[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2014-April-07, 09:52, said:

The WBF version of L21 says "could well have been influenced by...". It qualifies "influenced", which IMO is even stronger in support of your position.

Thanks. And this answers gnasher and campboy. And I am not interested in discussing whether "qualifies" is the right word.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2014-April-07, 14:56, said:

Then rewrite the White Book. The TD will tend to assume that the correction is the true understanding, unless North asks to speak to her away from the table. And it would be a PP, not a DP: "failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or with instructions of the Director", which is appealable. So when North asks the TD to speak to her away from the table, and the TD refuses, if North asks again, as happened, then North could get a PP. This would be appealable and if the AC decided North was correct to ask again, then the PP would be overturned.

I maintain that it is best for the TD to send the explainer away from the table, and allow the bidder to disclose the actual agreement to the opponents.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2014-April-07, 14:58, said:

Thanks. And this answers gnasher and campboy.

When you suggested that we "agree to differ", did that mean that you just wanted me to stop arguing my point whilst you continued to tell me I was wrong?

Oh, and I already knew what the Law said. You'll find it correctly quoted in post no 2 of this thread.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2014-April-07, 15:04, said:

When you suggested that we "agree to differ", did that mean that you just wanted me to stop arguing my point whilst you continued to tell me I was wrong?

Oh, and I already knew what the Law said. You'll find it correctly quoted in post no 2 of this thread.

At some point on just about every thread on here, the arguments go round in circles. At that point I bow out, and that point has been reached on this thread. I have said everything I wish to say on it, and will not post on it anymore.