Join Bridge Winners

Bridge Winners Profile for Peter Jan Plooy

Peter Jan Plooy
Peter Jan Plooy
  • 8
    Following
  • 4
    Followers
  • 18
    Posts
  • 0
    Favorites

Basic Information

Member Since
Sept. 29, 2015
Last Seen
58 minutes ago
Member Type
Bridge Club
about me

I am a civil engineer by profession, living in Breda (NL). Started playing bridge relatively late, about the age of 26. Been member of the same club in Delft since 26 years.

Middle level club player (Hoofdklasse, for you Dutchies).

Country
Netherlands

Bridge Information

Member of Bridge Club(s)
DBC, Delft, the Netherlands
BBO Username
Peterjan57
ACBL Ranking
None
Sorry, this user has no cards yet.
Active ethics: A Step too Far?
Down boy, down. And when you've calmed down, read the Laws. Or this post. You will (hopefully) realise you're way off base, using the c-word.
Questions for the directors
David, I'm not convinced of that. Law 16.A says (2007 version): "1. A player may use information in the auction or play if: (...) (c) it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in ...
Questions for the directors
Please explain: ""partner correctly alerted and explained" would also be UI." How is this unauthorised information?
Active ethics: A Step too Far?
@Michael, does the falling tree make a sound? We will never know ;)
Active ethics: A Step too Far?
There we have the basic principle: if "the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused". If there is no damage caused by the revoke, there is no compensation required.
Active ethics: A Step too Far?
Michael, avoiding a penalty trick is not the same as winning an undeserved trick. The original infraction (revoking) did not win them a trick. So the opponents were not damaged by the infraction. That they could have received a windfall if they had noticed the infraction, is something completely different ...
Active ethics: A Step too Far?
Knowingly accepting a trick you are not entitled to? Is that in the Laws? Or knowingly letting the Correction Period expire, so the director cannot correct the result in accordance with Law 69.B.2? Edit/add: second paragraph.
Active ethics: A Step too Far?
Obviously the penalty trick makes a difference for the result. I meant: if the revoke itself doesn't produce an extra trick for us, there is no reason to hang yourself. No damage done.
Active ethics: A Step too Far?
Steve, You know you revoked, but no one notices AND you got an extra trick. You point it out. You know you revoked, but no one notices AND it didn't make any difference for the result. You keep your mouth shut.
Active ethics: A Step too Far?
Richard, the revoke may not have been deliberate, but checking the claim they must have noticed that a trump trick was conceded that they had no right to. I suspect that that was the reason for the CEC.
.

Bottom Home Top