BBO Discussion Forums: disclosure - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

disclosure

#21 User is offline   hotShot 

  • Axxx Axx Axx Axx
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,976
  • Joined: 2003-August-31
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2011-April-05, 10:04

View PostWGF_Flame, on 2011-April-05, 07:18, said:

Basically you are right,(although we only assume he forgot) but I think the directors here would give the same ruling if it turned out he didn't give alert on purpose.


If a player would be stupid enough to announce that he did not alert intentionally,
the TD would recognize that this player might have known that this would damage the opponents and that
would allow him to adjust the score.

Otherwise he is left with the impression, that North

- forgot the agreements
- forgot to alert
- bid a contract that cannot be made
- got into a position that would almost always end with a very bad score

It seems highly irrational to hope that opps misdefend and by that save North day.
0

#22 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,716
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2011-April-05, 10:07

View PostWGF_Flame, on 2011-April-05, 07:18, said:

Basically you are right,(although we only assume he forgot) but I think the directors here would give the same ruling if it turned out he didn't give alert on purpose.


And now you're wrong again.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#23 User is offline   WGF_Flame 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 241
  • Joined: 2003-December-19

Posted 2011-April-05, 10:43

View Postblackshoe, on 2011-April-05, 10:07, said:

And now you're wrong again.


I'm happy that I'm wrong here, so basically you agree that it wasn't OK not to alert, but because it wasn't on purpose then we don't have to do anything about it. I'm happy to hear that.
0

#24 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,716
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2011-April-05, 11:08

That is not what I said.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#25 User is offline   richlp 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 2009-July-26

Posted 2011-April-05, 15:38

View PostWGF_Flame, on 2011-April-05, 10:43, said:

I'm happy that I'm wrong here, so basically you agree that it wasn't OK not to alert, but because it wasn't on purpose then we don't have to do anything about it. I'm happy to hear that.

I don't think anybody has suggested that. As I read it, the issue is that EW are not entitled to redress because they have been given correct information about NS agreements. North basically (pick your own metaphore) and came up smelling like a rose - even it was with the help of the defense. That happens and EW are not entitled to know that North forgot his agreements.

I don't know if education, a warning, or a PP should be given to NS for failure to alert what North took to be an alertable call. But whatever happens to NS, EW get no redress.
0
  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users