Zelandakh Posted August 15, 2015 Report Share Posted August 15, 2015 Now, if this "as we all know" is knowledge generally available to bridge players (GBK), then there has been no MI, because he is not required to disclose GBK.It is not GBK because it is simply not true. Believe it or not Ed, not everything that gets written on the internet is the truth. This one is really simple. They agreed to play "bog standard UCBs" and both understood this to mean either a good raise or a GF hand without a better call. That is an agreement. The agreement was explained differently. That is MI and if the MI caused damage they get ruled against. It is perfectly ok for the club to tell the players that they should give the correct explanation. A reprimand would be an over-reaction but refer to my second sentence before automatically avoiding the club for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted August 16, 2015 Report Share Posted August 16, 2015 It is not GBK because it is simply not true. Believe it or not Ed, not everything that gets written on the internet is the truth.I wrote "if" for a reason. And believe it or not, I'm not as gullible as you seem to think I am. 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.