在七月份的Bridge World Editorial中,有一个读者投书的case如下: After the opponents had bid two suits, my RHO jumped to four notrump as Blackwood, then noticeably hesitated before bidding a small slam over the reply. After I passed, LHO started thinking, and I called the Director to protect my rights.(I know I should have called during RHO's hesitation, but so many people find that tantamount to an accusation of cheating that I usually say nothing in the hope that the partner of the hesitater will not be subconsciously influenced by the break in tempo.) The Director announced: "While I personally do not agree with the ACBL positionm you cannot take advantage of your partner's hesitation, and you are effectively barred." 接着在编辑回应中,有引用几条桥规以及解说: (1) When should the Director be called? Duplicate Law 9B1a: "The Director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irragularity." That sentence suffers from what we call "Passive voice ambiguity." As with other Laws, its interpretation is in the eye of beholder. 而且并没有说明这样的attention是被桌上任何一人drawn,还是要被全桌的人. 不过不管是哪一种解释,编辑都不认为该例中叫裁判的状况是成立的. 因为这两种解释都需要有perception of irragularity, 而irragularity的定义 是"A deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws."在 这样的定义下,叫黑木那个人的迟疑就不能算是deviation,因为 Law 73D1: "It is desirable ,though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo....players should be particularly careful in position in which variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, inadvertantly to vary the tempo....does not in itself constitute a violation..." Law 74C7: "varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent" is a violation of procedure. And no other mentions in that Law about any varying of tempo. (2) Can the timing of director calls be improved? 编辑建议:(a)For mechanical irregularities, any player who becomes aware of the situation must immediately call the Director. (b)For informational irregularities, any play aware of the situation must call the Director at the conclusion of the deal(but not before) 看完这篇我发现如例子中裁判被叫的状况在台湾我也有经历过,而且似乎许多人的观念 都跟投书的读者一样,认为hesitation就是presumably irragular,而且不仅是彼此告诫 不要break in tempo,甚至当同伴出现长考时还有很多人会"不耐烦地"pass.(包括我自己 都有这种时候)因为认为只要是hesitation,就几乎构成了限制自己叫牌的状况. 可是看完以上这篇,却发现似乎不需要这样的"草木皆兵".而且原来这种"报备"机制, 以Birdge World的立场是不认同,而且认为於法无据的. 那麽在台湾的我们,对hesitation的立场又理应是什麽呢?对长考pass和长考叫牌又应 不应有差别的看待呢? --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 219.91.83.6 ※ 编辑: mars 来自: 219.91.83.6 (11/02 22:44)