Israel v Egypt Ruling Rd 7

[mrdct]

[hv=pc=n&s=sjthaj8742dtck653&w=s87hkqt3d8642cqjt&n=sq54h6dj973ca9842&e=sak9632h95dakq5c7&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1s2hppdpp2n(S%3EW%20%22alert%22%20N%3EE%20%22rbl%20would%27ve%20been%20minors%22)d3cpp3sp3np4dp4sppp&p=dtd2d3dksasts7s4sksjs8s5s6c3h3sqh6h9hahtc5ctcac7d7dah2d4h5h4hqc2cqc4d5c6d6d9dqh7s9h8d8c8s3hjcjc9s2ckhk]399|300|Long hesitation before the 3NT bid by West.[/hv]

This hand came up last night when I was doing voice commentary on the closed room of the Round 7 Bermuda Bowl encounter between Israel and Egypt. The Herbts brothers were NS for Israel and Said-Nabil EW for Egypt. East-West were playing 5-card majors 2/1 GF. I have no idea if the ruling was appealed so it's in the Laws & Rulings thread for the time being.

 

During the auction the vugraph operator reported the following (verbatim):

 

"2NT alert at SW"

"but not at N/E side of the screen"

"N points at XX to tell E XX would be minors"

"now N is tell E something, cant hear it" (after the slow 3NT bid came back to the N/E side)

"E still in the tank" (the 4♦ bid took a long time also)

 

After the play was finished:

 

"asking director"

"N called and explains, that his point is about the hesitation from W and the 4♦ bid after 2 minutes of thinking from W"

 

About one hour later:

 

"director at the table, referring to board 1"

"telling: 3NT -1 first board 1"

"E not amused"

"director said 5/6 players who he asked passed 3NT after that hesitation"

 

Just the "facts" as per the BBO records at this stage, but I think this hand has a few ruling issues in it and I'd been keen to hear people's thoughts.

[phil_20686]

There has to be a suggestion that the pause before 3N indicated bidding on, but I am not sure about that at all. Surely it most likely indicates that he was thinking of passing 3S. This is not a forcing auction afaik.

 

I am also surprised at all the passers. If partner has values for 3N here and a double club stop is that not starting to sound like a pen x of clubs? Its actually really hard to construct hands for west that bid 3N here where its teh right place to play. He must have good hearts and decent clubs but not a pen x of clubs. Doesnt seem like partner will have 5 hearts either so sounds like he is at most 4-4 in the rounded suits, in which case we surely have a better spot in 4s or 5d given how pure the east hand is.

 

It seems clear that west has (1) a penalty pass of hearts (2) values for game (3) not a penalty x of clubs even with the hearts locked up and (4) a club stop.

 

x

KQTx

xxxxx

KQx

 

or something is a possibility with 5d off on ace of hearts and a heart ruff, but its not like 3N is stunning anyway. Am surprised at all the passers of 3N.

[aguahombre]

I wasn't aware that polls include the hesitation information. But, what do I know? Other than that, the ruling is probably a good one. Passing is a L.A. to bidding, and bidding might be suggested by the B.I.T. Without the hesitation, East gets to use his judgement, which would be right on this hand.

 

Wonder why the break in tempo, though. With all of his values in the opps' two suits, 3nt seems as if it shouldn't have taken so long.

[mrdct]

At the time I felt (and commented) that passing 3NT isn't really a logical alternative for East given that partner couldn't make a penalty double of 3♣ which strongly suggests that ♣ are not double-stopped so 3NT will only make if ♠ are running in which case 4♠ will be just as likely to make and may well be superior on a lot of hands. However, I am persuaded by the poll taken by the director in which 5/6 players (presumably of comparable standard to East) passed given the hesitation. This seems to be irrefutable evidence that Law 16B1(b) is satisfied:

 

"A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it".

 

There is a danger,of course, that polled players may have a tendancy to give the ultra-ethical response to these sorts of hesitation problems, but the decision to wind the contract back to 3NT appears to be soundly based so I don't think Egypt would have much chance getting the decision reversed on appeal.

 

Notwithstanding the ruling in relation to the hesitation, I would have thought South's defence to 4♠ ought to be brought into question in the context of Law 12C1(b):

 

"If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only".

 

South has seen his partner run from 2♥X which must strongly indicate (if not promise) a singleton or void ♥ but failed to lead ♥A and another to beat 4♠ immediately and then at trick 5 when North switched to the ♥6 he had a second chance to play North for a ♥ shortage which he failed to seize. Now at the local club duplicate or even some more serious regional or national events this defence probably wouldn't be classed as a "serious error" but we are talking about a Bermuda Bowl round-robin match here where the expected standard of play is somewhat higher.

