[pstansbu]

Partner was too quick for me the other night and bid 2♦ whilst I was still sorting my cards. I'm not a slow card sorter, I think one of the opponents had asked me a question about the score, I'd looked at the bridgemate and answered. Meantime RHO and partner had sorted cards so I might have been a few seconds behind.

RHO asked a question starting with "what", I looked up, saw 2♦ on the table and said "that's weak". RHO said "I asked what do you play, not whether it's weak." I then answered "4 card Majors, weak NT, 3 weak 2s, it's a one off game so nothing too complex. Is that what you wanted to know?" RHO asked "why didn't you alert?". I added it was a standard weak 2 so only needed announcing (ebu land) and apologised for being slow as I was sorting my cards . LHO agreed that he had seen me still sorting so probably hadn't seen the bid. RHO muttered something about reserving rights but let's play on.

Nothing further ensued. I know the weak 2 is announceable, I'm not sure what rights, if any were being reserved. Was RHO just being grumpy or have I missed something?

[barmar]

Sounds like grumpy to me.

We don't announce weak 2's over here, but we announce opening 1NT range. And I know there have been occasional times when I didn't notice partner's 1NT on the table right away, because I was still sorting or otherwise distracted. As soon as I see it, I make the announcement.

[wank]

your opp is a moron

[wanoff]

You have missed that there are a lot of arseholes about.

[axman]

 pstansbu, on 2017-January-26, 10:23, said:

Partner was too quick for me the other night and bid 2♦ whilst I was still sorting my cards. I'm not a slow card sorter, I think one of the opponents had asked me a question about the score, I'd looked at the bridgemate and answered. Meantime RHO and partner had sorted cards so I might have been a few seconds behind.

RHO asked a question starting with "what", I looked up, saw 2♦ on the table and said "that's weak". RHO said "I asked what do you play, not whether it's weak." I then answered "4 card Majors, weak NT, 3 weak 2s, it's a one off game so nothing too complex. Is that what you wanted to know?" RHO asked "why didn't you alert?". I added it was a standard weak 2 so only needed announcing (ebu land) and apologised for being slow as I was sorting my cards . LHO agreed that he had seen me still sorting so probably hadn't seen the bid. RHO muttered something about reserving rights but let's play on.

Nothing further ensued. I know the weak 2 is announceable, I'm not sure what rights, if any were being reserved. Was RHO just being grumpy or have I missed something?

I think that a sponsoring organization fails its membership if it doesn't have a regulation requiring players to not start the auction until everyone (at least) appears to be ready. Satisfying such a regulation would avoid confrontations such as this.

[mycroft]

So, luckily, in the EBU, there is no such thing as an opening 2 with no statement from partner. Therefore, if there is no statement, it means that partner needs to be prompted to give one. RHO did. You answered. You even explained why you didn't immediately answer. You had a lapse, but clearly not one intending to either misinform or pass UI (as opposed to *most* of the 1NT non-responders here, who are still firmly in the "why do I have to do this?" camp, 25 years after Announcements got changed to include their precious 15-17).

We don't have the issue in England that we do here, where after our 2♦ opener, we frequently, but not always, get asked what it is. Note that there is exactly one unAlertable meaning for an opening 2♦. I do notice that if we don't get asked about it, we're much more likely to be playing it, and any finesse through declarer's RHO works...

I think somebody got crabby, and fine. I think my response to "mumble mumble reserve rights" would be to call the TD and explain the "This happened, and RHO wishes to reserve his rights. I'm not sure I understand what rights he's reserving. Can you please assist?" Put up or shut up, in other words. But I've been known to be passive-aggressive.

[blackshoe]

Nothing passive about that, Mycroft. :-)

[mycroft]

Well, maybe. Especially if they know what I do on my holidays.

But it is my suggestion whenever people get on their "I could call the TD for this but..." or "There's no problem, but <describe problem-in-their-mind here>" horses.

[blackshoe]

Not unreasonable.

