[bluejak]

A correspondent asked:

Scoring: MP

.W. .N. .E. .S.
.... ..... .P. 1♦
Dbl .3♠ .P. 4♠
..P.. 5♦ .P. .P.
..P

Result:
5♦ = by S
Lead: ♣3

---

Mixed Pairs Event    E-W were seasoned campaigners   N-S were not a regular partnership.

North's 3S bid was not alerted and E-W called for TD and reserved rights.
 
N-S convention card was very sketchy and Splinter Bids were not listed although they claimed to have discussed that before play. South had clearly not interpreted 3S in this way initially.
 
The hand was played out with the contract succeeding.
 
E-W claimed that South had obtained UI from North's 'pull' and should be required to bid on to 5S whereupon South would be allowed to correct to 6D which West would double for 100 at least. 
 
East claimed that their side had been damaged as she would have doubled 3S to show that they held that suit to length. But if E-W subsequently bid on in spades to 'save' over 4D or even 5D they will likely concede a large vulnerable penalty.
 
The rule book clearly states that the Director awards an adjusted score if it is considered the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity - not in this case - (although failure to alert was an infringement). 

This seemed easy, and I have already given an opinion. But do you find it easy? And will your opinion agree with mine?

[Sadie3]

I would say results stand. East has no double of any kind over the 3S bid and the failure to alert did not damage the opps. E/W could possibly make 3S but that bid is not available to them and any higher contract would damage them considerably since N/S would never give up the contract below 5D. It is normal for north to pull 4S to 5D. South should not be punished for misunderstanding his partner's bid and the pull to 5D is normal in anyone's game.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Oct 5 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

E-W claimed that South had obtained UI from North's 'pull' and should be required to bid on to 5S whereupon South would be allowed to correct to 6D which West would double for 100 at least. 

That's not UI, that's AI. It's a bid partner made.
 

Quote

East claimed that their side had been damaged as she would have doubled 3S to show that they held that suit to length. But if E-W subsequently bid on in spades to 'save' over 4D or even 5D they will likely concede a large vulnerable penalty.

The only case I can imagine EW making is that if they had doubled 3♠ the auction might have gone differently such that NS would stop in 4♦. But splinters are generally played as forcing to game so I really don't see making any adjustment here.

I guess you know better than I do, if the 5♦ bid changes south's mind about what 3♠ meant into something that is alertable, shouldn't he tell EW? So maybe he should be penalized for that.

[awm]

The 5♦ call is authorized (it's a bid). I don't see any UI for south. North might have some UI due to the non-alert, but I can't see any logical alternative to 5♦ after south's 4♠ call (north is dead minimum for the splinter and it sounds like a heart control may be missing).

Certainly E/W were given some MI during the auction. If 5♠ were a profitable sacrifice, or the auction mislead E/W into a poor defense to 5♦, then I could certainly see adjusting. But neither of these seem to be the case, and I don't see any real damage due to the MI here.

Result stands.

[aguahombre]

certainly 5D is ok to bid, and the only bid by north. I guess South's actual hand tells him 5D is not a further move toward slam in spades. That is the only part of pass vs 5S that bothers me.

[jdonn]

aguahombre, on Oct 5 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

certainly 5D is ok to bid, and the only bid by north. I guess South's actual hand tells him 5D is not a further move toward slam in spades. That is the only part of pass vs 5S that bothers me.

If 3♠ is natural, a further move toward slam is not possible on this auction.

[aguahombre]

jdonn, on Oct 5 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Oct 5 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

certainly 5D is ok to bid, and the only bid by north.  I guess South's actual hand tells him 5D is not a further move toward slam in spades. That is the only part of pass vs 5S that bothers me.

If 3♠ is natural, a further move toward slam is not possible on this auction.

oops. surprised you responded instead of just laughing at me. thanks for that.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Oct 5 2009, 05:45 PM, said:

E-W called for TD and reserved rights.

I hate this. What is "reserving one's rights"? What rights is one supposed to lose if one does not reserve them?

Obviously the director must be called if the facts are not agreed, but if they are agreed why not just wait until the appropriate time and then call the director if you think it is necessary? I suspect that saying "I reserve my rights" is just an act of aggression and perhaps an attempt to intimidate.

[bluejak]

'Reserving your rights' is a normal process that occurs a lot in England with no suggestion of intimidation. You say

Quote

but if they are agreed why not just wait until the appropriate time and then call the director if you think it is necessary

and that is exactly what reserving your rights means. The fact that some people call the TD rather than just saying they are reserving them without the TD is generally ignorance not intimidation.

Anyway, how does that affect the ruling?

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on Oct 5 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

'Reserving your rights' is a normal process that occurs a lot in England with no suggestion of intimidation.

They called the TD, thereby reserving their rights. Not quite the same as "You ......'s watch out, I am reserving my rights."

