BGonline.org Forums

Chouette Controversy Number 2

Posted By: Phil Simborg
Date: Sunday, 27 September 2009, at 3:13 p.m.

In Response To: Chouette Controversy Number 2 (Joe Russell)

1. There is no way to "prove" that the comment is what caused the player to see the play; 2. There is a history of the outside person asking what the roll is, and if there were no objections in the past, it is wrong to object at this particular time or to assume he asked in order to alert the player to the hit; 3. The "overriding" rule here is that right or wrong, you must abide by the ruling of the club owner. That is the "agreement" all players make when they sit down. (I have had tournament directors and directors in Bridge make horrible rulings against me or in favor of my opponents, but I accept his/her right to make those rulings and the fact that I have agreed to live by them.)

Messages In This Thread

• Chouette Controversy Number 2
  Joe Russell -- Sunday, 27 September 2009, at 9:42 a.m.
  • Chouette Controversy Number 2
    jdg -- Sunday, 27 September 2009, at 1:51 p.m.
    • Chouette Controversy Number 2
      Havard Raddum -- Monday, 28 September 2009, at 7:12 a.m.
  • Chouette Controversy Number 2
    Phil Simborg -- Sunday, 27 September 2009, at 3:13 p.m.
  • Chouette Controversy Number 2
    Gregg Cattanach -- Monday, 28 September 2009, at 4:02 p.m.
    • Chouette Controversy Number 2
      Rich Munitz -- Monday, 28 September 2009, at 4:36 p.m.
  • Chouette Controversy Number 2
    Sam Pottle -- Monday, 28 September 2009, at 6:12 p.m.
  • Chouette Controversy Number 2
    misja -- Wednesday, 30 September 2009, at 3:13 p.m.