Should I Have Sanctioned an Appeal?

[blackshoe]

"Logical" means "characterized by clear, sound reasoning". When a player makes a stupid or off-the-wall bid, that bid is not "characterized by clear, sound reasoning", and hence is illogical. You can't get around that by redefining the meaning of the term.

 

Grattan Endicott once told me that "logical" in this context really means something like "plausible, for the class of player involved". To which my reaction is "well then why in Hell doesn't the law say that?"

 

This problem has been discussed many many many times, with a variety of acceptable solutions. However, it is not of particular importance in this forum since it is not a forum for changing Laws, and it is a matter of general agreement that we adjust for UI even if the chosen action is not seen as an LA, or alternatively would not have been considered an LA if it had not been chosen.

 

Yes. But I don't have to like it.

[RMB1]

Yes. But I don't have to like it.

 

I am not clear: do you not like the current wording but are happy with the application?

 

Or, do you think it should be legal to select an illogical action even if that action is suggested over the logical alternative by the unauthorised information?

[dburn]

I don't think your understanding can be correct. If it were, then North would often be able to infer a N/S minsuderstanding from an E/W explanation. Suppose you respond 2♥ to 1NT which you play as a weak take-out. Unfortunately, partner forgets that you still play this and announces "spades". LHO bids 2♠. Are you entitled to know that LHO has, say "hearts and another suit", rather than spades?

I should imagine so. After all, RHO will presumably tell you that this is what it shows.

 

But while you're allowed to know it, you're not allowed to act as though you know it; just as while you're allowed to know as soon as you bid 1♥ (after 1♦-Double) to show spades that this was a mistake, once partner alerts you're not allowed to bid as though it was anything other than your actual agreement until the evidence that it wasn't becomes completely incontrovertible.

 

To answer a question posed by bluejak, this is the discrepancy between Law 16 and Law 73. If Law 73 did not exist, North in the original problem could argue that 3♠ "must be" support for North's non-existent spade suit because there is no logical alternative to that presumption (the opponents "can't have" ten spades on the bidding). So North could bid 3NT, in the knowledge that his partner has a spade stop, without being held in breach of Law 16.

 

But because Law 73 does exist, North can't do that. He must carefully avoid taking any advantage of UI. Well, the UI tells him that his partner has spades and not hearts. Moreover, the UI will cause him to think fantastical thoughts about his partner's bid of 3♠ - "maybe I can justify 3NT by making up a load of nonsense about not playing splinters in competition and about 2♠ being non-forcing, so partner must have a huge hand with 5-6 in spades and diamonds".

 

The unvarnished truth is, though, that North would not have bid 3NT if partner had explained 1♥ as "hearts". That being so, he's not allowed to do it now. Law 16 does not preclude it, but Law 73 does.

[Aardv]

One more thought: consider North's position when 3NTx comes back to him. What is supposed to be going on now? East has to be genuine, so South can't have the strong 5-6 previously envisaged unless West's take-out double was an outright psyche. I can't think of any plausible explanation, but it seems to me that North has a duty to try.

[blackshoe]

I am not clear: do you not like the current wording but are happy with the application?

 

Or, do you think it should be legal to select an illogical action even if that action is suggested over the logical alternative by the unauthorised information?

 

I don't like the current wording.

[jallerton]

But in the actual case where screens are not in use, North is in duty bound to act as though he had bid hearts to show hearts, and his partner had jumped to three spades knowing that North had hearts. That is: if it is not completely impossible that the opponents had failed to bid spades thus far despite having ten of them, South must place that construction upon the auction. Not "unlikely", not "very implausible" as helene suggests, not "virtually impossible" as jallerton suggests, but "completely impossible". At least, that is the way I understand the Laws and the way I have always ruled on committees. If I am supposed to do otherwise... well, no doubt I will be told in due course.

 

OK Let's try to construct the layout.

 

(i) South has intended 3♠ as a huge 2-suiter

 

North has a 2524 9-count.

South has let's says a pure 5260 16-count

West has a 4414 10-count

East has a 2245 5-count

 

That all adds up and seems at least vaguely plausible to me.

 

(ii) South has intended 3♠ as a splinter

 

North has a 2524 9-count.

