This is Not a question about pool hopping!

[eandesmom]

Why not just hop to BWV? Definitely allowed and right next door.

 

[Dean]

Why not just hop to BWV? Definitely allowed and right next door.

They could but they'd still be subject to getting permission and capacity issues and for some times of the year, blackout dates though this example was Oct with no dates blacked out so far. With part of the party at SSR and part at BCV, I think the best options are to PH to SSR or to list on the BCV unit those that you can and only take those to the pool. It may be that MS allows one to list all 5 in the studio at BCV which would solve the issue. I also realize there are ways around this for those that want to bend/break the rules.

 

[mjc2003]

I don't want to argue this with you, however suggesting they lie to skirt the rules is against my principles and obviously not against yours. As I interpreted your intent, it was to list only part of the party directly implying this were the entire party. To me that's also lying and I do not believe any technicality changes that. Why not simply be honest and ask for permission and abide by the answer.

Adding them to the reservation as long as they don't exceed room capacity is not lying, nor is it skirting the rules; in fact, this very thing was suggested to us last year by the desk manager at BC. My sister and her two daughters were not staying with us, but wanted to visit us at BCV for a few hours before they flew home. I asked at the front desk if they could swim with us, and the manager said that we had room to add them to the reservation so suggested we do so in order to get them keys. In fact, he even did it for us.

 

[mjc2003]

Two comments about this subject:

1) since SAB is open until 10, why do they stop checking room keys late in the afternoon? We just got back last week and spent a lot of time at the pool. Basically, nobody's checking after around 4ish.

2) I really wish they checked for cards outside of Hurricane Hanna's. the bar was quite full all week with a group of auditors there for a convention, they were staying at the Swan but took a liking to the pool bar at SAB for the evening happy hours. There were a lot of them, and they took over the bar several times. I get it, it's good for business, but we were staying on cash and I felt like a second class citizen every time I tried to get a drink. No big deal, just wish it was exclusively for YC/BC/BCV guests.

 

[Dean]

Adding them to the reservation as long as they don't exceed room capacity is not lying, nor is it skirting the rules; in fact, this very thing was suggested to us last year by the desk manager at BC. My sister and her two daughters were not staying with us, but wanted to visit us at BCV for a few hours before they flew home. I asked at the front desk if they could swim with us, and the manager said that we had room to add them to the reservation so suggested we do so in order to get them keys. In fact, he even did it for us.

Adding part of them implying it's the entire group for the purpose of using that to help bypass the pool restrictions is lying plain and simple. Adding them and just taking those added is not and I suggested that myself above. I guess once you're lying for trivial benefits and realize it, a few more really doesn't matter anyway.

 

[mjc2003]

Adding part of them implying it's the entire group for the purpose of using that to help bypass the pool restrictions is lying plain and simple. Adding them and just taking those added is not and I suggested that myself above. I guess once you're lying for trivial benefits and realize it, a few more really doesn't matter anyway.

I guess I'm not getting your point, and don't really want to become embroiled in a disagreement you are having with another poster. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "adding part of them implying it's the entire group". I'm only suggesting that if you have capacity to add people the reservation by write of rule, then you are not breaking any rules by doing so (validated by BC management). I think we are in agreement on this?

As for less honest attempts, I guess that's on the conscience of the individual.

 

[Dean]

I guess I'm not getting your point, and don't really want to become embroiled in a disagreement you are having with another poster. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "adding part of them implying it's the entire group". I'm only suggesting that if you have capacity to add people the reservation by write of rule, then you are not breaking any rules by doing so (validated by BC management). I think we are in agreement on this?

As for less honest attempts, I guess that's on the conscience of the individual.

Their suggestion was to add what you could to the occupancy as a means of getting those people in and then dragging the other with them secretly in some way, specifically by suggesting they were with the group and left their key behind. The intent was to get the entire group in that were not entitled and adding the names to the room up to occupancy was part of that scheme as posted. In this situation, by adding those names they would be implying this were the entire group, no different that if you did this to avoid the DP charges for a given person.

 

[CarolMN]

Since the OP has her answer,I am closing this thread.