[blackshoe]

You have a right to call the director. However, Law 10 says "the right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the director", so if there is a BIT (which is an irregularity) and the NOS takes some action like bidding on or whatever, they may lose the right to rectification under this law (yes, David, I know that's not current TD practice — I'm talking about what the law actually says). The provision of 16B regarding reserving rights obviates Law 10 here, because the establishment of agreement that there was a BIT implicitly reserves the NOS right to rectification even though the director is not called at that time. I agree with what seems to be common practice in England, at least, to ask the opponents if they agree there was a BIT, rather than using the somewhat more confrontational "I reserve my rights". Either would seem to serve the legal purpose adequately.

ACBL Laws in PDF.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-March-21, 17:49, said:

I agree with what seems to be common practice in England, at least, to ask the opponents if they agree there was a BIT, rather than using the somewhat more confrontational "I reserve my rights". Either would seem to serve the legal purpose adequately.

So the latter is just a rather obscure way of phrasing the former? David's evasiveness on this question is puzzling.

[blackshoe]

Obscure? How so?

David doesn't seem to me to be evasive on this subject. What did I miss?

[bluejak]

What evasiveness? I explained "reserving rights" which certainly does not need that wording. How is this evasive?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-March-22, 09:31, said:

Obscure? How so?

Well, it's not a phrase that is used in normal, non-bridge related English, and it's not immediately obvious what it means.

Quote

David doesn't seem to me to be evasive on this subject. What did I miss?

Well, I have been trying to find out if "reserving one's rights" means the same thing as agreeing the facts. Apparently it does, but I should have thought that if the lawmakers meant "agree the facts" they would have said "agree the facts". I realise that I am on shaky ground here...

[blackshoe]

The question seems to be whether one must explicitly state "I reserve my rights" in order to do so. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

[gnasher]

Until now I shared Stefanie's confusion.

For one thing, the phrase "reserve his rights" doesn't appear in the laws. The laws refer to announcing that you reserve the right to call the director. I've never been quite sure if these are the same thing or not.

For another, players sometimes call the director and then tell the director that they want to reserve their rights. I've no idea what that's supposed to mean.

Finally, the EBU Orange Book discusses both reserving one's rights and agreeing the facts, without making it clear that they're the same:

Quote

2 A 3 Although there are circumstances under Law 16 where a player may ‘reserve his rights’, it is usually better to call the TD, but see 2 A 4. This assumes there is a nonplaying TD to be called. In the case of a playing TD, or no TD (as in a match played privately), a player may have no choice but to reserve his rights.
2 A 4 In practice there are occasions where failure to call the TD is often not fatal. If the four players at the table agree that there was a hesitation, and all four are experienced and know their rights, then leaving it to the end of play to see if there is any potential damage does not matter very much.

Anyway, I now understand that "reserving one's rights" and "agreeing the facts" are both synonyms for reserving the right to call the director. Good - my world has become slightly less confusing.

Off-topic whinge: why does this bit of the Laws use the phrase "summon the director"? In my experience neither lamps nor incantations are necessary.

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2011-March-22, 18:04, said:

Off-topic whinge: why does this bit of the Laws use the phrase "summon the director"?

Kaplan?
Endicott?

[RMB1]

gnasher, on 2011-March-22, 18:04, said:

For another, players sometimes call the director and then tell the director that they want to reserve their rights. I've no idea what that's supposed to mean.

I (as a TD) always treat this as a request to agree the facts in front of the TD and say "Can we agree the facts, ...". If they use the phrase "reserve their rights", I do not refer to it subsequently.

The only point at which to educate people about "reserving their rights" is when they use it (not enough player read these forums/blogs/etc.). Unfortunately, you can only do this if they call the TD now and this is not a good time because they will already be upset if the opponents have potentially infracted. If the TD says "You can't reserve your rights, because that is something you do instead of calling the TD" the player will think you are trying to deny him his rights. So the conclusion is that I just ignore the phrase if players use it.

[mycroft]

"agreeing the facts" and "reserving one's rights" aren't the same thing, but in most cases are done the same way. The implication when both sides agree that there was UI passed of whatever sort is that everyone at the table knows that UI was passed from that action, that they understand that there are implications on UI receiver's potential actions, and that if there might be a problem, the TD will be then summoned. In other words, the "reservation of rights" is implied in the action of attempting, and acceeding to, the agreement of the facts.

This breaks down when the implication isn't in fact true - novices won't know what they're agreeing to, and what restrictions they are being put on notice for, for instance. This is why the ACBL, until this last round of Laws changes, frowned officially on "reserving one's rights" (even though everybody in the experienced world did it anyway) - they expected you to call the TD when UI was transmitted, so that the opponents knew their responsibilities. Obviously, this is unworkable in general, and they no longer have that policy (although the suggestion to go through the TD if one believes the opponents don't understand all the implication is still there, and still good).

