Re: Raaterovian interpretation

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_yeats.ucc.ie>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 20:05:58 GMT

Mikael Raaterova on me on describing HW bets:
> >I agree. The rules soft-pedal this somewhat, but to get somewhat
> >Raaterovian for a moment, I'd say "No description: default bet;
> >inappropriate description to the stated bet size: summary GM
> >fiat as to the 'correction' applied to the latter."

> I don't see why this would be specifically 'Raaterovian' (lovely
> word, though; it should be used far more often), mind you. I do agree
> that description of action is primary and bet size secondary, but i
> was under the impression that that interpretation was the 'standard'
> one.

Last rules draft I saw somewhat soft-pedalled this point; it was something like 'GM may suggest adjusting one or the other', or some such wooly nonsense. ;-) I invoke your name, Mikael, not as being out of step in any sense with the Orthodoxy, just as being dependably hard-core about it... <gdr>

Cheers,
Alex.

---