BGonline.org Forums

Chouette Controversy Number 2

Posted By: Gregg Cattanach
Date: Monday, 28 September 2009, at 4:02 p.m.

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

I think the original move must stand. Otherwise the partner could say 'what did you roll' or 'is that legal' every time he doesn't like the box's play, which would be a large consulting advantage. I think Kleinman wrote about this once, talking about a player that would often shout 'illegal!' when he really meant 'immoral!'.

The partner shouldn't be saying anything unless he knows the play is illegal. He has the right to call attention to illegal plays (chouette rules, obviously), but not bad ones.

If because of the partner's poor eyesight, the group decided that the rolls should be announced, they all should be announced. The pattern shouldn't be to wait for this partner to ask, as this leaves the problem just described open.

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.