在七月份的Bridge World Editorial中,有一個讀者投書的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." 接著在編輯回應中,有引用幾條橋規以及解說: (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. 而且並沒有說明這樣的attention是被桌上任何一人drawn,還是要被全桌的人. 不過不管是哪一種解釋,編輯都不認為該例中叫裁判的狀況是成立的. 因為這兩種解釋都需要有perception of irragularity, 而irragularity的定義 是"A deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws."在 這樣的定義下,叫黑木那個人的遲疑就不能算是deviation,因為 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? 編輯建議:(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) 看完這篇我發現如例子中裁判被叫的狀況在台灣我也有經歷過,而且似乎許多人的觀念 都跟投書的讀者一樣,認為hesitation就是presumably irragular,而且不僅是彼此告誡 不要break in tempo,甚至當同伴出現長考時還有很多人會"不耐煩地"pass.(包括我自己 都有這種時候)因為認為只要是hesitation,就幾乎構成了限制自己叫牌的狀況. 可是看完以上這篇,卻發現似乎不需要這樣的"草木皆兵".而且原來這種"報備"機制, 以Birdge World的立場是不認同,而且認為於法無據的. 那麼在台灣的我們,對hesitation的立場又理應是什麼呢?對長考pass和長考叫牌又應 不應有差別的看待呢? --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 219.91.83.6 ※ 編輯: mars 來自: 219.91.83.6 (11/02 22:44)