Yet another MI/(UI?)

[Rossoneri]

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.

 

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.

 

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.