"I'm reserving my rights" is a brusque, formal way of saying "I believe UI was transmitted and I'm putting the table on notice; if you dispute what I believe is obvious UI, do something about it". Which is fine (if formal and brusque) when the same implication holds - that the opponents know all the implied text, and fails just as badly (and less politely) when they don't. It also implies that "of course you agree with me that you did this bad UI thing", but after 30 seconds, well yeah, that implication is pretty innocuous.

Which is why I will explicitly acknowledge UI that I have received, if I believe it to be there and I am about to make a call that was suggested by the UI (which I believe there are no LA to, obviously). Of course, even that doesn't help (as last night), when the opponents have no idea what I'm talking about.

[gnasher]

mycroft, on 2011-March-23, 12:54, said:

Which is why I will explicitly acknowledge UI that I have received, if I believe it to be there and I am about to make a call that was suggested by the UI (which I believe there are no LA to, obviously). Of course, even that doesn't help (as last night), when the opponents have no idea what I'm talking about.

You mean that you will, unprompted, announce that believe that you've received UI?

I find it quite irritating when people do that. It's usually an unwanted distraction, and it also conveys UI to your partner, who may be unaware of the original UI. That probably makes it illegal too.

I think you would do better to concentrate on doing what the rules say you should do, and leave the opponents in peace. If they think their rights need protecting, I expect they can do it for themselves.

[mycroft]

Really? You play more Law-informed opponents than I do, then. So, preemptively agreeing on the facts and acknowledging that the opponents have rights to reserve - when you're clearly making a call that is suggested by the (also clear) UI - is out of bounds. Okay, you may have a point that it is extraneous and presents UI (but the day that my partner is unaware of her own UI, if it's obvious enough that I feel a need to acknowledge it, I will be checking for the case of beer she's obviously drunk). There's dburn's "reverse UI" issue, but I don't think that that has ever been an issue at my table - and, of course, it would be there even if I didn't audibly acknowledge it, because my partners *do* know the law, and *do* know that I try very hard to follow it.

There are also the "for my partner, that was an obvious BIT" (but might not look it if you haven't played X000 hands with/against him) situations. I could keep quiet (and follow Law 73); I could keep quiet and not follow Law 73. How would the opponents know which I was doing, or even that there was a potential issue?

Of course, you also are not the opponent that stands on his chair to scream "DIRECTOR" when one partner "hesitates" (that would be the 10 second pause after an unannounced skip bid, if you haven't heard the story before) and the other one bids, I'm sure. So I apologise for annoying you. I've never, however, even with the most UI-sensitive folks here, had any issues, except possibly a couple of expressions of thanks - and one TD call, out of the 10 or so times I've done it in the last year, where they thought that there was, in fact, an LA.

[Coelacanth]

A story from the NABC which may illustrate that not quite everyone has the hang of this "reserving of rights" deal.

The auction proceeded 1♣ by S, 1♥ by N, 2NT by S, 3♦ by N, alerted by South.

I, sitting East, probably should just have passed quietly (I had no interest in bidding) but I'd discovered that people in this event were playing some weird things, so I was routinely asking about just about every Alert.

I received the explanation from South (New Minor Forcing, for those scoring at home) and promptly passed. At this point North turned to me and asked "can we all agree that there's been a break in tempo here?" I acknowledged having asked a question but denied a BIT, and suggested he call the director.

The TD (Matt Smith) arrived and North duly explained what had happened. The TD then explained that asking a question in response to an Alert was a normal and expected thing and suggested we continue the auction. North slammed his cards back into the board and crossed his arms defiantly across his chest, refusing to continue. Only some deft diplomacy from the TD defused the situation.

[blackshoe]

Coelacanth, on 2011-March-24, 11:59, said:

I acknowledged having asked a question but denied a BIT, and suggested he call the director.

Quote

Law 16B2: When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he 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. The opponents should summon the director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed.

The emphasis is mine. In practice I don't suppose it really matters who calls the TD though.

I suppose your opponent could have been saying that the BIT was your prompt (fast?) pass, once you got the answer to your question. If so, though, he should have told the TD that.

Diplomacy is good. The alternative would seem to have been a DP of some kind, which would probably have made things worse.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2011-March-23, 13:17, said:

You mean that you will, unprompted, announce that believe that you've received UI?

I find it quite irritating when people do that. It's usually an unwanted distraction, and it also conveys UI to your partner, who may be unaware of the original UI. That probably makes it illegal too.

I think you would do better to concentrate on doing what the rules say you should do, and leave the opponents in peace. If they think their rights need protecting, I expect they can do it for themselves.

My regular partner and I occasionally do this, after a long BIT which was obvious to everyone. Is it really so distracting for a player to say something like "agreed hesitation" before taking a bid after a very long tank by partner?