Did the Director get the right?

[blackshoe]

In another thread, David said that the ACBL recommends that players call the TD immediately when they believe UI has been made available. I suggested that this contradicts the current state of ACBL elections, which has changed in the current laws as compared to the 1997 version, when calling the TD immediately was required, so if TDs are still recommending it, IMO they're wrong.

 

It's hard to establish the facts, however you try to do it, particularly when your opponents are prone to reflexively deny any UI is present, usually because they think you're accusing them of doing something wrong, and of course they didn't (and you aren't, but they don't recognize that).

[aguahombre]

It is not the player's duty or job to establish the facts. Excercising his right to determine whether there is agreement about the facts should not be a problem. And when one's own partner agrees with the opponents' version, their alleged obligation to call the TD at that point seems strange. "Don't cry later" would also seem to be an overbid, since you have testimonial evidence on your side.

[barmar]

I believe the point of this Law is as follows: You can't get a judgement on a BIT issue until after the hand is over, because you need to determine a result to decide if there was damage. However, we should try to ascertain the fact of the BIT as soon as possible. If we wait until the hand is over, players are likely to have forgotten this detail if no one called their attention to it. So we call attention to it immediately. If there's general agreement about the BIT, there's no need to get the TD involved now, we simply point out that we'll call him later if we feel damaged -- that's "reserving rights". On the other hand, if there's no agreement, we DO need the TD now, because we need him to decide the facts.

 

In general, when someone asks "Do we agree there was a hesitation?", it's implicit that they intend to seek a ruling if they feel damaged. It's not really necessary for them to state that they reserve their rights, it's obvious.

[bluejak]

Reserving rights is a means of establishing facts, which is a necessity for players to do if possible. What it is not is a phrase that needs to be said.

 

:ph34r:

 

Yes, the ACBL now allows reserving rights, so my ACBL advice is outdated. Nevertheless, I expect the timing is unchanged: in the ACBL the recommended time to agree such things is after the alleged UI: elsewhere it has often been after the action that may have been based on UI.