[Tramticket]

Vampyr, on 2019-October-03, 08:14, said:

Of course you must call the TD if there is no agreement on the facts. But if the facts are agreed, you do not somehow lose the right to call the director later, so you are not “reserving” anything.

The term "reserve rights" may be curious, but it is the wording used in Law 16.B.2:

Quote

When a player considers that an opponent has made [unauthorised] information available and that damage could well result he may announce [...] that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed).

The use of the word "May" means that there is no compulsion to announce that you are reserving your rights to call the director and of course there is nothing stopping you calling the director at any time.

Vampyr, on 2019-October-02, 00:55, said:

It seems aggressive and unnecessary.

But I can't see that anyone can have any reasonable objection to language specifically used in the Laws.

[pescetom]

Tramticket, on 2019-October-04, 05:02, said:

But I can't see that anyone can have any reasonable objection to language specifically used in the Laws.

Not to the language as such, but it is reasonable to object to the cryptic way it is commonly used - "I reserve my rights" implying (but not stating) that if opponent does not object or call the TD then he is implicitly acknowledging that UI was transmitted. This is unfair to those who do not know what it means and stressful to those who have a vague idea.

[blackshoe]

Tramticket, on 2019-October-04, 05:02, said:

But I can't see that anyone can have any reasonable objection to language specifically used in the Laws.

I would agree with that, while at the same time observing that the fact that an objection is unreasonable does not stop people from making it.

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2019-October-04, 06:26, said:

Not to the language as such, but it is reasonable to object to the cryptic way it is commonly used - "I reserve my rights" implying (but not stating) that if opponent does not object or call the TD then he is implicitly acknowledging that UI was transmitted. This is unfair to those who do not know what it means and stressful to those who have a vague idea.

I suspect that's why many people believe that one should, instead of reserving rights, ask if the opponents agree that UI may have been transmitted. Okay with me, but the procedure is technically extralegal.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2019-October-03, 08:14, said:

Of course you must call the TD if there is no agreement on the facts. But if the facts are agreed, you do not somehow lose the right to call the director later, so you are not “reserving” anything.

You're just informing the opponents that you might, rather than leaving them with the impression you think everything is resolved and surprising them later.

It's not required, the law says you may announce this.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2019-October-04, 08:34, said:

I suspect that's why many people believe that one should, instead of reserving rights, ask if the opponents agree that UI may have been transmitted. Okay with me, but the procedure is technically extralegal.

Why is it extralegal? The law says that you first try to get agreement that UI may have been transmitted. If you don't get that agreement you call the TD immediately; if you do, you call the TD later if you think the UI caused damage, and you may first announce that you reserve your right to do so.

The announcement is just a reminder that we're not completely done dealing with the UI when we get agreement that it occurred.

[Vampyr]

pescetom, on 2019-October-04, 06:26, said:

Not to the language as such, but it is reasonable to object to the cryptic way it is commonly used - "I reserve my rights" implying (but not stating) that if opponent does not object or call the TD then he is implicitly acknowledging that UI was transmitted. This is unfair to those who do not know what it means and stressful to those who have a vague idea.

Yes, it is not uncommon for people to use this “I reserve my rights” instead of getting agreement that there was a BIT or whatever. So calling the director later may be entirely ineffective, since the facts might be in dispute.

They shouldn’t be, because the “opponents should summon the director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorised information might have been conveyed”? But people do not know or do this, and may in fact not know what this reservation or rights pertains to. So they law should just state that the facts should be agreed, and if they are, you can just call the director later if you think you have been damaged.

In any case, maybe it’s not what other people have experienced, but in my experience the phrase “I’m reserving my rights” sounds aggressive and even nasty. Perhaps it is mainly the delivery, The words are, as mentioned above, cryptic as well.

Has anyone ever noticed that stronger players never use this phrase?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2019-October-04, 08:39, said:

It's not required, the law says you may announce this.

