[Pict]

blackshoe, on Apr 22 2010, 03:34 PM, said:

Pict, on Apr 22 2010, 04:06 PM, said:

Thanks Cardsharp.

Those @.. things were emails to You? 

I do start  to get confused on the BBO forums when (like 1970's films) continuity is lost and it seems there is a shadow world of private forums/emails.

No. He's replying to earlier posts in this thread by those people. If you can't remember what's been said previously (I often forget myself) it's a good idea to go back and review at least the last couple of pages. That generally avoids "loss of continuity".

blackshoe

Could you quote the @.. statements. I didn't recall seeing them, and still dont find them.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on Apr 22 2010, 08:52 AM, said:

As far as I know (Paul can correct me), in Scotland, we abide by WBF disclosure regulations.

First page, tenth post in the thread.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on Apr 22 2010, 06:47 AM, said:

I do not believe that the method of disclosing methods at the start of a round makes questions such as this unnecessary. First, it is very difficult to remember opponents methods as well as mine, so I do not bother, just find out when I need to. Second, even if they have disclosed them at the start of the round, they will not have disclosed the strength.

Ninth post in the thread, just before Nigel's.

[Pict]

Thanks blackshoe.

Just hadn't realised the @ was a marker for an unstated quote.

[blackshoe]

Not common here, common in other chat modes.

[bluejak]

cardsharp, on Apr 22 2010, 06:10 PM, said:

@bluejak
I am coming around to your view that disclosure at the start of the round is (mostly/normally/almost always) irrelevant subsequently. But I believe that it is a useful practice.

I do not mind it for the people who like it. But I do not want it replacing other methods because of the people who believe you do not have to remember such things, but can rely on alerting plus SCs.