[BLML] Pointless TD calls for 2017

Marvin French mfrench1 at san.rr.com
Wed Jun 20 22:22:25 CEST 2012


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
> one
> 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. 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 
suspected.

[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.

Marv
Marvin L French
www.marvinfrenchj.com








More information about the Blml mailing list