Yes. "Established usage has been retained regarding “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong)…"

barmar, on 2019-October-04, 08:44, said:

Why is it extralegal? The law says that you first try to get agreement that UI may have been transmitted. If you don't get that agreement you call the TD immediately; if you do, you call the TD later if you think the UI caused damage, and you may first announce that you reserve your right to do so.

The announcement is just a reminder that we're not completely done dealing with the UI when we get agreement that it occurred.

No. The law says that you announce that you reserve your right to call the director. Doing something else ("try to get agreement") is outside the law, hence extralegal. And if the opponents don't think that UI may have been passed they are the ones who are supposed to call the director.

Later, if you have "substantial reason" to believe that an opponent has used UI, you should summon the director "when play ends", though it's not an infraction to call him earlier than that (though not before you have "substantial reason"). "There was UI", even if true, is, by the way, not "substantial reason".

The way the law is worded, it would not be wrong to say nothing when (you think) UI has been passed, but later to call the director when you have good reason to believe that not only was it passed, the opponents took advantage of it. I suspect that Law 16B1 exists because the lawmakers feel that it may avoid disagreements, bad feelings, and bad rulings when the director has to determine, after the fact, whether there was UI. But the way it's worded, it doesn't matter if disagreements and bad feelings are generated, the ruling should be the same.

[RMB1]

I think the slow Pass suggests bidding or doubling over Pass.
Is Pass a logical alternative - I don't know - did anyone conduct a poll?

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2019-October-04, 13:20, said:

Has anyone ever noticed that stronger players never use this phrase?

No surprise. I have enough experience at high level in other sports to assert that the the strongest players are invariably exquisite people who respect the rules and their opponents.

[blackshoe]

Is any particular bid, or double, demonstrably suggested over pass, or do you just have a feeling?

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2019-October-04, 13:20, said:

Has anyone ever noticed that stronger players never use this phrase?

I can't actually recall it ever coming up at all. I can't even remember the last time I've had a UI-related director call at my table. To me, these things mostly seem more theoretical than practical.

Maybe I'm just less litigious than I should be. There have probably been hundreds of BITs that I could have made an issue of, but just let them go. I think there have been only 2 or 3 times I've ever asked an opponent if they agree that their partner took an excessive time to bid.

[Vampyr]

pescetom, on 2019-October-06, 14:32, said:

No surprise. I have enough experience at high level in other sports to assert that the the strongest players are invariably exquisite people who respect the rules and their opponents.

I do not believe that respecting the rules and their opponents makes players exquisite people. It is necessary but not sufficient.

barmar, on 2019-October-07, 09:46, said:

I can't actually recall it ever coming up at all. I can't even remember the last time I've had a UI-related director call at my table. To me, these things mostly seem more theoretical than practical.

Maybe I'm just less litigious than I should be. There have probably been hundreds of BITs that I could have made an issue of, but just let them go. I think there have been only 2 or 3 times I've ever asked an opponent if they agree that their partner took an excessive time to bid.

My experience is very different.

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2019-October-07, 09:51, said:

I do not believe that respecting the rules and their opponents makes players exquisite people. It is necessary but not sufficient.

I agree. I wasn't suggesting they were exquisite merely because they respect the rules and their opponents.

Vampyr, on 2019-October-07, 09:51, said:

My experience is very different.

Mine is somewhere in the middle. Here there are many UI disputes but relatively few result in TD calls.

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2019-October-07, 10:32, said:

Here there are many UI disputes but relatively few result in TD calls.

If the side that is alleged to have broken tempo disputes that they did so, and does not call the director, they have committed an infraction.

[Vampyr]

pescetom, on 2019-October-07, 10:32, said:

I agree. I wasn't suggesting they were exquisite merely because they respect the rules and their opponents.

OK. In my experience top players are usually reasonably amiable. I wouldn’t call them exquisite.

Quote

Mine is somewhere in the middle. Here there are many UI disputes but relatively few result in TD calls.

So how is the issue resolved then?

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2019-October-07, 16:05, said:

So how is the issue resolved then?

Probably the NOS doesn't feel that they were damaged, so they don't call the TD.