[VixTD]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-20, 07:46, said:

There is no obligation in the law for any player to ensure that any other player understands the implications of UI. The letter of the law says you simply reserve your rights. Current "best practice" suggests you solicit agreeement that something an opponent did may present UI. If they don't agree, or don't understand what that means, it is up to them to call the TD.

When an experienced pair sit down to play against a pair of novices and announce they are "reserving their rights" when one of them hesitates, and it's clear the novices probably don't understand what this means, the onus is on the experienced pair to call the director to make sure the situation is explained to them. To do otherwise is just gamesmanship, despicable behaviour and a breach of law 74A.

The TD should remind all players of the need to call the director if they need the laws and procedures explaining, but I'd be horrified if the TD blamed the weaker pair for not knowing to call him in this situation.

[blackshoe]

VixTD, on 2013-September-20, 11:03, said:

When an experienced pair sit down to play against a pair of novices and announce they are "reserving their rights" when one of them hesitates, and it's clear the novices probably don't understand what this means, the onus is on the experienced pair to call the director to make sure the situation is explained to them. To do otherwise is just gamesmanship, despicable behaviour and a breach of law 74A.

The TD should remind all players of the need to call the director if they need the laws and procedures explaining, but I'd be horrified if the TD blamed the weaker pair for not knowing to call him in this situation.

So would I, but my point was that the law does not address this - it assumes that all players are equally aware of the laws. So while I agree with your first paragraph, and implement it when something like this happens at my table, I'm going beyond what the law requires when doing so. As for 74A, please specify which part of this law would have been breached in this scenario, and which specific action(s) breached it.

[VixTD]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-20, 16:09, said:

As for 74A, please specify which part of this law would have been breached in this scenario, and which specific action(s) breached it.

It's just discourteous (74A1) and causes embarrassment to their opponents (74A2). It could be avoided at no cost to anyone by calling the director.

[blackshoe]

It's discourteous and embarrassing to act within the law?

[mycroft]

When you are quite certain that the opponents do not understand either the Law or your jargon, yes. It is possible to "reserve your rights" without using the Jargon (unless you're a Lawyer or in Manglement), in such a way that the later TD call will not be a surprise, nor the reason for it unrelatable to the "reserve rights" comment to the un-Law-savvy opponents.

"Do we agree on the long hesitation?" "Do you understand your rights and obligations, or should we call the TD?"

If you make a mistake, and the 1400MP players in the separate flight A game don't understand it yet (except when it happens against them), then you're on the right side of the discourteous Propriety.

[blackshoe]

"I reserve my right to call the director" is not "jargon", it's plain English. Yes, it's possible, and probably better, to do it another way, but it is neither illegal nor discourteous to follow the law.

[c_corgi]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-23, 10:26, said:

"I reserve my right to call the director" is not "jargon", it's plain English. Yes, it's possible, and probably better, to do it another way, but it is neither illegal nor discourteous to follow the law.

It always confuses me. Is the right to call the director something that needs to be reserved? It often sounds more like a euphemism for "I want to disparage your ethics, but I want to do so in the absence of the director and I don't want to fall foul of BB@B [or ZT or whatever the local regulation is]."

[blackshoe]

IMO no right needs to be reserved. But the law says that's what you do.

[mycroft]

"I reserve my rights" is the usual way it's phrased, when I've had issues with a later director call and a totally confused pair of opponents. "...to call the TD" would help. Actually stating what you think is an issue, and calling the TD (who shouldn't think that failing to use the magic words is a problem) if there is either disagreement on the UI, or potential use of it, seems like a more polite thing to do when you *know* that the other ways will just be gobbledygook.

[Vampyr]

campboy, on 2013-September-17, 12:26, said:

There are lots of high-level competitive situations where a couple of seconds would be normal.

It is too bad that more jurisdictions do not use the STOP card for competitive auctions at the 3-level or above.

[f0rdy]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-24, 09:44, said:

It is too bad that more jurisdictions do not use the STOP card for competitive auctions at the 3-level or above.

I agree, but: can you imagine more than a very small percentage of the general bridge population taking any notice of an instruction to use the STOP card in competitive auctions?

My impressions¹ of use of the STOP card in the EBU at the moment is that perhaps 1-2% use it as directed by the regulations, and another 10-20% hold it out for 5 seconds or so at the appropriate times.

Are there jurisdictions in which a STOP card regulation is followed accurately by most of the bridge players there?

¹gained in either provincial club bridge, or meandering around the middle (45-65% of max VPs) of Brighton Swiss events; I don't think there's a meaningful difference in levels of compliance between the two.