Misboarding in Teams Match

[blackshoe]

I'm sure the TDs who volunteer to be on the call list are aware that they might be called late in the evening. If that were a problem for them, presumably they wouldn't volunteer.

 

As I understand the laws and regulations wrt these team matches played at home (I did play in a few, back in the early '90s) absent a TD the captains involved decide on a ruling, not the other players on the team. OTOH, I suppose captains are capable of "taking the law into their own hands" just as much as non-captains. B-)

 

The players agreed to a ruling ("cancel the board"). Were both teams on board, or was one team or the other reluctant to rule this way? It sounds an awful lot to me like the visiting team were happy to cancel the board, until they found out they'd lost the match without it. If that's the case, I would allow that ruling to stand, per Law 10B. I would advise both teams in future to (1) ensure a law book is available and (2) call a consulting TD immediately when the ruling is not obvious.

[gnasher]

So you thought that I ... have rather poor English?

 

Hmm.

[Chris L]

I'm sure the TDs who volunteer to be on the call list are aware that they might be called late in the evening. If that were a problem for them, presumably they wouldn't volunteer.

 

As I understand the laws and regulations wrt these team matches played at home (I did play in a few, back in the early '90s) absent a TD the captains involved decide on a ruling, not the other players on the team. OTOH, I suppose captains are capable of "taking the law into their own hands" just as much as non-captains. B-)

 

The players agreed to a ruling ("cancel the board"). Were both teams on board, or was one team or the other reluctant to rule this way? It sounds an awful lot to me like the visiting team were happy to cancel the board, until they found out they'd lost the match without it. If that's the case, I would allow that ruling to stand, per Law 10B. I would advise both teams in future to (1) ensure a law book is available and (2) call a consulting TD immediately when the ruling is not obvious.

 

To the best of my knowledge, all four players in the room where the board was due to be played the second time agreed that it should be cancelled - whether one or more of them were more or less happy about that I don't know; I can only assume that all four thought that was the only option available - so there was no question in their minds of the captains having to agree a ruling (which is indeed what the conditions of contest provide). There was no further discussion about it as we joined our team-mates in that room to score up. After we had scored up and arrived at a win by 6 IMPs we thought that was the end of the matter until one of the oppo suggested that it wasn't.

[Finch]

I'm sure the TDs who volunteer to be on the call list are aware that they might be called late in the evening. If that were a problem for them, presumably they wouldn't volunteer.

 

As I understand the laws and regulations wrt these team matches played at home (I did play in a few, back in the early '90s) absent a TD the captains involved decide on a ruling, not the other players on the team. OTOH, I suppose captains are capable of "taking the law into their own hands" just as much as non-captains. B-)

 

The players agreed to a ruling ("cancel the board"). Were both teams on board, or was one team or the other reluctant to rule this way? It sounds an awful lot to me like the visiting team were happy to cancel the board, until they found out they'd lost the match without it. If that's the case, I would allow that ruling to stand, per Law 10B. I would advise both teams in future to (1) ensure a law book is available and (2) call a consulting TD immediately when the ruling is not obvious.

 

Having a law book available is obviously a good idea and (given that most venues are either a bridge club or a house with internet access) hardly difficult. But as you know it doesn't help if four players at the table decide to make up their own ruling.

[blackshoe]

True, that. Which is why I would rule under Law 10B. Not to mention

Law 10A: The director alone has the right to determine rectifications when applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive – see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative.

As I remember the CoC, I would interpret them to modify this to allow the captains (but not the players) to serve as director for purposes of this law, provided they can agree on the ruling.

[jallerton]

Relevant extracts from the NICKO Conditions of Contest are:

 

19. Rulings of the first instance in matches played privately

It can be exceedingly difficult to settle satisfactorily a question which requires a Director‟s ruling – as distinct from a reading and application of the law – in a match which is played privately. There should normally be two distinct conditions fulfilled before any such matter is deemed to have a basis on which to proceed:

(a) The player who suggests that an irregularity may have occurred which could have damaged his side should normally have raised the question (as for example by reserving his rights) before the board is quitted; to avoid questions of doubt, the appropriate period for doing so should be deemed to terminate when he removes his cards from their slot at the commencement of the following board (unless the significant information does not come to light until afterwards; and see also section © above).

(b) He should confirm his wish to have a ruling before the players go to compare scores for that set of boards. (If after scoring the set he withdraws his request for a ruling it will not subsequently be renewable.)

20. When a ruling of the first instance is required

If a ruling of the first instance is required, the procedures outlined below should be followed:

(a) Captains agree upon an outcome.

(b) Captains contact a principal member of the EBU panel of Tournament Directors as listed in section 21.

© Captains agree upon a suitable arbiter.

