[mycroft]

As I'm dealing with (and haven't felt comfortable responding to yet) in another thread, neither of these comments or questions are of any use to the person who doesn't know the law. Now, they *should* - and they should much earlier than at least in my area they do - but if they don't, they don't understand the totality of the message they are being asked, either way.

I don't know a good answer to this, frankly - except possibly earlier education about responsibilty after partner has transmitted UI, and education about how best to deal with it at the table from both sides. I know in my area, we are way too lax about it in general, and we have people who believe that it is their right to use partner's explanations in their further bidding (A players!). I know, in a neighbouring area, that they crack down on this a lot harder, and everybody, even the just-out-of-novice-games players, knows and respects the UI Law. They also have about 8 tables in their Novice games, and only two or three tables of not-As in their tournaments - all but the truly addicted get driven out by the attitude of the education.

[gnasher]

The Laws actually refer to reserving one's right to summon [ugh] the director. So saying "I'm reserving my rights" is not only, as Stefanie says, meaningless; it's also insufficient, and there's no reason why the opponents shoudl be expected to understand the intended meaning.

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2012-February-01, 11:31, said:

The Laws actually refer to reserving one's right to summon [ugh] the director. So saying "I'm reserving my rights" is not only, as Stefanie says, meaningless; it's also insufficient, and there's no reason why the opponents shoudl be expected to understand the intended meaning.

However, the law doesn't specify that as a form of words that need be used.

[gnasher]

True, but the words used should convey the same meaning. "I'm reserving my rights" doesn't mean the same as "I reserve the right to call the director", because the former doesn't define what rights are being reserved but the latter does.

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2012-February-01, 15:05, said:

True, but the words used should convey the same meaning. "I'm reserving my rights" doesn't mean the same as "I reserve the right to call the director", because the former doesn't define what rights are being reserved but the latter does.

I never use either phrase, preferring to establish agreement that there has been a tempo break or whatever.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-February-01, 15:05, said:

True, but the words used should convey the same meaning. "I'm reserving my rights" doesn't mean the same as "I reserve the right to call the director", because the former doesn't define what rights are being reserved but the latter does.

It's still meaningless. You can call the director any time you please, so what is supposed to be the effect of "reserving the right" to do so?

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-01, 15:54, said:

It's still meaningless. You can call the director any time you please, so what is supposed to be the effect of "reserving the right" to do so?

Apparently you either disagree with Blackshoe (post 100, post 104, and the surrounding comments) or you missed the discussions.

I don't disagree with Blackshoe on what the rules are, but I also think when we can't stipulate between the pairs on whether there was an irregularity (even though no infraction has occured as yet) either pair should be allowed to call the TD at that point.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-01, 11:03, said:

Not exactly. The Law doesn't say you have to use such a phrase, and I think that "reserve" is supposed to mean "put off until another time" rather than lodge some sort of notice of intent. That is not what the word normally means in English, but what else is new.

According to my dictionary (okay, it's not the OED. Sorry about that) the meaning is: reserve |riˈzərv| verb: refrain from using or disposing of (something); retain for future use.

Law 16B2 says that a player "may announce, unless prohibited by the regulating Authority (which may require that the director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the director later". I suppose you might just say "I may want to call the director later" or some such. I suppose the purpose of this law is to avoid claims that "well, he didn't call the TD when he thought there might be UI, so he gave up his right to do so".

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-01, 16:30, said:

I suppose the purpose of this law is to avoid claims that "well, he didn't call the TD when he thought there might be UI, so he gave up his right to do so".

This is the problem, though, because a player never gives up his right to call the director.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-01, 15:54, said:

It's still meaningless. You can call the director any time you please, so what is supposed to be the effect of "reserving the right" to do so?

It's not meaningless, because the meaning is defined in Law 16B2 as "I consider that an opponent has made [unauthorised] information available and that damage could well result".

I agree that this meaning is rather unintuitive.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-01, 16:54, said:

This is the problem, though, because a player never gives up his right to call the director.

Of course he doesn't. That won't stop some from arguing that he did, though.

