In article <351ySOKk2I+$EwwF@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
David Stevenson <bridge2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> william henderson wrote
> >>>You're only required to describe your agreements, not your actual
hand,
> >nor what you "hope" partner will do
> >
> >Thanks for your reply. That was my understandng , too but apparently
this
> >is
> >not the case at least on OKB. At the start of every tournament, they
flash
> >on
> >the "instructions", " "No arrangement" is insufficient explanation"..
Why
> >so,
> >if one must alert only the partner****p arrangement.?
> >
> >In the case in question, the director was called and we were penalised
> >"because partner should hasve alerted his non-sayc bid as a penalty
double".
> >THAT was NOT a partner****p arrangement.
> >
> >Where are we wrong in our surmise ? Can anyone explain ?
>
> You are required to explain agreements. OK, so why did you refuse to
> answer?
>
> Now, perhaps you were hard done by by the TD, but if you do not
follow
> the rules you are going to cause problems. You would have my complete
> sympathy if you had answered the question fully and correctly, and then
> been ruled against. But your method is just asking for trouble.
But he claims that the ruling against them was because they didn't
alert. If that's the case, the ruling was wrong. Negative doubles are
SAYC, so they're not alertable in OKB tourneys.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MA
|
