[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-January-27, 11:11, said:

You're only supposed to "reserve your rights" when there is agreement that the UI-generating action occurred.

What is the point of agreeing the facts and "reserving your rights"?

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-January-27, 13:58, said:

What is the point of agreeing the facts and "reserving your rights"?

Here's the whole quoted law 16B2:

Quote

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 point seems to be to make it clear when the potential UI was transmitted, and give the opponents the opportunity to agree or dispute while everything is fresh in their mind. But unless the facts are disputed, there's no point in calling the TD until the consequences become apparent.

You could wait until the end of the hand before saying anything, but it will be more likely that the other players will have forgotten what exactly transpired at the moment when UI was supposedly transmitted. It's often hard enough to get agreement immediately after, it will be even harder 5 minutes later.

[barmar]

And in case anyone is curious, there's currently no change to 16B2 in the draft 2017 laws.

[mycroft]

"reserving your rights" means "I'm not calling the TD now, but if I think the UI was used, I'm not giving up my opportunity to do so". As I said, it begs the question of whether there was UI transmitted, and the opponents, if they disagree with the (begged) premise, are required by law to summon the TD now and get that resolved. The problem is that the phrase "reserving my rights" does not, unless you know the law quote, make it possible to understand the issues (and sounds pretty legalese and high-handed, at least to me). At best what you'll get is "what rights?"

Frequently what happens after this is that they did something that could have been based on the UI, then the TD is called, and now when I try to agree the facts, the prospective OS says "what hesitation? There wasn't a hesitation." To which the rights-reserver gets livid, because the pause was absolutely clear, and he even made sure they agreed when he said he "reserved his rights". Oh goody, I get to start from everybody is angry.

Having said all of that, it is not necessary to reserve your rights, you are allowed to do so, but the Laws apply whether you do or not. Given that "1300 MPs" has a case that went to appeal documented when he didn't say anything at all until the end of the hand (but it was obvious to anybody that there *had to be* UI from the auction), "he" knows this for a fact. But again, without getting agreement to the UI transmission at the time, it becomes harder and harder to prove your case as more and more time passes between the transmission and the TD call.

[pran]

mycroft, on 2017-January-27, 15:55, said:

[...]
Having said all of that, it is not necessary to reserve your rights, you are allowed to do so, but the Laws apply whether you do or not. Given that "1300 MPs" has a case that went to appeal documented when he didn't say anything at all until the end of the hand (but it was obvious to anybody that there *had to be* UI from the auction), "he" knows this for a fact. But again, without getting agreement to the UI transmission at the time, it becomes harder and harder to prove your case as more and more time passes between the transmission and the TD call.

And because of that we in Norway advise players against "reserving rights" but rather to ask a question like: "Do we agree that there was a break in tempo here?".

If opponents disagree then the Director should be summoned forthwith, not to rule on UI but to establish facts on BIT.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2017-January-27, 11:11, said:

You're only supposed to "reserve your rights" when there is agreement that the UI-generating action occurred.

No. Law 16B2 is quite clear:

Quote

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.

So you think UI was conveyed, you reserve your rights. If your opponents disagree, they are supposed to call the TD. At the time you reserve your rights, you have no idea whether there is agreement or not.

barmar, on 2017-January-27, 11:11, said:

The point of it is to avoid wasting time with the director until you've seen something that suggests that the UI was used improperly. In most UI cases, the only thing the TD will do if you call him immediately is tell you to play out the hand and call him back later to determine if anything needs to be adjusted. But often the players can tell by themselves, e.g. when dummy comes down, the opponents will agree that the action was clear-cut.

Agree with this part.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-28, 02:14, said:

So you think UI was conveyed, you reserve your rights. If your opponents disagree, they are supposed to call the TD. At the time you reserve your rights, you have no idea whether there is agreement or not.

There is a footnote: "3 It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later." So you can just wait until you have seen dummy or seen whether you are damaged.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-28, 02:14, said:

No. Law 16B2 is quite clear:
So you think UI was conveyed, you reserve your rights. If your opponents disagree, they are supposed to call the TD. At the time you reserve your rights, you have no idea whether there is agreement or not.

Essentially the same thing. The point is that you draw attention to the UI, and if the opponents agree then you can defer calling the TD. If they don't agree, the TD is called immediately.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-28, 02:14, said:

No. Law 16B2 is quite clear:
So you think UI was conveyed, you reserve your rights. If your opponents disagree, they are supposed to call the TD. At the time you reserve your rights, you have no idea whether there is agreement or not.

Right. So the real problem, even if you don't think that "I reserve my rights" is aggressive, is that it is not practical. How many players will translate that to "I believe that you or your partner have made UI available in the recent past. If you disagree you should speak up".