[bluejak]

mgoetze, on 2012-January-25, 17:40, said:

I still can't quite imagine how this works. Let's take Kathryn's example wherein an opponent asks about a specific bid while his partner is trying to come up with a lead. Now let's say we finish the round with quite some time left, I decide I haven't been damaged, but would still like to enlighten my opponent about the pitfalls of his timing. I manage to call the TD without upsetting anyone yet. Could you please provide a sample dialogue starting with what I say to the TD when he arrives?

"I don't think I have been damaged here, but I just want to be sure about the legal position. Can you just explain what the effect of ..."

jillybean, on 2012-January-27, 10:13, said:

Creating a story to teach our opponents, "I was told once that I should wait until the face-down opening lead before asking my questions if I'm going to pass out the hand. I'd like to know what I should do. I'm going to call the TD and find out, she's not busy at the moment." may work for rank beginners but for the rest of us there should be no problem when I say, in a normal voice. "I have a problem with this hand and I'm going to call the director"

A little strong, perhaps. Why not "… and I think we should call the TD"? “We” is much better than “I”.

jillybean, on 2012-January-27, 11:33, said:

The answer to my question is "it is false everywhere". A NOP can ask the TD to waive rectification, only the TD can decide to do it.
Under what circumstances would a director waive rectification, unless perhaps in a novice game? Doing this could create unfair advantage.

Why would it be unfair? The Law says "for cause". If you think that the reason RHO led out of turn is because someone jogged the table or a waiter spilt drink on him or someone made an unfortunate comment that was misinterpreted or he has a very serious disease and his hand shakes and he drops cards or because there was a badly timed announcement by the Tournament staff or similar, why not ask to waive penalties? In what way is this "unfair"?

jillybean, on 2012-January-27, 11:55, said:

No, I mean it would be unfair to the entire playing field. I don't see why a NOS asking for the director to waive rectification would influence the decision, unless it was against rank beginners.

We never consider the field in rulings: that's absolute. It is the lawmakers job to worry about the field. "Protecting the field" was an idea that came from certain American professionals to justify some of their more dubious practices.

gordontd, on 2012-January-28, 17:10, said:

I find waiving rectifications causes far more problems and creates more unpleasantness than just playing the game by its rules. After all, that's what a game is: something that's played by rules.

I disagree strongly. If a very elderly person whose hand shakes drops a card it would not occur to me to ask for a major penalty card.

RMB1, on 2012-January-29, 13:04, said:

Is the player saying that they do not think they have been damaged different from waiving rectification?

Of course: if there is no damage, there is no rectification to waive.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-29, 18:16, said:

Last time I asked a club director to do that, she declined, on the grounds that "the book is in the car".

"I'll wait while you get it."

mjj29, on 2012-February-01, 09:26, said:

Sure, that's fine - but a lot of the time you get "I'm reserving my rights!" "um... ok?", where the other play has no idea that this means they have agreed to the BIT, because they've not come across the term before and didn't think it was a question to which they had to agree or disagree.

It's an appalling phrase, since it conveys no information about what it actually means, it's just a shame that the laws/regulations/common practice has encouraged that rather than the far more descriptive and less confrontational "Can we agree there was a break in tempo before 3♠?"

Laws and regulations have never recommended the clause, so it is only common practice.

Vampyr, on 2012-February-01, 15:54, said:

It's still meaningless. You can call the director any time you please, so what is supposed to be the effect of "reserving the right" to do so?

You do so in positions where there are relevant facts. Of course it is silly to just say it, but basically it is a signal to the opponents that something has happened: they either continue which means they agree or they call the TD if they do not agree. It is certainly not meaningless, but a very important part of the ruling process in such cases.

Compare “Stop” and “I am reserving my rights over your hesitation”. The former is a short way of saying “I am about to make a skip bid, ie a jump bid: please wait for ten seconds as required by regulation”. The latter is a short way of saying “I believe that there was a Break in Tempo, specifically a hesitation enough to pass unauthorised information to your partner: if you agree then let’s play on and we can deal with it at the end: if not please call the Director now”. Both statements could be described as meaningless: neither is, just that the meaning is known rather than explicitly stated.

