[jdonn]

Codo, on Nov 15 2008, 06:18 PM, said:

Maybe you have to admit to be uniformed in this case....

Maybe you have to admit to not speaking English very well. I said the FINAL DECISION would not have been different. I even conceded that it was probably poorly handled. What exactly are you arguing against?

[zenko]

These are really two separate issues. Do laws really allow this kind of ruling procedure? If they do the law should be changed/clarified at once.

BTW at the table without hesitation I would bid 4 diamonds, but I understand that might be a minority view

[whereagles]

Joining the 5♦ bandwagon, expecting pard to have something like a 3433 with around 14 hcp and no spade wastage.

[Codo]

jdonn, on Nov 16 2008, 08:35 AM, said:

Codo, on Nov 15 2008, 06:18 PM, said:

Maybe you have to admit to be uniformed in this case....

Maybe you have to admit to not speaking English very well. I said the FINAL DECISION would not have been different. I even conceded that it was probably poorly handled. What exactly are you arguing against?

I am the first to admit that my english is much worse then it should be.

But maybe this time your readingabilities or your memory did not serve you well.

IT was you who said:

Quote

Gerben while some of that stuff is certainly not the best procedure, it seems evident that none of it would have impacted the final decision.

But according to the laws, the procedure has a really big big impact on the final descission.

I otoh wrote:

Quote

I agree with you to disagree with Gerben that, if everything had been done according to the rules, the AC can/should rule 5 Diamonds -1.
But the procedure was so faulty, that it did impact the final descission.

Anything not understandable in this part?

But please feel free to tell me what I understood wrong with my limited skills. Your English is surely better then mine.