[blml] L20F1

[David Barton]

>> There was no question of misinformation. 
>>>>
> +=+ To form a judgement we need to know precisely 
> what evidence the Director obtained to establish that 
> there was no misinformation.   In a situation like this where
> it is 'convenient' for South to be 'reminded' by partner that 
> he has forgotten system, the statements of the players alone 
> do not suffice.    The ruling goes against N/S unless they 
> can produce documentary confirmation of the accuracy of 
> North's explanation. You have repeatedly asserted this was 
> the case:  but what was the physical evidence to establish it?
>                                        ~ Grattan ~   +=+
>
 
The story behind this is that the incident occured recently
against my partner and I. We were assured that the explanations
given were in accordance with their system, so we shrugged and
moved onto the next board. It was only some time later that I
began to wonder whether there was any grounds for an adjustment
based simply on the failure to comply with the proper procedure
given in L20F1. Additionally any ruling based on actual or
deemed misinformation would be routine and hence of little
interest.

I am inviting comments on a (now hypothetical) incident where
the director was able to confirm the system agreements and

Case A - North's decision to give the explanation was entirely
               innocent

Case B - North gave the explanation in order to prevent a possible
               misunderstanding coming to light.

*****************************************
  david.j.barton at lineone.net
*****************************************





-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.431 / Virus Database: 268.14.12/545 - Release Date: 21/11/2006 22:36