[blackshoe]

I don't think I've ever heard of that happening.

[aguahombre]

From a couple years ago against a top pair:

"Break in tempo noted?" (LHO)
(silent shrug from me)
"I disagree in the context of the auction" (RHO)
"Your choice." (me)
(shrug from LHO)

And we went about our business.

[blackshoe]

Fair enough, although it sounds a bit like "I tried to put something over on them, and they didn't buy it. Oh, well."

Anyway, the point is that the law requires the side which is alleged to have provided UI to call the TD if they don't agree that they did so. If you want to ignore that, fine, but if something bad happens to you, don't go crying to the TD.

[bluejak]

 blackshoe, on 2011-November-26, 11:36, said:

I don't think I've ever heard of that happening.

I said to LHO "I believe you thought a long time before your double."
LHO: "No, I don’t think so."
RHO: "Didn't seem that way to me."
CHO: "Nor me."
So I shrugged my shoulders and on we went.



I think one of the silliest ideas [stated a number of times on RGB] is that you have to say “reserving rights”. Of course you don’t: when it says you reserve your rights it does not say you have to use that language.

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2011-November-25, 11:10, said:

In the EBU, I believe there is a similar phrasing, which is what Robin is basing his argument off.

Do you really base an argument "off" something in Canada, rather than "on" something?

 campboy, on 2011-November-26, 09:09, said:

What we want to "reserve" is the ability to call him later without jeopardising our chances of establishing the facts. If there is going to be any dispute about whether there was a hesitation we should call the TD now.

I strongly prefer "do you agree there was a hesitation" to "I'd like to reserve my rights".

 blackshoe, on 2011-November-26, 09:51, said:

So do I. Of course, the usual reaction is "no", and the opponents do not call the TD as they are required to do. So we have to call him.

This sort of sums up the problem with "reserving one's rights". As another poster noted above, people who do it usually have no idea what it means. What it does not do is establish the facts.

[blackshoe]

In another thread, David said that the ACBL recommends that players call the TD immediately when they believe UI has been made available. I suggested that this contradicts the current state of ACBL elections, which has changed in the current laws as compared to the 1997 version, when calling the TD immediately was required, so if TDs are still recommending it, IMO they're wrong.

It's hard to establish the facts, however you try to do it, particularly when your opponents are prone to reflexively deny any UI is present, usually because they think you're accusing them of doing something wrong, and of course they didn't (and you aren't, but they don't recognize that).

[aguahombre]

It is not the player's duty or job to establish the facts. Excercising his right to determine whether there is agreement about the facts should not be a problem. And when one's own partner agrees with the opponents' version, their alleged obligation to call the TD at that point seems strange. "Don't cry later" would also seem to be an overbid, since you have testimonial evidence on your side.

[barmar]

I believe the point of this Law is as follows: You can't get a judgement on a BIT issue until after the hand is over, because you need to determine a result to decide if there was damage. However, we should try to ascertain the fact of the BIT as soon as possible. If we wait until the hand is over, players are likely to have forgotten this detail if no one called their attention to it. So we call attention to it immediately. If there's general agreement about the BIT, there's no need to get the TD involved now, we simply point out that we'll call him later if we feel damaged -- that's "reserving rights". On the other hand, if there's no agreement, we DO need the TD now, because we need him to decide the facts.

In general, when someone asks "Do we agree there was a hesitation?", it's implicit that they intend to seek a ruling if they feel damaged. It's not really necessary for them to state that they reserve their rights, it's obvious.

[bluejak]

Reserving rights is a means of establishing facts, which is a necessity for players to do if possible. What it is not is a phrase that needs to be said.



Yes, the ACBL now allows reserving rights, so my ACBL advice is outdated. Nevertheless, I expect the timing is unchanged: in the ACBL the recommended time to agree such things is after the alleged UI: elsewhere it has often been after the action that may have been based on UI.