william henderson wrote
>It's not sympathy i seek, but understanding.
>
>I infer that we deserved penalising for declining to explain a
non-existent
>agreement. I ACCEPT THAT , even though the TD said we were penalised
because my
>partner failed to alert his penalty double.
>
>But when is the 2 heart bidder entitled to make the enquiry, and of whom
may he
>enquire ? His partner (void in hearts) passed the double believing it
was
>non-penalty, and indeed it was so until I converted it by passing. Had
>I explained
>that I had converted a negative double to penalty by passing, then
>there would have
>been no offense, and it would have been too late for the void partner
>to make an
>SOS redouble.. There would have been no offense. Is that correct ?
No. The 2H bidder is allowed to ask questions whenever it is his turn
to ask or play - in theory. But since this is on OKB and his partner
cannot see the question in effect he can ask whenever he likes so long
as he does so privately.
Whom he may ask depends on the table. Generally it is hte same as
alerting. If traditional alerts are used - ie partner alerts - then
questions are addressed to him. If self-alerts are used then questions
are addressed to the player who made the call.
Note that questions may be asked of calls that were not alerted.
Please do not top post!
>David Stevenson 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.
>>
>> --
>> David Stevenson Wirral, Merseyside, UK
>><bridge2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> Special services: Digital Postcard
>>http://blakjak.com/postcard.htm
>> Currency Converter
>>http://blakjak.com/curr_con.htm
>> Magical Translator
>>http://blakjak.com/translt.htm
>
--
David Stevenson Wirral, Merseyside, UK
<bridge2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Special services: Digital Postcard
http://blakjak.com/postcard.htm
Currency Converter
http://blakjak.com/curr_con.htm
Magical Translator
http://blakjak.com/translt.htm
|
