Re: Pointless TD calls for 2017
Alain Gottcheiner <agot <at> ulb.ac.be>
2012-06-21 07:07:46 GMT
Le 20/06/2012 22:22, Marvin French a écrit :
> From: "Sven Pran"
>> Alain Gottcheiner
>> Le 20/06/2012 18:20, Marvin French a écrit :
>>> I am getting tired of pointless TD calls that waste everyone's time.
>>> Playing with Alice, I may psych once in every ten sessions, but this
>>> Sunday I did it twice, both times playing against experienced pairs.
>> In some cases, ascertaining a fact needs to be made immediately. The good
>> example is tempo matters. Perhaps it should be written in the laws that
>> has to check whether opponents agree about the existence of tempo, and
>> call only if they don't. The rest can wait.
> Get the law changed if you want that. L16B2 says one *may* call attention to
> UI, and if that is done it is the *opponents* who should the TD immediately
> if they disagree.
AG : sorry, but this is purely theoretical. The ones who gainsay that
there was an infraction will not see any reason to call, possibly even
have interest in not calling, so you will have to do it yourself.
> I choose not to get into a fuss with opponents at the time
> of UI, which is my right. That leaves no authority for a TD call at the
> time. It usually turns out that the UI was harmless and a TD call would be
> wasting everyone's time.
>> Waiting a long time with a weak hand over a weak rebid (or e.g. over a
>> preempt) will usually be a big infraction (to L73 : "could have known"),
>> whence the TD call should be automatic.
> I guess you mean L73F, which talks of an innocent player drawing "a false
> inference from remark, manner, tempo, or the like of an opponent who has no
> demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and...could have known at the
> time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director
> shall award an adjusted score.
> A bit off-subject, I believe, but there is still no requirement to call the
> TD at the time (e.g., of hesitating with a singleton). The UI situation is
> covered by L16B2, please read it.
> As to psychs, L73E says they are appropriate if not protected by concealed
> partnership understanding or experience. If one feels that a psych has been
> fielded or allowed for, the TD can be called later, not at the time of the
> psych, which is "appropriate" until proved otherwise.
>> Now the next problem : how can one ask players to know exactly when to
>> call or not to call ? (same problem as with intricate alert laws) Since
>> not calling
>> will often make you forfeit rights, I can understand the alert epidemics.
> Not calling does not make you forfeit rights. Where is that written?
> [Sven Pran]
> The most important rule about calling TD is that he, and not the players,
> shall decide if and in case when his attention is needed.
> So if a player (genuinely) suspects an irregularity it is not, and cannot in
> any way be incorrect to call TD immediately.
> Where is that written? All I can find is that a TD call in these cases is
> appropriate only when an irregularity has occurred, not when it is
> [Sven Pran]
> Players acting in such a way that opponents feel the need for TD assistance
> should refrain from complaints about "wasting (TD) time" etc. whether or not
> their actions are questionable.
> My opponents have no need for TD assistance when there is no evidence of an
> irregularity, and TDs should tell players to stop calling them when that
> evidence is lacking. It's a waste of everyone's time. Also it is an insult
> to me, implying that I may be committing an irregularity when I am not.
> All I ask is that the Laws be followed in these matters. What is not
> authorized should not be allowed. Wasting time in a timed contest is
> something to be discouraged, not accommodated.
> Marvin L French
> Blml mailing list
> Blml <at> rtflb.org
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org