[bluejak]

When you get an explanation not in writing, you request it in writing. If you still do not get it in writing you call the TD.

Sure, we know players do not do this, but we also know they do not all put down the last pass card of the auction. Both are infractions and put the player in the wrong when he fails to follow correct procedure. Correct procedure includes not accepting incorrect procedure from an opponent.

[WellSpyder]

jallerton, on 2012-March-19, 16:08, said:

I agree that the person giving the verbal explanation has committed an infraction, but what do you expect the screenmate to do? Is the failure to wear earplugs an infraction?

If I want to make sure I get an answer in writing, I normally ask a question in writing, eg "5D=?".

[Zelandakh]

bluejak, on 2012-March-19, 18:54, said:

When you get an explanation not in writing, you request it in writing. If you still do not get it in writing you call the TD.

So if I choose never to give an explanation in writing unless specifically asked for by an opponent I am committing an infraction but I can only gain from it? It is always my opponent who will be ruled against. Seems like this goes clearly against 23 and perhaps also 72B1. Your position seems to lend credence to the ruling Frances received - both sides at fault. Your apparent position that only the asking side is at fault seems flawed at best.

[bluejak]

bluejak, on 2012-March-19, 11:36, said:

If it is based on a verbal explanation, then both the person giving the explanation and the person receiving the explanation have committed an infraction. When both sides are at fault, it is legal to split a score.

Zelandakh, on 2012-March-20, 03:04, said:

So if I choose never to give an explanation in writing unless specifically asked for by an opponent I am committing an infraction but I can only gain from it? It is always my opponent who will be ruled against. Seems like this goes clearly against 23 and perhaps also 72B1. Your position seems to lend credence to the ruling Frances received - both sides at fault. Your apparent position that only the asking side is at fault seems flawed at best.

Perhaps you should read what I have written. Of course both sides are at fault and I said so explicitly.

[kgr]

bluejak, on 2012-March-20, 08:15, said:

Perhaps you should read what I have written. Of course both sides are at fault and I said so explicitly.

what does this mean for the ruling/scoring?