aguahombre, on 2011-October-26, 20:17, said:
Let's see. This is a forum question.
OP says it is too late for correction, but we are told not to necessarily believe him.
We are given that both cc's explain the bid the same way the player explained it, but we are told this isn't good enough to answer a forum question on "simple rulings". If we are never to rely on the evidence as presented, we should never offer an opinion on what the ruling should be.
The forum question was quite clearly presented by someone who was not sure and was seeking advice. So I offered advice.
We can always offer opinions. I and others do try to make the opinions helpful. If we are offered inadequate evidence, it is helpful to explain
that it is inadequate and
why it is inadequate. Relying on two SCs without asking relevant questions is often inadequate and I have explained that.
The OP sounded unsure as to whether it was out of time. So I helped with a comment which might or might not be relevant. I am willing to bet there are some people who read this who believe the Correction Period ends thirty minutes after the end of the session, which is not right, or thirty minutes after the scores are posted, which is often wrong. It is wrong for
every EBU event, for example. Does everyone here know that?
Look at the last question I posted: the replies have pointed out a lack of information, which I sadly cannot remedy, and some opinions based on what they think happened or what might have happened given certain circumstances. Do you think none of those answers should have been made?
When the SC and the call made do not agree, it is vital that the player is asked why he made the call. Nothing in the OP tells us whether the question was asked nor what the answer was if it was asked.
I am not criticising the OP, but giving an inadequate answer on insufficient evidence may not be the most helpful thing to do.