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2012-February-03, 12:06, said:

I disagree strongly. If a very elderly person whose hand shakes drops a card it would not occur to me to ask for a major penalty card.

What I should have said is "I find waiving rectifications without cause creates far more problems and creates more unpleasantness than just playing the game by its rules. After all, that's what a game is: something that's played by rules."

You may recall an occasion when just such a thing made a difference to which team won the England Trials.

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2012-February-01, 11:31, said:

The Laws actually refer to reserving one's right to summon [ugh] the director. So saying "I'm reserving my rights" is not only, as Stefanie says, meaningless; it's also insufficient, and there's no reason why the opponents shoudl be expected to understand the intended meaning.

gordontd, on 2012-February-01, 15:09, said:

I never use either phrase, preferring to establish agreement that there has been a tempo break or whatever.

IMO, players should follow gordontd's good practice rather than adopt or adapt the wacky law-book phraseology.

[phil_20686]

gordontd, on 2012-February-03, 12:34, said:

You may recall an occasion when just such a thing made a difference to which team won the England Trials.

Serious competition is different to club bridge. Its facile to pretend that these are analogous situations. A tendency to drop cards or revoke is a weakness to be exploited among international players. It may very well cost your country in the WC and there is no reason it should not cost you in the trials.

Club bridge has nothing riding on it. It is entirely about having a bit of fun. Sure there might be friendly rivalries, but nothing to get unpleasant over. You want everyone to go home happy, anyone who plays in club bridge and cares more about beating grannies than in making sure their opposition have a good time is well...I'm not sure I have anything civil to say about them.

I think an analogous situation is if you belong to a tennis club, and every year they have their open competitions and you draw the club pro in the first round. Its considered very poor form for them to serve you out in straight games. Part of the role of stronger players is to make sure that weaker players have a good time, and feel comfortable playing you and asking for advice.

Invariable those that feel that this is "patronising behaviour", are those that see themselves as fairly good players. Those that have a chance to beat you don't want to feel like they lost the moral victory because you didn't take full advantage of their rights. I have been there and respect that, but its pretty obvious who those people are when you are at the table when you meet them, and they can always demand to call the director if they want to.

[jillybean]

Bridge is a game defined by rules. Playing a game in which I'm not sure what rules we are following or where the rules change is not fun at all.

[gordontd]

There is a small low-stakes rubber bridge game at the Young Chelsea. The most acrimonious argument I've heard there happened about ten days ago. The reason was that a player had told his opponent to take back her revoke card. Later, in a different, more costly situation, he revoked but his opponent expected the penalty to be applied. He kept saying "I thought we were playing a friendly game here". They would have been if they had all just played by the rules.

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

Bridge is a game defined by rules.

Yes but it is also a game defined by social behaviour. It may be we should always abide by every law but in reality at the club when the octagenarian drops a card from a shaking hand it would be a hard man or woman to insist on it being a penalty card. You have to adapt and one problem is the difference in expectations and rows such as the one Gordon talks about above are caused by inconsistency. A man complained recently in a letter to English Bridge that his partner had followed suit, the opponents noticed and allowed him then to complete his revoke and then take a trick later to beat the contract. I pointed out that a. he was allowed to say "no spades partner" b. his opponents had no duty to point it out to him but to him that was not playing the game. I disagree but it does show that there are different standards and whilst they might be resolved by all playing to the defined rules most would not be happy doing that certainly at club level.

[paulg]

phil_20686, on 2012-February-06, 10:17, said:

Club bridge has nothing riding on it. It is entirely about having a bit of fun. Sure there might be friendly rivalries, but nothing to get unpleasant over. You want everyone to go home happy, anyone who plays in club bridge and cares more about beating grannies than in making sure their opposition have a good time is well...I'm not sure I have anything civil to say about them.

Unbelievable that someone who has played at two of the Edinburgh clubs could write this. I think you meant:

Club bridge has everything riding on it. It is entirely about beating certain other people. There are few friendly rivalries and plenty to be unpleasant about. You want everyone to go home. You hope that the number of people who resign from the club due to unpleasantness is in single figures at the end of the year.

I am pleased to say that the Borders is a much friendlier place.