Keeper1 Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 The pair in question didn't pre-alert this the next time I played them.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 The pair in question didn't pre-alert this the next time I played them.... Exactly. There's a shocker... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 The pair in question didn't pre-alert this the next time I played them.... Maybe they were convinced by the proceedings that the methods they claimed to be playing were unsound, so decided to change their style... Or, maybe they were told by another director that they didn't actually have to pre-alert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 I think that this sort of follow up, like the quiet observation I had in mind, is useful. A cynic might say of course it was BS what they said and maybe it was. But it would be better for everyone and better for the game if there was some follow through, checking to see if what they say is what they do. Perhaps it is. It's possible. Many years ago an opponent asked about partner's bid and I said that we had no agreement. He mentioned that I could just say that anytime. I replied that I only say it when it is true. Skepticism is legitimate, it comes easily to me. But sometimes, surprise, it turns out to be the truth. Trust but verify, also be skeptical but allow for the possibility it's true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.