pstansbu, on 2015-October-16, 13:42, said:
Two good last things
This was a general club night with a playing director so the form seems to be to agree locally whether to call the director and most players (clearly apart from me) have a generally good understanding of their rights etc. Unsurprisingly they decided not to call the Director in this case.
At the risk of digressing / starting a new thread I don't usually answer in this way, the combination of realising the error and the wording of the question threw me. I have been corrected once before on giving an answer of the the "I took it that..." variety after saying we didn't have an agreement. I was advised to just say we didn't have an agreement.
There has been a third case when we didn't have an agreement, but we have played together enough as a partnership for me to have a good idea what was meant from similar situations (I forget the details). Is that a case where you should say something like "We don't have a specific agreement, but I took it...." or is that still the wrong thing?
Paragraph 1: The law says "The director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." (9B1a) : the word "should" has a meaning 'failure to do so may jeopardise the infractor's right but not often punished' - so it is probably OK - at their own risk (Directors can get very touchy if they aren't called at the correct moment and the NOS subsequently want redress). If you are unsure of your rights then, if an irregularity occurs it is going to be best to call the TD - for your own protection. Some players use the 'threat' of calling a TD to browbeat opponents or talk them out of the due rectification to which they are entitled. The word 'threat' is in quotes because calling the TD (politely) is never a sanction. Others will try the opposite - suggest that the TD needn't be called because they 'know the law' - possibly with the same ultimate ends. The TD is there to impartially administer the law and restore equity at the table. If they get annoyed because they are playing a hand then they probably aren't cut out to be directors anyway. (As an aside, aggressive players using such language could readily fall foul of 'zero tolerance' or 'best behaviour at Bridge' or whatever scheme your RA uses to encourage civility and you are quite within your rights to call the director under such circumstances - you have the right to have an enjoyable evening (finishing on 38% regrettably is not grounds for obtaining an adjusted score.))
Paragraph 2: Correct - if you have no agreement then say you don't have an agreement. That is all the opponent's are entitled to (but see below). OK partner may in practice obtain UI but in theory he should know you don't have an agreement as well.
Paragraph 3: "We don't have an agreement in this case but in the sequence...., ... would mean ...." is probably the best you can do. As soon as you start saying "I took it as..." partner is going to get UI. I know it is natural to try and help opponents, however they can always call the TD (who can send you away and ask your partner what the partnership agreement is (if there is one)). Of course it also helps to have fully completed convention cards - something that, in my club at least, are sorely lacking. (Check - but certainly in England if there is no agreement then the bid should be alerted.)
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
Help
