score. Thanks for your time.

 

Then the TD and I went our separate ways and I thought about the hand for a few minutes. It seemed strange to me that the player with the hand in question (I did not know his identity) would think over 1H but not over 3NT. I thought maybe the TD had made a mistake so I approached the TD and said something like:

 

Me: If the BIT was over 3NT it would be a completely different story. Such a BIT would definitely suggest a heart lead and IMO should be severely punished.

 

TD: Thanks.

 

It does appear that the TD had the facts wrong during our initial conversation, but I am guessing that he got the right story before he made his ruling. I do not know if my later unsolicited comment helped him to see the light.

 

IMO this particular TD is one of the best and most professional TDs in the world. I speak from experience here - I have interacted with this TD in many tournaments over the years.

 

But obviously even the best sometimes make mistakes.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[crazy4hoop]

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.

Thank you very much but I no longer live in the Los Angeles area.   ;)

[Elianna]

That's why I didn't include you, but I probably should have said another in the NY area! ;)

[hanp]

So Adam's a director now?

[PeterGill]

A few points:

 

1. Some people in this thread have referred to ACBL regulations

about "25 seconds". The Cavendish is run by WBP, not by the ACBL.

The Cavendish's regulations on thier website make no reference to the ACBL,

just to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and to World Bridge Productions' regulations.

 

2. I think one could make a case that it could be the 1H bidder

with xxx, QJ109xxx, xxx, void, who appears to be thinking over 3NT.

 

3. The WBF has a specific regulation barring an adjusted score when the dirrctor call comes from the same side of the screen as the hesitation. WBP does not.

WBP, not ACBL, is the sponsoring organisation with jurisdiction at the Cavendish.

 

4. My polling this week of local experts who don't know the hand has resulted

in mainly club leaders, with a minority of heart and spade leaders.

 

Peter Gill

[jdonn]

1. Some people in this thread have referred to ACBL regulations about "25 seconds". The Cavendish is run by WBP, not by the ACBL. The Cavendish's regulations on thier website make no reference to the ACBL, just to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and to World Bridge Productions' regulations.

The 25 second guideline was emailed to the players in the event ahead of time (Fred back me up?), so although it's not listed on the website it was in use. Although it doesn't matter a ton because it's just a guideline not a hard and fast regulation.

 

Anyway I thought this thread was dead?? Everything has been discussed to death except who is the best looking club director in southern California, so I'm out.

[fred]

The 25 second guideline was emailed to the players in the event ahead of time (Fred back me up?)

Sorry Josh, but I can neither confirm nor deny - I routinely delete such e-mails without reading them.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[JLOL]

1. Some people in this thread have referred to ACBL regulations about "25 seconds". The Cavendish is run by WBP, not by the ACBL. The Cavendish's regulations on thier website make no reference to the ACBL, just to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and to World Bridge Productions' regulations.

The 25 second guideline was emailed to the players in the event ahead of time (Fred back me up?), so although it's not listed on the website it was in use. Although it doesn't matter a ton because it's just a guideline not a hard and fast regulation.

 

Anyway I thought this thread was dead?? Everything has been discussed to death except who is the best looking club director in southern California, so I'm out.

I don't believe I ever got an email like that.