[pstansbu]

 mycroft, on 2017-January-26, 15:32, said:

But it is my suggestion whenever people get on their "I could call the TD for this but..." or "There's no problem, but <describe problem-in-their-mind here>" horses.

Seems a good idea - we often have a playing TD and I know some people say this to avoid unnecessary distraction, but they will explain what they think their rights are and check if this is okay with us, so we could call the TD up front or agree. This was more of an unknown grumpy quantity, so your approach would have been sensible.

I guess some people might even do this tactically to try and put you on the back foot, start thinking about what you might have done wrong etc. rather than focus on game. This way you turn the tables, showing they don't know what they're talking about.

[Trinidad]

 axman, on 2017-January-26, 12:15, said:

I think that a sponsoring organization fails its membership if it doesn't have a regulation requiring players to not start the auction until everyone (at least) appears to be ready. Satisfying such a regulation would avoid confrontations such as this.

i strongly disagree. Often starting the auction is the most practical way to stop opponents discussing the previous board.

You can ask them politely to start the next board, and they will ignore you (because you have no business interfering with their "pleasure of the game"). But once you have started the auction, they will know that they are supposed to play bridge. Starting the auction on the new board is a pretty powerful gesture that doesn't lead to ill feelings.

(The actual situation is quite different since it was an opponent starting the chatting, about the score on the previous board.)

Rik

[weejonnie]

 wank, on 2017-January-26, 10:55, said:

your opp is a moron

Or more likely an SB type player who noticed a break in tempo. (If your partner bid a very quick 2♦ you have UI that his bid was 'pure' and there was nothing for him to think about - which suggests that he is probably in the middle of the range. i.e. not a borderline 1♦ call or a 'pass')

Otherwise - the OP was asked a question, didn't answer it and it was then re-asked. RHO made an error in assming a weak 2♦ call is alerted.

Am a bit surprised he asked the OP on the second/ third hand of the set as presumably the OP wasn't answering questions from a different set of boards.

[Zelandakh]

Reserving tights is something that is not well understood at club level. It comes from Law 16B2:

Quote

2. 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 "reserving rights" is the equivalent of saying that you have created meaningful UI. Since you are in England, the EBU has this to say on the subject (White Book, page 7):

Quote

Although there are circumstances under Law 16 where a player may ‘reserve their rights’, it is usually better to call the TD. This assumes there is a non-playing 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 their rights.

In practice 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.

However, it is very important to call the TD immediately when:

(a) a player doesn’t answer questions about the meaning of a call (or play);
(b) a player corrects any information they or their partner has given – and this includes saying that a call should or should not have been alerted even if it was not permitted for the player to make such a correction (see Law 20F5 (b));
© there is conflicting information about the meaning of a call or play, e.g. when an explanation is different from the system card – even if it is clear which explanation is correct there may have been misinformation or unauthorised information;
(d) there is an insufficient bid;
(e) there is a lead, play or call out of turn;
(f) there is a defender’s exposed card;
(g) there is a dispute over a claim;
(h) there is any bad behaviour.

In other words, if you do not understand or do not think that there is any UI, you should in theory call for the TD. In practise, just continuing here was perfectly ok as it is clear that your delayed announcement does not demonstrably suggest anything. Rik's idea that the opening 2♦ being fast would be somewhat different. As far as I can tell, it was not established that the opening bid was anything other than in tempo and that would require the TD.

Finally, once the auction has begun your opponents are technically not allowed to ask about your general system any more, only the existing auction and alternative calls relevant to that. The auction period begins for your opps as soon as one of them withdraws their cards from the board.

Despite all of the above, sadly the real truth is what wanoff wrote, there are quite a lot of bridge players around that are less than well behaved. Basically you either put up with this sort of thing (with or without the passive-aggressive responses) or give up the game. One of the major advantages of online platforms like BBO is precisely that you can just leave when you get an unfriendly person at your table as there are plenty of others around. In a club setting, it is not possible to avoid them so best to get used to it early and try to make sure it does not take you off your game too badly.

