Israel v Egypt Ruling Rd 7

[aguahombre]

The "facts" established in this thread, and others, are that prominent posters are telling us:

 

It is O.K. to criticize each other in threads with (often quite personal) attacks.

It is fine to conclude that an unnamed TD in a lesser event should go back to director school.

 

But perish the thought of questioning whether a TD practice mentioned in an OP is commonly employed --- if the unnamed director is highly thought of and working a major event.

 

The term "sycophant" comes to mind.

[mycroft]

<sycophant mode on>

Given the conditions as known extant, to this TD-who's-boss-is-almost-certainly-in-Veldhoven, it is significantly more likely that the story has been mangled somehow (vugraph operator with three other things to do mishearing slightly a statement not made to her, a language issue that mangled "5 of the 6 people polled passed, so we can't allow it with the hesitation", vugraph operator who is not as fluent in the Laws not understanding how polling works, or how his misphrasing actually is a problem, ...) or that lots of people *did* respond as Frances expects ("I'd bid, but I couldn't after a hesitation" - if 4 of 6 people say that, without being prompted about hesitation, then it's clear that pass is a call "considered by" a majority, and if one of 6 passes straight up, then pass is a LA to the letter of the definition) than the directors picked to run this event are polling in this fashion.

<sycophant mode off>

 

Now I realise that I have a bias, as I was taught how to poll by (among others) the above boss-who's-in-Veldhoven, and I certainly know how he would do it.

 

I also know that while I am not entirely thrilled with the conclusion that is made from this by the WBF appeals people, the facts they state that they bring only the best TDs in the world to these events, and they have access to some of the best players in the world for consultation, are correct.

[phil_20686]

It suggests doubt about playing in 3NT.

 

There are lots of reasons he could have doubt here:

 

(1) He could lack the values for game - not all hands which penalty pass 2H have values. V-QJTxxx xxx Kxx

 

(2) He could worry whether or not this is a GF auction-i.e. not know whether he is allowed to pass or not.

 

(3) He might simply be thinking that 3N is a better strain than 3s in a 6-0/6-1 fit. x-KQTx KJxxx Qxx

 

(4) He might be wondering if he can introduce a diamond suit at this juncture or if 4d would be a cue for spades. - V KQT9x Jxxxxx Kx

 

(5) Obviously he might be thinking of bidding 4S instead. - as with is actual hand.

 

 

So his hesitation could indicate anything from "we are likely to have a better spot" to "this spot is already a disaster" to "I really wish I was (sure that I was) allowed to play in 3S". I would argue that the most slikely reasons for hesitation here are 1 and 2. I BB level player should be able to evaluate 3,5 pretty fast, doubts about system agreements in complicated competitive auctions seem much more likely. In which case a slow 3N suggests strongly that you should pass - which you therefore cannot do.

 

 

The problem with polling is that its likely a lot of the participants already knew the hand.

[Trinidad]

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.

Are you suggesting that the facts in all other posts are (or should be) based on an official report?

 

There is some very selective picking of the truth going on at this forum. Sometimes, we are supposed to assume that the facts in the original post are true even if the OP was mere gossip and later posts inform us that these "facts" were false (e.g. "Behavior issues in Leeds").

 

But this time, we are supposed to not believe the facts as presented, even though the OP comes from somebody who heared them from someone who was present in the room, who wrote it "live" when it happened?

 

Of course, it is entirely possible that the TD followed proper procedure in this case.

- The VG operator may have misheared.

- He may have summorised what the TD said, leaving something out that was relevant for this discussion.

- It is even possible that he heared it correctly but that the TD unfortunately phrased it wrong.

 

But we have based far stronger conclusions on much less reliable information before.

 

The least we should be able to write is that the described procedure is incorrect (to make sure that beginner TDs don't get the idea that it would be correct since that is what they did at the BB).

 

Rik

[ggwhiz]

I have seen a number of posts based on a hypothetical situation and a number of replies to posts based on "if the facts are as stated" by the very astute.

 

That second premise seems right here and concrete vs. assumed facts should not stifle the debate. Even if not specified the difference is apparent enough.

[Vampyr]

TD-whose-boss-is-almost-certainly-in-Veldhoven,

 

What are you suggesting here? That the TD in question may use inferior methods most of the time, but will stick to proper procedure when his boss is present?

[blackshoe]

I read it as Mycroft saying that the TD who is his (Mycroft's) boss is almost certainly in Velhoven. I would venture to guess that Mycroft is not in Veldhoven.

[mycroft]

Yep, Ed has it right. I'm not *certain* about who the Veldhoven TDs are, and I'm *certainly not* one of them; but I have the luck to have had this specific discussion with said TD; and given the explanation I was given, I consider it much more likely that there was an error in transmission than an error in procedure by those TDs.

 

Totally black box, of course.