[blml] The dog in the night

[Tim West-Meads]

Steve wrote:

> That seems a fair enough ruling.  The problem is, at the table, it 
> was quite clear that North was showing values.  (I was West.)  Is 
> there any way the TD could have known that, other than the 
> obviously-biased EW testimony?

It's a judgement ruling.  The testimony of EW is evidence that the TD 
can weight or ignore as he sees fit.  I've ruled (in money games) that 
"While a hesitation in this position does not, per se, indicate values 
the acknowledged demeanour of hesitator did..." WTP?

Tim