[Vampyr]

I have always thought that saying you are "reserving your rights" is a little aggressive. You don't lose rights you don't "reserve". In my experience, you either agree the facts or call the TD. What is the purpose of reserving you rights? What does it even mean?

[blackshoe]

From the Oxford American Dictionary: reserve: • retain or hold (an entitlement to something), especially by formal or legal stipulation: [with object and infinitive] : the editor reserves the right to edit letters.

So to "reserve one's rights" means to retain or hold them. Generally where UI is concerned you do that anyway, you don't have to specify that you're doing so.

I think the idea behind this law is that when UI may have been generated, there is not an infraction yet, but it is better to avoid "yes he did" "no I didn't" arguments when later there is alleged to have been the infraction of "using" UI. So if the two sides agree there was UI, there should be no problem on that score later. However, if there is a disagreement on the question, the side alleged to have passed the UI is supposed to call the director themselves. In fact, failure to call the TD (instead of the usual arguing about the question) is an infraction in itself.

Many people feel, as you do, that "I reserve my rights" is a bit aggressive, so they prefer to ask the opponents if they agree there was UI. But consider this: whichever way you proceed, if they argue, they clearly are not going to comply with the law and call the TD, so you should do so. If you just reserve your rights, and they say nothing, they have tacitly agreed that UI is present, and if the director is called later and they then argue there wasn't any UI, the director should rule otherwise, since if they disagreed they should have called him then. If you ask if they agree about the UI, they'll say so if they do, and argue, or at least say "no", if they don't. So take your choice as to whether to ask or reserve your rights.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2017-January-27, 09:41, said:

If you just reserve your rights, and they say nothing, they have tacitly agreed that UI is present, and if the director is called later and they then argue there wasn't any UI, the director should rule otherwise, since if they disagreed they should have called him then. If you ask if they agree about the UI, they'll say so if they do, and argue, or at least say "no", if they don't. So take your choice as to whether to ask or reserve your rights.

Asking seems not only more polite, but more accurate as well, since it seems nvolves specifying exactly how UI was generated.

[mycroft]

Yes, as I have said before, I much prefer "Do we agree that there was [UI-generating action] here?" and if there is no agreement, bring the TD. "I reserve my rights" is to my mind unnecessarily aggressive and legalistic, it's not a question (the implied question is mine above, and by this statement the player is begging the question), and unless the opponents know what this bit of legalese expands to and their options, is going to simply confuse. Never mind after the UI is "used", and now the TD call is made (or after the hand, for that matter), the player will state at the time of the UI that he reserved his rights and there was no objection, so clearly they agreed to the UI, which of course is - not always correct.

It may be the common way to do things in the UK (it isn't here), but I don't like it. Certainly "mumble mumble reserve rights", especially where the UI is "I didn't see the opener because I was sorting my cards, *and you know that*", isn't intended to be above board.

[lamford]

I think simplest is to just say "we agree that X was slow?". If there is a failure to alert, or a late alert, however, the TD has to be called, and I discovered that when there was a slow alert and my partner asked but then kept the same bid, that was UI to me, but if she had just called the TD and said "there was a slow alert" and nothing else, that would not have been UI, even thought it would have been clear that she wanted to bid after one possible meaning.

[barmar]

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

[pstansbu]

Very useful feedback. Also I hadn't thought about the speed of the first bid, presumably not pertinent to this case as all questions aimed at my actions, from a UI perspective.

In defence of grumpy pants this person is usually friendly though I haven't played against them a lot, but a few others have and say this was out of keeping - we all have those nights.

There might also have been a further misunderstanding that's occurred to me: both partner and I play Multi 2♦ in our respective, regular partnerships but our 2 level openings and continuations are different enough to get us in a tangle. So 3 weak 2s seemed a safe, neutral ground. So RHO might have remembered this and been asking what we play in the Multi (still not well articulated though) and thought I was misdescribing the bid etc.

Having said that though, if that was the case they would presumably be better off looking at our card to see if it aligned with my description and taken it from there.