And if an opponent did speak up, what would they say? "I reserve my rights" is a statement, with no suggestion that a response is required or desired. I suppose you could have a series of "oh no you don't" "oh yes I do", but anyone who has ever been to the pantomime will be aware that exchanges of this sort do not accomplish anything.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2017-January-28, 10:39, said:

There is a footnote: "3 It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later." So you can just wait until you have seen dummy or seen whether you are damaged.

That footnote is to Law 16B3, not Law 16B2.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2017-January-28, 14:33, said:

Right. So the real problem, even if you don't think that "I reserve my rights" is aggressive, is that it is not practical. How many players will translate that to "I believe that you or your partner have made UI available in the recent past. If you disagree you should speak up".

And if an opponent did speak up, what would they say? "I reserve my rights" is a statement, with no suggestion that a response is required or desired. I suppose you could have a series of "oh no you don't" "oh yes I do", but anyone who has ever been to the pantomime will be aware that exchanges of this sort do not accomplish anything.

I don't think your "no you don't" "yes I do" scenario is likely to happen. If somebody said "I reserve my rights" and I didn't understand what he was doing, I'd simply ask him to explain himself.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-28, 15:54, said:

I don't think your "no you don't" "yes I do" scenario is likely to happen. If somebody said "I reserve my rights" and I didn't understand what he was doing, I'd simply ask him to explain himself.

I would ignore him.

[blackshoe]

If he calls the director later, will you argue that he should have done so when he reserved his rights?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-28, 15:27, said:

That footnote is to Law 16B3, not Law 16B2.

Indeed. But that is when you think UI may have been used. You do not need to call the TD until you think that is the case.

[blackshoe]

If you think UI may have been made available, you may, but do not have to, reserve your rights. If you say nothing, and later, say at the end of play, call the TD because you think UI may have been used, and the opps say "what UI? There wasn't any UI - as evidenced by the fact nobody brought it up at the time" how do you expect the TD will rule?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-29, 14:02, said:

If you think UI may have been made available, you may, but do not have to, reserve your rights. If you say nothing, and later, say at the end of play, call the TD because you think UI may have been used, and the opps say "what UI? There wasn't any UI - as evidenced by the fact nobody brought it up at the time" how do you expect the TD will rule?

As per 85A1: 1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect. And I expect the opponents to agree that there was a break in tempo if there was one. They could equally deny the BIT if the TD were called immediately.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-29, 14:02, said:

If you think UI may have been made available, you may, but do not have to, reserve your rights. If you say nothing, and later, say at the end of play, call the TD because you think UI may have been used, and the opps say "what UI? There wasn't any UI - as evidenced by the fact nobody brought it up at the time" how do you expect the TD will rule?

OK, well you do not seem to understand. Instead of "reserving your rights" why not simply agree the facts. When someone "reserves their rights" the opponents may not know which bid they are referring to, or may not understand what they are talking about, and if the director is summoned at the end may not remember whether or not there was a BIT or may disagree.

[blackshoe]

I do understand, and I have no problem with "agree the facts". What I was trying to say is that the purpose of Law 16B2 is to try to prevent or minimize arguments after the fact about whether UI existed or not. As to not knowing which bid a player is referring to, that's nonsense, or should be, because the "reserving" should come after an opponent's bid and before his partner's.

[barmar]

I think the idea is that you don't just say "I reserve my right to call the TD". You draw attention to the action with the potential UI. Then if they agree, you say you'll call the TD later if there's an issue. If they don't, someone calls the TD to sort it out.

[mycroft]

As I said, I think "I reserve my rights" is a legalistic and aggressive (because it implies that "of course my judgement is right and there was UI") way of saying "Do we agree there was UI passed here?"

I also think it's counterproductive, because there are many (and they are the ones that get pushed out of the game by the A players, at least in Other City, by being treated like this) for whom the legalese means nothing, so the accusation of use of UI that comes later is a total surprise, and the fact that they "agreed" to its existence even more so. So you get the fight over the UI later, which is what that rigamarole is intended to prevent. And after a few rounds of that (and the "I could call the TD and get this reversed, but I won't" (I'll just lecture you on how bad you were instead)), well, there are other games to play.

It's legal; it works if everybody knows what's going on; but we should be convincing people that there is a better way to reserve one's rights, and strongly suggesting they use it; to the point of penalizing them the same way we penalize any other lack of full disclosure against players who were confused as a result if necessary. While still ruling on the potential UI case correctly and sympathetically, of course.

Yes, we should also be teaching the newer players that if the opponents say something you don't understand that is clearly relevant to the play, call the TD. "How may I help?" "This person just said 'I reserve my rights.' I don't understand what is going on." We should also be teaching all players that they need to spend at least a little of their "bridge reading" time reading the Laws and Regulations, with the penalty being that we will call you on it straight up just like any other game when you do something obscure, but wrong; and will have just as much sympathy. I'd love to have the conversation in the bar be "yeah, it's stupid, but that's the Law. You should have known that was what was going to happen." rather than "I hear you. Everybody would have done that too."