[blackshoe]

"The laws are designed to define correct procedure". Law 16B2 says, in part, that a player "may announce…that he reserves the right to summon the director later". Therefore it is correct procedure to make such an announcement (the other preconditions existing). So even if a player is disposed to consider such an announcement accusatory, he should not, and in fact should probably be taught (by the director, not his opponents) that he should not.

It would perhaps be more palatable to those who don't like the "I reserve my rights" approach if the law suggested that players should ask opponents if they agree that UI may have been transmitted, rather than reserving rights, but the law does not do that.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Oct 5 2009, 11:58 PM, said:

'Reserving your rights' is a normal process that occurs a lot in England with no suggestion of intimidation.  You say

Quote

but if they are agreed why not just wait until the appropriate time and then call the director if you think it is necessary

and that is exactly what reserving your rights means.

Well, yes, but then why say it?

blackshoe said:

It would perhaps be more palatable to those who don't like the "I reserve my rights" approach if the law suggested that players should ask opponents if they agree that UI may have been transmitted, rather than reserving rights, but the law does not do that.

This is a problem with the law, or at least people's understanding of it. Some people don't realise that what is important is agreeing the facts. So they will say that they "reserve their rights" instead of actually agreeing the facts, which may then be in dispute by the time the appropriate time to call the director arrives.

In any case, I do not really understand why the law advocates uttering a phrase with no meaning whatsoever.

[Trinidad]

I am with Stephanie on this:

The way it is written now, law 16B2 ("you are allowed to reserve your rights to call the TD") is nonsense. After all, you also have the right to call the TD if you didn't "reserve your rights". Therefore, it doesn't add anything.

What would be meaningful (and what in my mind can be the only reason why we have this meaningless phrase to begin with) is to establish the facts "right then and there". (e.g. by asking: "Do we agree that there was a hesitation before the 3♣ bid?") If all agree on the facts (which is what usually happens), there is no reason to call the TD, at this point.

But why doesn't Law 16B2 say that then?

Rik

[Echognome]

I am with Stephanie and Rik to a point, but the problem could be one where the problem wasn't, say, a hesitation. To give an extreme example, suppose that instead of hesitating, that RHO winced or winked or smacked their head, or did some other silly action that would convey UI. Perhaps, you need to to establish the specific fact you think will be necesary for the infraction at hand. So, what do we think is the best thing to state:

1. "Can we agree that you winced?" (or insert the specific action)

2. "Can we agree that you might have conveyed UI?"

3. "I reserve my rights."

The problem with 1. is that your opponent's partner may not have observed the action at all. So although it does a great job at agreeing a specific fact, it does a horrible job at trying to be able to play the board normally.

The problem with 2 is that you are bordering on an accusation and people will be confused about using jargon from the laws and then there might be a lengthy discussion as to what UI is and how this might have been conveyed.

The problem with 3 is that it doesn't establish any specific facts.

I personally like 1, but I think they each have their pluses and minuses.

[jdonn]

This was a nice thread hijacking...

[lamford]

Vampyr, on Oct 5 2009, 11:05 PM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 5 2009, 11:58 PM, said:

'Reserving your rights' is a normal process that occurs a lot in England with no suggestion of intimidation.  You say

Quote

but if they are agreed why not just wait until the appropriate time and then call the director if you think it is necessary

and that is exactly what reserving your rights means.

Well, yes, but then why say it?

Because this is a facility offered to them under 16B2, and this gives the opponents a chance to call the director, if, for example, they disputed the facts.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on Oct 6 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

Because this is a facility offered to them under 16B2, and this gives the opponents a chance to call the director, if, for example, they disputed the facts.

If the facts are disputed the director must be called at once, whether or not someone has "reserved their rights".

[lamford]

Vampyr, on Oct 6 2009, 12:40 PM, said:

lamford, on Oct 6 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

Because this is a facility offered to them under 16B2, and this gives the opponents a chance to call the director, if, for example, they disputed the facts.

If the facts are disputed the director must be called at once, whether or not someone has "reserved their rights".

I agree, and agree that the term is a strange one; perhaps it would be better for the player to make the following statement:

"I consider that one of you has possibly made UI available and that damage could well result".

This will sound Secretary-bird like, and perhaps come across as worse than reserving one's rights. Some method of giving the opponents a chance to dispute facts while they are fresh in everyone's mind in a friendly way is what is needed.

Usually, at the table, "we agree that double was slow" is all that is needed.

[barmar]

Elsewhere in the Laws it says that when an irregularity is noticed the TD MUST be called immediately. What this Law does is provide an exception to this rule. Rather than call the TD immediately, you can indicate that you're going to wait until after the hand is over, and only call him if you feel damaged. It allows play to be expedited in certain situations.

It also puts the offending side on notice about the UI, and they can take care to try not to damage you as a result.

[Echognome]

jdonn, on Oct 6 2009, 07:29 AM, said:

This was a nice thread hijacking...

Guilty as charged. That's what I get for replying to posts rather than to the OP.