 

The official scoresheet has an IMP result in Israel's favour of 35-27 which would ordinarily translate to a 17-13 VP result, however the official VP score is 16.34 - 12.67 (total of 29.01) but this unusual VP score seems to be as a result of a 1 VP slow penalty being 2/3 attributed to Israel.

 

My inclination is to have Israel keep the table result of 4♠E= and have Egypt wear the adjusted score of 3NTW-1. This would result in Egypt losing 27-35 (13 VPs) and Israel losing 31-35 (14 VPs) which, after the slow play penalties would have a final VP score of Israel 13.34 and Egypt 12.67

[gordontd]

There has to be a suggestion that the pause before 3N indicated bidding on, but I am not sure about that at all.

It suggests doubt about playing in 3NT.

[gordontd]

At the time I felt (and commented) that passing 3NT isn't really a logical alternative for East given that partner couldn't make a penalty double of 3♣ which strongly suggests that ♣ are not double-stopped

I don't think so - it suggests the clubs are not long, but could still be double-stopped.

[gwnn]

Wow a director in the Bermuda Bowl is doing the wrong poll? I am shocked that anyone would include partner's hesitations here but maybe procedures have changed in the last year or something. I mean you could say that Lampard's goal was disallowed vs Germany in a world championship game but at least the linesman knew the rule on what the goal line was there for.

[aguahombre]

I wasn't aware that polls include the hesitation information. But, what do I know?

 

Wow a director in the Bermuda Bowl is doing the wrong poll? I am shocked that anyone would include partner's hesitations here but maybe procedures have changed in the last year or something.

We seem to be a minority of two who are concerned about that little fact.

[Trinidad]

We seem to be a minority of two who are concerned about that little fact.

Make that three.

 

Rik

[olegru]

+1

[jallerton]

To be fair to the director, all we know is a report of what the vugraph operator thought he heard the director say. There is a lot of scope for words to be lost in translation. Rather than:

 

"director said 5/6 players who he asked passed 3NT after that hesitation"

 

perhaps the TD actually said something like:

 

"5 out of the 6 players I asked passed; therefore the Pass cannot be allowed to stand after that hesitation."

[jallerton]

Notwithstanding the ruling in relation to the hesitation, I would have thought South's defence to 4♠ ought to be brought into question in the context of Law 12C1(b):

 

"If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only".

 

South has seen his partner run from 2♥X which must strongly indicate (if not promise) a singleton or void ♥ but failed to lead ♥A and another to beat 4♠ immediately and then at trick 5 when North switched to the ♥6 he had a second chance to play North for a ♥ shortage which he failed to seize. Now at the local club duplicate or even some more serious regional or national events this defence probably wouldn't be classed as a "serious error" but we are talking about a Bermuda Bowl round-robin match here where the expected standard of play is somewhat higher.

 

In a Bermuda Bowl round robin match, I'd expect East to work out that the take-out doubler of 2♥ is likely to be short in hearts and thus the opening lead defence of ace and another heart will often result in an over-ruff and could easily let the contract through. The actual lead of South's singleton diamond seems entrirely reasonable to me. In my opnion, it is a serious error to even consider that such an opening lead could be a serious error.

 

At trick 5, South should have enough information to know to duck the heart switch (he can work out that North probably wouldn't run with a 3244 shape), so I would describe his trick 5 play as an error. Are you claiming that all errors at this level should be classified as "serious errors"? If so, I do not agree.

[RMB1]

To be fair to the director, all we know is a report of what the vugraph operator thought he heard the director say. There is a lot of scope for words to be lost in translation.

 

At WBF (and EBL) events, we have many for whom English is not their first language. Many of those involved in this story (TD, players, vugraph operator) no doubt speak excellent English but the words used to express the ruling may have been for an audience of English-as-a-foreign-language.

[bluejak]

I'm with Jeffrey. Worrying that a top TD has done something wrong based on a report of a report of what he said, I am unimpressed. We are not here to criticise people anyway: what is the point?

[Finch]

Also, in practice, when a TD comes round and asks you what you would bid at a particular point in a fairly lengthy auction, most players assume that partner's bid was slow, and will say things like "I'd bid, but I think I should pass if partner's 3NT was slow" (or whatever).

 

I was polled on my bid on the East hand after 3NT*, and I said that the most likely outcome was that we weren't making game because partner was 1543; I passed in case clubs were 6-3 and partner could hold up from Axx or Kxx

 

*by jallerton, not the TD at the Bermuda Bowl

[aguahombre]

We are not here to criticise people anyway: what is the point?

