[FrancesHinden]

There's "reserving your rights" in the technical Lawbook sense as described here.
There's also something else that happens in EBU teams matches, which should really be called something else.

Many matches in the EBU (either in EBU events, or in county events) are played privately, at someone's house. If you need a TD's ruling, you telephone one (a list of phone numbers if provided). It's not uncommon for a technical ruling to agreed at the table with reference to a lawbook, although it depends on the players.

If you need a judgement ruling, or you think you might need a judgement ruling (such as the one here, where the opponents suggested there was misinformation), then the conditions of contest say:

"The equivalent of summoning the Director in accordance with Law 9B1 is to
inform one’s opponents at the table that one wishes to have a ruling. The
request for a ruling must be specific and must be made before the protesting
side calls on the next board, or the end of the round, whichever is the sooner.
.....
Any comment at the table which points to the possibility of an irregularity
draws attention to the irregularity within the meaning of Law 9B1(a).
.....
The player who suggests that an irregularity may have occurred which could
have damaged his side should normally have raised the question (as for
example by reserving his rights) before the board is quitted....he should confirm his wish to have a ruling before the players go to compare scores for that set of boards."

(I've snipped some other bits, so don't bother pointing out things that are missing)

So for this type of match, the phrase "reserved their rights" is shorthand for
- they believed there was an irregularity
- they "want" a ruling, although they may change their mind after comparing scores

[boris3161]

Thanks, Frances. In this particular case, it was a match held at someone's house and no TD was present to give an immediate ruling. As it happens the result on that particular board was not critical to the outcome of the match.

Thank you all for your comments.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Mar 2 2009, 08:53 PM, said:

I suppose one might postulate a scenario where the OS agree at the time to the potentially UI providing action, and then when the NOS call the director later because they feel UI may have been used, the OS says "BIT? What BIT? There was no BIT." I won't say that could never happen, but I expect it would be a very rare occurrence.

The Laws, particularly the one that allows reserving the right to call the TD later, mostly presume that the players are honest and reasonable. They make mistakes, but they are not deliberately dishonest. So a player agreeing during the auction that there was a BIT, and later denying it when the TD arrives, should not occur. It's essentially cheating.

[Phil]

mtvesuvius, on Feb 26 2009, 10:50 AM, said:

Gerben reminded me of my favorite weak 2 story... When I originally learned bridge I learned from a cruise director. She tought be the basics, including that I must have 7 ponts in my suit to open a weak 2. I must also have 6 cards in the suit. I must not have any outside aces. I must not have any outside 4 card major. And so I am still waiting for her kind of weak 2... Anyway, my father and I were playing a regional with her and her husband and I decided to have some fun, after all, we were up by 37 at the half. So Red on Red I pick up:

♠ 94
♥ 854
♦ 76532
♣ 842

A beautiful yarbourough!

RHO dealt and passed. I opened 2♦, and LHO went into the tank... Poor lady had 28 HCP. She doubled, my partner bid 3♦, passed back to her. She decided to bid 3♠ now... Passed by her partner who held an 8 count .

We came back to compare, and our partners were yellling and screaming at each other over who should have bid the grand on this hand... They reached the small slam and were quite dissapointed to not get to the grand. I told them to shut up and relax. We compared and her husband asked what happened on the board at our table... So I went and got my hand and showed her. She berated me for the next 2 hours, and I'm still laughing.

There's a couple of jokers around LA that tell this story (I might have posted this a few years ago but its one of my favorites). They are diehard EHAA players. The auction goes:

Joker1: "2♥" (alert by Joker2) with a five count and five hearts.

Little Old Man North (sitting with a balanced 17):"What's that?"

Joker2: "5-9 points, 5-6 hearts"

LOMN: "Hrmph, pass"

Joker2: "2N" (alerted by Joker1) with zero points and 3 hearts

Little Old Man South (sitting with a balanced 18): "What is THIS?"

Joker1: "Ogust" - asks me for further description.

LOMS: "Pass" (with a disgusting look)

Joker1: 3♣ (same dialogue continues, LOMN passes)

Joker 2: 3♥.

All Pass (!).

Dummy comes down and opponents scream for the cops. No adjustment says the director, all bids were explained properly.

Declarer goes -250 or some silly number.

Then the opponents look at declarer's hand and call for the cops again.

LOMN: "These boys need to provide a suggested defense against this system"

Director: No they don't; its all GCC legal.

When the round is called, Joker1 can't help himself:

"Sir the recommended defense against this opening is not to pass with a combined 35 points"

[neilkaz]

LOL at all the OTB whining one has to put up with from cry babies. Phil's story reminds me of one of my own, noting that Ogust or Feature Ask over weak 2's is one of the most common psychs.

About 20 years ago, I was playing at a So Cal club with one of my regular PD's who happens to be 6'6" and a decorated ex-Green Beret with lots of combat experience. I opened a 2M and he asked for a feature and I rebid my suit, having nothing to show and he passed and dummy came down with 3 small trumps and nothing else and we went for -250 for a cold top since the opps have trivially easy games.

RHO was loudly complaining when my PD stood over him and said, forcefully, "I'll bid whatever the hell I want to, is that OK with you?". That ended his whining quite quickly.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on Mar 3 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

The Laws, particularly the one that allows reserving the right to call the TD later, mostly presume that the players are honest and reasonable. They make mistakes, but they are not deliberately dishonest. So a player agreeing during the auction that there was a BIT, and later denying it when the TD arrives, should not occur. It's essentially cheating.

Of course. That's one reason I said I expect it would rarely happen.

[Ant590]

blackshoe, on Mar 4 2009, 06:19 AM, said:

barmar, on Mar 3 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

The Laws, particularly the one that allows reserving the right to call the TD later, mostly presume that the players are honest and reasonable.  They make mistakes, but they are not deliberately dishonest.  So a player agreeing during the auction that there was a BIT, and later denying it when the TD arrives, should not occur.  It's essentially cheating.

Of course. That's one reason I said I expect it would rarely happen.

I've had it happen where the opponents have agreed when the director was present at the table, and then in their subsequent appeal denied any BIT. Alas despite a regular well-respected BBO forum poster chairing the appeal, this was not mentioned as a misdemeanour. I guess it's more difficult when angry players are present!

[blackshoe]

AC chair, to appellant: Did you agree there was a BIT at the table?
Appellant, variant one: No.
AC chair, to TD: Did the appellant agree to the BIT at the table?
TD: Yes, he did.
AC chair: There was a BIT. Appellant is fined one full board disciplinary penalty for lying to the AC.

Appellant, variant two: Yes.
AC chair: Why then do you now say there was no BIT?
Appellant explains.
AC chair: There was/was not a BIT (depending on the explanation, but it is likely that the explanation will not suffice to rule no BIT).