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

[WILLIAM SCHODER]

1. For someone who confesses that he doesn't know what I'm talking about, he
does one hell-uv-a good job in the first paragraph of his posting telling it
exactly as I mean it. Maybe I'm able to communicate even if Mr.Landau would
rather couldn't.

2. No, there isn't anything more to it.

3. For the greatest part people follow Law 16 A 2 without a bunch of
problems, but sometimes  problems come up that tacitly "reserving rights"
causes, and would not happen if they also followed 16 A 1. If you read 16 A
1 carefully, as I have, then you will find that it says "....he may...."
which is defined in the preface to the American Edition, Laws of Duplicate
Contract Bridge 1997 as "....may do something (any player nay call attention
to an irregularity during the auction), the failure to do it is in no way
wrong....."

Guess careful reading wouldn't hurt.

Kojak


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] reservation of rights (was when too late)


> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>