Awsome quote to save for when it is in context with a thread.

[lamford]

The actual lead of South's singleton dimaond seems entrirely reasonable to me.

And indeed could be necessary if North's minor suit honours were reversed. However, at this level, it does look a poor defence to win the first heart. But I think SE has to be worse still. The TD ruling seems fine. And I prefer to poll without the UI, but nothing in the Laws says that this is obligatory. And I agree it is not clear whether the TD polled with it.

[mrdct]

At trick 5, South should have enough information to know to duck the heart switch (he can work out that North probably wouldn't run with a 3244 shape), so I would describe his trick 5 play as an error. Are you claiming that all errors at this level should be classified as "serious errors"? If so, I do not agree.

I'm not saying that all errors at a world championship level ought to be classified as "serious errors", I'm merely suggesting that the test for determining whether or not an error is a "serious error" is different in a Bermuda Bowl compared to a club duplicate. I don't have a particularly firm view on this particular hand, but I was a bit uneasy about South getting off scott free after producing a pretty ordinary defence to 4♠. I note that across all tables in the Bermuda Bowl, Venice Cup and Seniors Bowl, the hand was played in ♠ 33 times and only made 10 tricks once in one of the ladies matches.

[bluejak]

Awsome quote to save for when it is in context with a thread.

Make sure the quote is on-topic, please.

 

Ok, sometimes it is germane to say a TD has made a wrong decision. But just criticising for the sake of it, based on a report of a report of someone saying something, seems pointless and off-topic.

[Trinidad]

I'm with Jeffrey. Worrying that a top TD has done something wrong based on a report of a report of what he said, I am unimpressed. We are not here to criticise people anyway: what is the point?

Let's just consider this a hypothetical case. ;)

 

In that case gwnn points out that polling as described in the OP would be wrong. Some of us agree with him.

 

I don't think there is anybody here who suggest that the TDs at the BB are inferior, based on a single, unsupported story on this forum. There always is the implied assumption: "If this story is accurate then..." (the TD asked the wrong question in his poll).

 

Rik

[jallerton]

I don't think there is anybody here who suggest that the TDs at the BB are inferior, based on a single, unsupported story on this forum. There always is the implied assumption: "If this story is accurate then..." (the TD asked the wrong question in his poll).

 

Rik

 

Unfortunately, that is the exact impression given by gwnn's observation:

 

Wow a director in the Bermuda Bowl is doing the wrong poll? I am shocked that anyone would include partner's hesitations here but maybe procedures have changed in the last year or something.

 

and you gave the distinct impression that this was your opinion too when you said "make that three".

[gwnn]

Well my post was did a rather poor job to represent the "if this is the case, then I am shocked" aspect of my reaction. I am sorry. Surely, though, it is not off-topic to criticise a ruling or procedure in a thread about that particular ruling?

 

If OP wanted us to ignore what the actual director ruled, they could have hidden the ruling, or just not included it.

[Trinidad]

I don't think there is anybody here who suggest that the TDs at the BB are inferior, based on a single, unsupported story on this forum. There always is the implied assumption: "If this story is accurate then..." (the TD asked the wrong question in his poll).

Unfortunately, that is the exact impression given by gwnn's observation:

Wow a director in the Bermuda Bowl is doing the wrong poll? I am shocked that anyone would include partner's hesitations here but maybe procedures have changed in the last year or something. I mean you could say that Lampard's goal was disallowed vs Germany in a world championship game but at least the linesman knew the rule on what the goal line was there for.

and you gave the distinct impression that this was your opinion too when you said "make that three".

To paraphrase a recent original post: "What part of 'always' didn't you understand?"

 

'Always' includes the time of gwnn's first post as well as the time of my "make that three" reply. (gwnn states that -in his own words- in his latest post.)

 

But maybe we should make it an explicit rule to this forum that, by default, replies are written under the assumption that the facts stated in the original post are accurate.

 

Rik

[mrdct]

But maybe we should make it an explicit rule to this forum that, by default, replies are written under the assumption that the facts stated in the original post are accurate.

The "facts" in the OP were heavily disclaimed as being merely a transcript from the BBO vugraph records and did not purport to be based on any official report.

[wank]

as a general point, criticising directors seems to be a faux pas here, no doubt because so many of the contributors here are themselves directors. my opinion: tough. directors at such high level events are professionals and i suspect remunerated quite well. their decisions are important and should be examined and if it's found that they made sufficiently frequent or grave errors, they should be replaced.

 

this is totally different to the situation in many clubs where the directors are often unpaid volunteers, and should be given more slack.