(d) Captains contact any other EBU Tournament Director (as listed in the EBU diary), or a member of the panel of Referees (see 23 below), or a member of the Laws and Ethics Committee. If contacting a member of the panel of Referees for a ruling of first instance, it must be made clear to the Referee that this is a request for a ruling of the first instance rather than an appeal against such a ruling.

(e) Captains submit the case in writing to the EBU as described below.

[Chris L]

Having a law book available is obviously a good idea and (given that most venues are either a bridge club or a house with internet access) hardly difficult. But as you know it doesn't help if four players at the table decide to make up their own ruling.

 

Quite. One of the four players at the table was our captain. I think their captain was playing in my room - had he also been in the room, the "captains [might have agreed] on a ruling" without realising it. :)

[Vampyr]

From extract quoted above:

 

The player who suggests that an irregularity may have occurred which could have damaged his side should normally have raised the question (as for example by reserving his rights) before the board is quitted; to avoid questions of doubt

 

What doubt is introduced if a player does not "reserve his rights"?

[jallerton]

There is a distinct advantage if the players can agree the facts as soon as possible. It is harder for a player to dispute an alleged hesitation which occurred twenty seconds ago than one which occurred twenty boards ago.

[bluejak]

I'm sure the TDs who volunteer to be on the call list are aware that they might be called late in the evening. If that were a problem for them, presumably they wouldn't volunteer.

Two of us are listed as taking calls until late on, in my case until 1.30 am. I cannot remember in the other case though it may be the same time. Of course some players are a little worried at calling a TD late, but surely there is no difficulty with calling the two of us pretty late.

 

What doubt is introduced if a player does not "reserve his rights"?

I do not think the doubt is any different from reservation of rights in general, ie basically a statement that something has occurred, which the other side either agreers with or calls the TD. Of course with a match played privately it might be more difficult when they do not agree, but the basic approach is surely right: if they do agree there will be no later argument over whether the incident occurred. If you do not reserve your rights but later claim something occurred you have put yourself in a difficult position if there is doubt and will often be correctly ruled against.

[RMB1]

Two of us are listed as taking calls until late on, in my case until 1.30 am. I cannot remember in the other case though it may be the same time. Of course some players are a little worried at calling a TD late, but surely there is no difficulty with calling the two of us pretty late.

 

I was consulted by phone three times that evening. The first one was at tea time. The second was in the middle of the evening and I must have sounded groggy because he apologised for ringing so late. The last was this ruling, which kicked off after the match had finished. I was rung two hours after the previous ruling but this was someone who rings me regularly and there was no apology before ploughing into the facts of the case. :)

[Vampyr]

I do not think the doubt is any different from reservation of rights in general, ie basically a statement that something has occurred, which the other side either agreers with or calls the TD.

 

My problem is that I have never actually known what "reserving one's rights" means. Does it mean establishing the facts? If so, then of course I agree that the facts should be established at the time of the irregularity. (If so, "establishing the facts" might have been a better way to put it. I wonder how this phrase has been translated into other languages).

[bluejak]

"Reserving your rights" means that you reserve your right to call the TD at the end of the hand for a perceived potential infraction as then you will have some idea whether damage could have resulted. If the opponents accept that without calling the TD it means they have agreed there was such a potential infraction. Nearly all experienced players do it, often with a minimum of comment, even in the ACBL where such a practice used to be illegal. [it may still be so: I have mislaid my American Law book.]

[Vampyr]

Nearly all experienced players do it, often with a minimum of comment,

 

Do they? I have never seen it at the table. There have been several occasions when I or my partner have said something along the lines of "agreed hesitation" when bidding after partner's slow action, and my opponents have never once said "in that case I shall reserve my rights". Perhaps the players I play against are not that experienced.

[bluejak]

You seem to have this strange idea - which I have heard from others too, to be fair - that you have to use the term. In a lot of cases, amongst better players the vast majority I should think, no-one says "reserving rights" because they do not need to. If I was playing against you and Paul made a slow double I might raise an eyebrow, or say "Slow?". He might say "Sure". Now rights have been reserved.

[blackshoe]

You have a right to call the director. However, Law 10 says "the right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the director", so if there is a BIT (which is an irregularity) and the NOS takes some action like bidding on or whatever, they may lose the right to rectification under this law (yes, David, I know that's not current TD practice — I'm talking about what the law actually says). The provision of 16B regarding reserving rights obviates Law 10 here, because the establishment of agreement that there was a BIT implicitly reserves the NOS right to rectification even though the director is not called at that time. I agree with what seems to be common practice in England, at least, to ask the opponents if they agree there was a BIT, rather than using the somewhat more confrontational "I reserve my rights". Either would seem to serve the legal purpose adequately.

 

ACBL Laws in PDF.

