[blml] reservation of rights (was when too late)

[WILLIAM SCHODER]

At the huge risk of trying to simplify THIS discussion (the reservation of
rights under Law 16 a 1.) I offer:

In ACBL not establishing the facts of UI immediately when an action occurred
frequently made it extremely difficult to rule later when both sides were
yelling "You did" "I didn't" "etc.".  It's easier to fairly adjudicate
results when facts are agreed. ACBL decided it best to prevent the problems
created by "reserving rights" in our litigious society. It was not unknown,
and I was the TD at times, where discussion that the BIT, action with
bidding box, etc., supposed agreement, reservation of rights agreed upon,
and then a new set of facts when the hand was over. Further, the Law never
meant that not reserving rights made them go away at a later time. I found
it to work as a procedure to minimize arguments and questionable rulings
that lead to questionable AC decisions. I don't feel it is an imposition on
a TD to take this step, but then I have always felt that TDs were to do the
best possible job. That way at least the facts were a given.

Kojak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] When too late


> At 11:01 AM 1/5/07, Ed wrote:
>
> >On Jan 5, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Eric Landau wrote:
> >
> > > I asked about this originally in the hope of finding or
> > > figuring out what the ACBL's rationale for not allowing reservation of
> > > rights is.
> >
> >What makes you think they have one? :-)
> >
> >A BIT is an irregularity. Law 9 requires that, when attention is
> >drawn to an irregularity, the director be called immediately. The
> >provision for "reservation of rights" in Law 16A1 is the *only*
> >exception to this in the Laws. I suppose one could argue that in the
> >interests of consistency one should not allow this exception. But
> >then the ACBL muddied the waters with the wording of their election,
> >which seems to imply you have to wait for some action by the
> >recipient of the BIT before calling the TD - which, btw, would be in
> >contradiction to law 9. So I don't think the ACBL has a coherent
> >rationale for the way they want Law 16A1 to be.
>
> I do not believe that "a BIT is an irregularity", and therefore do not
> see reservation of rights as an "exception" to L9.  A BIT certainly is
> not an "infraction", which is used in TFLB, if not as an exact synonym
> for "irregularity", as at least very closely related.  Indeed, L73D1
> tells us explicitly that "to vary the tempo... does not in itself
> constitute a violation of propriety" (another very closely related
> term) -- what does is "inferences... drawn... [not] by an
> opponent".  BITs are an inevitable and unavoidable aspect of the game,
> routine and "regular", and L73D1 seems to acknowledge that fact; it
> specifically calls avoiding BITs "desirable, though not always required".
>
>
> Eric Landau                     ehaa at starpower.net
> 1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
> Silver Spring MD 20910-1607
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>