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

[Eric Landau]

At 01:39 PM 1/5/07, WILLIAM wrote:

>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.

I must confess that I don't quite follow what Kojak is telling us.  It 
sounds like he is saying that because we in the ACBL are more 
"litigious" than elsewhere (probably true), we are more prone than 
others to confront TDs with "yes you did/no I didn't" sorts of disputes 
(probably also true), and that the L16A1 election serves to reduce the 
animosity collectively generated by such disputes (and the migraines 
they give TDs who have to "find the facts" in such cases) by simply 
reducing their number.  IOW, if players are going to indulge in 
shouting matches when one side accuses the other of having broken 
tempo, the least we can do to keep things as civil and manageable as 
possible is to restrict the occasions on which such childish 
disputations occur to those where an actual ruling might be affected by 
which side prevails (i.e. where some actual illegality, as opposed to 
just a BIT, is alleged).  As the ACBL's justification for the election, 
that's not at all unreasonable, but I suspect there may be more to 
it.  If so, perhaps Kojak will elaborate.

It does seem obvious that there would be no point in rejecting the 
"reservation of rights" procedure, under which the director is called 
only if the alleged BIT is disputed, if the alternative were to call 
the director *every time* a BIT is alleged, disputed or not, and what 
we read in The Bulletin, while it doesn't tell us what the ACBL 
actually intends us to do, does make it clear that that isn't it.  So 
what is it?  Perhaps Kojak can be prevailed upon to help us here.

Consider the following sequence of events as seen from my perspective: 
(1) An opponent breaks tempo; (2) his partner makes a call that sounds 
like it might be "fishy", i.e. could be influenced by the BIT; (3) 
after the deal, when the offender's hand is known, I determine that his 
call does indeed appear to have had logical alternatives and to have 
been suggested by the BIT; (4) after examining the entire deal, I 
determine that I have not been "damaged" by his infraction and hence am 
not entitled to any redress.  Is it proper for me to call the director 
at (2), at (3), or not at all?


Eric Landau                     ehaa at starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607