Misboarding in Teams Match

[gnasher]

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.

You mean that you will, unprompted, announce that believe that you've received UI?

 

I find it quite irritating when people do that. It's usually an unwanted distraction, and it also conveys UI to your partner, who may be unaware of the original UI. That probably makes it illegal too.

 

I think you would do better to concentrate on doing what the rules say you should do, and leave the opponents in peace. If they think their rights need protecting, I expect they can do it for themselves.

[mycroft]

Really? You play more Law-informed opponents than I do, then. So, preemptively agreeing on the facts and acknowledging that the opponents have rights to reserve - when you're clearly making a call that is suggested by the (also clear) UI - is out of bounds. Okay, you may have a point that it is extraneous and presents UI (but the day that my partner is unaware of her own UI, if it's obvious enough that I feel a need to acknowledge it, I will be checking for the case of beer she's obviously drunk). There's dburn's "reverse UI" issue, but I don't think that that has ever been an issue at my table - and, of course, it would be there even if I didn't audibly acknowledge it, because my partners *do* know the law, and *do* know that I try very hard to follow it.

 

There are also the "for my partner, that was an obvious BIT" (but might not look it if you haven't played X000 hands with/against him) situations. I could keep quiet (and follow Law 73); I could keep quiet and not follow Law 73. How would the opponents know which I was doing, or even that there was a potential issue?

 

Of course, you also are not the opponent that stands on his chair to scream "DIRECTOR" when one partner "hesitates" (that would be the 10 second pause after an unannounced skip bid, if you haven't heard the story before) and the other one bids, I'm sure. So I apologise for annoying you. I've never, however, even with the most UI-sensitive folks here, had any issues, except possibly a couple of expressions of thanks - and one TD call, out of the 10 or so times I've done it in the last year, where they thought that there was, in fact, an LA.

[Coelacanth]

A story from the NABC which may illustrate that not quite everyone has the hang of this "reserving of rights" deal.

 

The auction proceeded 1♣ by S, 1♥ by N, 2NT by S, 3♦ by N, alerted by South.

 

I, sitting East, probably should just have passed quietly (I had no interest in bidding) but I'd discovered that people in this event were playing some weird things, so I was routinely asking about just about every Alert.

 

I received the explanation from South (New Minor Forcing, for those scoring at home) and promptly passed. At this point North turned to me and asked "can we all agree that there's been a break in tempo here?" I acknowledged having asked a question but denied a BIT, and suggested he call the director.

 

The TD (Matt Smith) arrived and North duly explained what had happened. The TD then explained that asking a question in response to an Alert was a normal and expected thing and suggested we continue the auction. North slammed his cards back into the board and crossed his arms defiantly across his chest, refusing to continue. Only some deft diplomacy from the TD defused the situation.

[blackshoe]

I acknowledged having asked a question but denied a BIT, and suggested he call the director.

 

Law 16B2: When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the director be called), 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 emphasis is mine. In practice I don't suppose it really matters who calls the TD though.

 

I suppose your opponent could have been saying that the BIT was your prompt (fast?) pass, once you got the answer to your question. If so, though, he should have told the TD that. B-)

 

Diplomacy is good. The alternative would seem to have been a DP of some kind, which would probably have made things worse.

[Vampyr]

You mean that you will, unprompted, announce that believe that you've received UI?

 

I find it quite irritating when people do that. It's usually an unwanted distraction, and it also conveys UI to your partner, who may be unaware of the original UI. That probably makes it illegal too.

 

I think you would do better to concentrate on doing what the rules say you should do, and leave the opponents in peace. If they think their rights need protecting, I expect they can do it for themselves.

 

My regular partner and I occasionally do this, after a long BIT which was obvious to everyone. Is it really so distracting for a player to say something like "agreed hesitation" before taking a bid after a very long tank by partner?