[Vampyr]

I agree with what seems to be common practice in England, at least, to ask the opponents if they agree there was a BIT, rather than using the somewhat more confrontational "I reserve my rights". Either would seem to serve the legal purpose adequately.

 

 

So the latter is just a rather obscure way of phrasing the former? David's evasiveness on this question is puzzling.

[blackshoe]

Obscure? How so?

 

David doesn't seem to me to be evasive on this subject. What did I miss?

[bluejak]

What evasiveness? I explained "reserving rights" which certainly does not need that wording. How is this evasive?

[Vampyr]

Obscure? How so?

 

Well, it's not a phrase that is used in normal, non-bridge related English, and it's not immediately obvious what it means.

 

 

 

David doesn't seem to me to be evasive on this subject. What did I miss?

 

Well, I have been trying to find out if "reserving one's rights" means the same thing as agreeing the facts. Apparently it does, but I should have thought that if the lawmakers meant "agree the facts" they would have said "agree the facts". I realise that I am on shaky ground here...

[blackshoe]

The question seems to be whether one must explicitly state "I reserve my rights" in order to do so. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

[gnasher]

Until now I shared Stefanie's confusion.

 

For one thing, the phrase "reserve his rights" doesn't appear in the laws. The laws refer to announcing that you reserve the right to call the director. I've never been quite sure if these are the same thing or not.

 

For another, players sometimes call the director and then tell the director that they want to reserve their rights. I've no idea what that's supposed to mean.

 

Finally, the EBU Orange Book discusses both reserving one's rights and agreeing the facts, without making it clear that they're the same:

2 A 3 Although there are circumstances under Law 16 where a player may ‘reserve his rights’, it is usually better to call the TD, but see 2 A 4. This assumes there is a nonplaying TD to be called. In the case of a playing TD, or no TD (as in a match played privately), a player may have no choice but to reserve his rights.

2 A 4 In practice there are occasions where failure to call the TD is often not fatal. If the four players at the table agree that there was a hesitation, and all four are experienced and know their rights, then leaving it to the end of play to see if there is any potential damage does not matter very much.

 

Anyway, I now understand that "reserving one's rights" and "agreeing the facts" are both synonyms for reserving the right to call the director. Good - my world has become slightly less confusing.

 

Off-topic whinge: why does this bit of the Laws use the phrase "summon the director"? In my experience neither lamps nor incantations are necessary.

[gordontd]

Off-topic whinge: why does this bit of the Laws use the phrase "summon the director"?

Kaplan?

Endicott?

[RMB1]

For another, players sometimes call the director and then tell the director that they want to reserve their rights. I've no idea what that's supposed to mean.

 

I (as a TD) always treat this as a request to agree the facts in front of the TD and say "Can we agree the facts, ...". If they use the phrase "reserve their rights", I do not refer to it subsequently.

 

The only point at which to educate people about "reserving their rights" is when they use it (not enough player read these forums/blogs/etc.). Unfortunately, you can only do this if they call the TD now and this is not a good time because they will already be upset if the opponents have potentially infracted. If the TD says "You can't reserve your rights, because that is something you do instead of calling the TD" the player will think you are trying to deny him his rights. So the conclusion is that I just ignore the phrase if players use it.

[mycroft]

"agreeing the facts" and "reserving one's rights" aren't the same thing, but in most cases are done the same way. The implication when both sides agree that there was UI passed of whatever sort is that everyone at the table knows that UI was passed from that action, that they understand that there are implications on UI receiver's potential actions, and that if there might be a problem, the TD will be then summoned. In other words, the "reservation of rights" is implied in the action of attempting, and acceeding to, the agreement of the facts.

 

This breaks down when the implication isn't in fact true - novices won't know what they're agreeing to, and what restrictions they are being put on notice for, for instance. This is why the ACBL, until this last round of Laws changes, frowned officially on "reserving one's rights" (even though everybody in the experienced world did it anyway) - they expected you to call the TD when UI was transmitted, so that the opponents knew their responsibilities. Obviously, this is unworkable in general, and they no longer have that policy (although the suggestion to go through the TD if one believes the opponents don't understand all the implication is still there, and still good).

 

"I'm reserving my rights" is a brusque, formal way of saying "I believe UI was transmitted and I'm putting the table on notice; if you dispute what I believe is obvious UI, do something about it". Which is fine (if formal and brusque) when the same implication holds - that the opponents know all the implied text, and fails just as badly (and less politely) when they don't. It also implies that "of course you agree with me that you did this bad UI thing", but after 30 seconds, well yeah, that implication is pretty innocuous.

 

Which is why I will explicitly acknowledge UI that I have received, if I believe it to be there and I am about to make a call that was suggested by the UI (which I believe there are no LA to, obviously). Of course, even that doesn't help (as last night), when the opponents have no idea what I'm talking about.