BGonline.org Forums

Chouette Controversy Number 2

Posted By: Rich Munitz
Date: Monday, 28 September 2009, at 4:36 p.m.

In Response To: Chouette Controversy Number 2 (Gregg Cattanach)

I happen to agree with Greg here. (Note the date and time once again.)

The partner did not ask what the roll was before the play was made, but after. There was only one possible dice roll that would have permitted the play made to be legal. The roll could be inferred from the play. There is no reason for anyone to assume that a play is illegal unless they see the dice and know it is illegal. And lacking positive evidence of an illegal play, they should keep quiet.

I'll add one suggestion... If the chouette was playing "legal moves", then the proper thing for the sight impaired player to do if nobody calls the roll is to wait until AFTER the dice are up and then ask what the roll was. It is not too late to correct an illegal play at that point, but it cannot be confused with illegal consulting.

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.