Barry Margolin wrote
>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.
I am sorry, was I not clear? I said "Perhaps you were hard done by by
the TD", did I not? His story is not 100% clear, and we have only heard
his side, so I think I have gone as far as possible. But even if the
ruling was wrong, it is understandable that a player at fault may get
ruled against.
--
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
|
