[Rossoneri]

EW don't have a convention card. Unfortunately, convention cards are not popular here. (Mostly for reasons jules101 gave above)

NS appear to have had a disagreement over what the X of a natural 3♣ mean. Again, difficult to ascertain who is right!

I know what I would give as a director, but I was actually playing in another team and sitting out this round when this happened. As it happens, two other directors were around and so the 3 of them considered the issue and gave a split score of 4♥-1 to EW and 4♠-2 to NS.

Comments on the ruling? Table result was 4♠X-2

[blackshoe]

Choices have consequences. If you choose to play in places where the culture (if that's the right word) says it's okay to ignore the rules, well, that's your choice.

I'd have to go back and reread the entire thread, as I've forgotten all the details spread across two pages of replies, but something about that ruling bothers me. Not sure what.

[mfa1010]

Rossoneri, on 2010-December-22, 19:27, said:

EW don't have a convention card. Unfortunately, convention cards are not popular here. (Mostly for reasons jules101 gave above)

NS appear to have had a disagreement over what the X of a natural 3♣ mean. Again, difficult to ascertain who is right!

I know what I would give as a director, but I was actually playing in another team and sitting out this round when this happened. As it happens, two other directors were around and so the 3 of them considered the issue and gave a split score of 4♥-1 to EW and 4♠-2 to NS.

Comments on the ruling? Table result was 4♠X-2

It would be nice to know the directors reasons since there could be a hidden devil in some detail.

Did they really correct 4♠X to 4♠, or is that a typo?

If, and that is a big if since I don't know their reasoning, they ruled that south's 4♠ was a sewog opposite a takeout double of ♥+♣ then I couldn't disagree more. I say this only because the ruling looks at first glance like a sewog ruling, but we don't know if it was.

[mfa1010]

blackshoe, on 2010-December-22, 23:23, said:

Choices have consequences. If you choose to play in places where the culture (if that's the right word) says it's okay to ignore the rules, well, that's your choice.

True. If 'nobody' would have a CC then I would not ask for one. I don't like to be pedantic and go around and educate on people. Some do that, I really don't.
In our clubs CC are the norm, and pairs without one would feel that they should have had one.

[mgoetze]

(Post deleted - confused this with another thread.)

[Rossoneri]

blackshoe, on 2010-December-22, 23:23, said:

Choices have consequences. If you choose to play in places where the culture (if that's the right word) says it's okay to ignore the rules, well, that's your choice.

I'd have to go back and reread the entire thread, as I've forgotten all the details spread across two pages of replies, but something about that ruling bothers me. Not sure what.

If only I could choose where I was born! Personally I like it a lot better in the UK (where I now spent 2/3-3/4 of the year in) where CCs are more of the norm.

mfa1010, on 2010-December-23, 02:45, said:

True. If 'nobody' would have a CC then I would not ask for one. I don't like to be pedantic and go around and educate on people. Some do that, I really don't.
In our clubs CC are the norm, and pairs without one would feel that they should have had one.

It makes for unwanted situations when I'm directing (although in this case I wasn't) and I really wished people would use CCs.

mfa1010, on 2010-December-23, 02:35, said:

It would be nice to know the directors reasons since there could be a hidden devil in some detail.

Did they really correct 4♠X to 4♠, or is that a typo?

If, and that is a big if since I don't know their reasoning, they ruled that south's 4♠ was a sewog opposite a takeout double of ♥+♣ then I couldn't disagree more. I say this only because the ruling looks at first glance like a sewog ruling, but we don't know if it was.

No typo, the split ruling for NS was really 4♠-2, undoubled.

It seemed like the 3 of them couldn't make up their mind if the X over 3♣ was a sewog. At the table, NS were openly disagreeing on what X over a natural 3♣ meant.