Help
This does not strike me as a simple ruling. I'm going to move it to the other forum
Unauthorized Information with spice UI, MI, Serious Error
#21
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,695
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2021-December-30, 15:59
--------------------
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
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
#22
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,036
- Joined: 2008-September-10
- Gender:Male
Posted 2021-December-31, 16:05
pescetom, on 2021-December-29, 08:20, said:
The problem is that N seems to know that one of the 2 suits is spades, which was not explained to EW.
EW could/should have asked further if they had questions after the 1st alert response. Without any further explanation, I would probably assume some type of Michaels cue bid, but I would always ask.
#23
- Secretary Bird
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,435
- Joined: 2003-July-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16
Posted 2021-December-31, 19:45
And if you got a "any two suits" response? With the unspoken, or potentially spoken, ", idiot"? Or the "if we had a known suit, I would have said so" (with the same unspoken postscript)? I know it shouldn't happen, but you know it does...
As pescetom said, this is a not unknown agreement in the area, and E-W probably had no reason to doubt it. It's N-S responsibility to be correct. I have been known to be a bit unwelcoming of the people who want to be allowed to accept what the opponents tell them, even when it's clearly "the right explanation for the wrong convention", but as I say there, my suspicion tolerance is somewhat to the left of "B-S-". It's somewhat to the right of "okay, that's odd, but reasonable".
Note that I have been treating N-S with kid gloves in this thread on this topic, because they probably don't understand the difference between what they said and what they play (and now they do, right?) or why their explanation was not sufficient. But I also want to treat E-W with some sympathy, because a) they are the non-offenders, and b) they also seem to need an education.
But my argument is that the MI, whether or not E-W should have clarified or taken South at her word, wasn't the cause of the damage.
As pescetom said, this is a not unknown agreement in the area, and E-W probably had no reason to doubt it. It's N-S responsibility to be correct. I have been known to be a bit unwelcoming of the people who want to be allowed to accept what the opponents tell them, even when it's clearly "the right explanation for the wrong convention", but as I say there, my suspicion tolerance is somewhat to the left of "B-S-". It's somewhat to the right of "okay, that's odd, but reasonable".
Note that I have been treating N-S with kid gloves in this thread on this topic, because they probably don't understand the difference between what they said and what they play (and now they do, right?) or why their explanation was not sufficient. But I also want to treat E-W with some sympathy, because a) they are the non-offenders, and b) they also seem to need an education.
But my argument is that the MI, whether or not E-W should have clarified or taken South at her word, wasn't the cause of the damage.
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)