[blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?)

[Roger Pewick]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alain Gottcheiner" <agot at ulb.ac.be>
To: "Tim West-Meads" <twm at cix.co.uk>; <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Breaking the Law (was why ask ?)


> At 13:40 12/06/2006 +0100, Tim West-Meads wrote:
>
>>The difficulty, Alain, is that in Marv's Zone one is forbidden to
>>reserve rights (including, in the opinion of some, seeking agreement
>>that UI has been made available) thus anything in 16A1 is irrelevant.
>>Players in such Zones have a choice between an immediate call when UI
>>occurs, or a call at the end of the hand (when dummy goes down).
>
> Once again, I'm lost.
>
> What's the difference between :
>
> a) calling immediately, telling what happened (one of your two options)
> b) calling to reserve your rights
>
> given that in most cases, when you use a), the TD will say "proceed and 
> call again if needed", since one can seldom decide before the table result 
> is known ; which translates into GOSUB b)
>
> Regards
>
> Alain



For one thing it is going to take a minute or two or three to get the TD, 
and then it is going to take a minute or two for the TD to find out why he 
was called- and then it will be over; but if it isn't [over] then it might 
take two or three minutes for the TD to gather facts and sort it out.  In 
the mean time players have forgotten where they are and they will take time 
to return to the task at hand.  They will also be distracted by all the 
extraneous information generated and will want to take time to process that 
information.



And now partner will know that there is something special about THIS hand 
because why else would you be taking special effort to get preliminary 
protection when there is insufficient evidence that there will be an 
infraction.  And the opponents will feel like you have called them scumbags.



Not that the player isn't a scumbag- because there are a lot of them out 
there- which I have met with alarming frequency.  The point is that if the 
player isn't a SB then there won't be a problem with waiting until it is 
evident that an infraction occurred; and if he is a SB then he not only is 
going to protest your assertion the first time you make it but the second 
time you make it when the TD is called back.  All this prolonging the hand 
and acrimony and distraction, for what???  Only to go through it again. 
That is the difference.



regards

roger pewick