South has let's say a 1453 17-count for his splinter raise to game opposite a 1-level response.

West has a made a free bid, so should have the odd high card. Let's give him a 3235 6-count.

That leaves East with a 7231 8-count, a couple of aces short of a strong jump overcall.

 

Helene used the phrase "very implausible". I used the phrase "virtually impossible". Are we allowed to assume that the opponents have not come up with bizarre psyches, such as making a take-out double on a normal pre-empetive 3♠ overcall hand? If so, I'll change my assessment of the probability of this layout to "completely impossible".

 

So the question is: are we allowed to assume that the opponents have not psyched when assessing the logical alternatives?

[Cascade]

OK Let's try to construct the layout.

 

(i) South has intended 3♠ as a huge 2-suiter

 

North has a 2524 9-count.

South has let's says a pure 5260 16-count

West has a 4414 10-count

East has a 2245 5-count

 

That all adds up and seems at least vaguely plausible to me.

 

(ii) South has intended 3♠ as a splinter

 

North has a 2524 9-count.

South has let's say a 1453 17-count for his splinter raise to game opposite a 1-level response.

West has a made a free bid, so should have the odd high card. Let's give him a 3235 6-count.

That leaves East with a 7231 8-count, a couple of aces short of a strong jump overcall.

 

Helene used the phrase "very implausible". I used the phrase "virtually impossible". Are we allowed to assume that the opponents have not come up with bizarre psyches, such as making a take-out double on a normal pre-empetive 3♠ overcall hand? If so, I'll change my assessment of the probability of this layout to "completely impossible".

 

So the question is: are we allowed to assume that the opponents have not psyched when assessing the logical alternatives?

 

One major flaw here is that if 1♥ was explained at the time (this was a possibility in the opening post) then it is plausible that EW have a five-five or better spade fit and you might still hear 2♣. Only a weak or so ago I had five good hearts in response to my partner's double and was deflected to bidding another suit when the opponent (a solid citizen) responded 1♥.

[Chris L]

 

I don't think North should be allowed to remember his system unless there is no even vaguely plausible explanation for the 3♠ bid.

 

Clearly, if there is any significant chance that 3♠ might be a cue bid agreeing hearts, then 4♣ must be a logical alternative (though even a 9-card spade fit East/West is quite hard to believe if West would normally overcall 1♠ in preference to a take-out double with 5 of them).

 

Perhaps my conclusion on the meaning of 3♠ is biased by my own agreements. With most partners, I do not play splinters in competiton, other than in suits bid by opponents. I play 1♦ P 1♠ (2♥) 4♣ as natural and game forcing. My competitive system file with a couple of partners even states that non-jump new suit reverses at the 3-level are very strong but NF (e.g. 1♣ P 1♦ 2♠ 3♥). My "lunatic" view is only one answer, which is why I am curious to know how widely the TD consulted and how he came to his "no logical alternative" conclusion.

 

The TD told me he had consulted before deciding on the question of the 3NT bid. I think, but cannot be certain, that he said "a couple" (which, in colloquial English, and before people start jumping up and down about that, rarely means exactly two) or he may have said "a few". Given the timings, he wouldn't have had time to do much more - there was an interval of ten minutes between matches 6 and 7 and this table was the last to finish in our match v Surrey; I don't know when in that match this board arose nor when, precisely, our pair asked for a ruling. Part of that interval would have been taken up by the need to check all the scores were in and to post the results on the board. Once the last match started, the number of players available to consult (not all of whom would have been "peers" of North) would have been a maximum of four. The TD called me away from the table at which I was watching in our last match about half way through the match and gave me his ruling then.

[lamford]

So the question is: are we allowed to assume that the opponents have not psyched when assessing the logical alternatives?

When partner overcalls 1NT at favourable vulnerability, we are not allowed to assume an opponent has not psyched even if the alternative means there are 50 points in the pack. When the opponents overcall 1NT after partner has opened third in hand, we are not allowed to guess that partner is acting. This thread seems the same principle.

 

But I also think 3S being natural is by far the least likely option. The doubler can be, say, a 5-4-1-3 ten count, pretty much what he had. The 2C bid can be something like 5-0-4-4 and has heard spades bid on his right, and does not believe 2S would be natural and does not want to bid it if it is. He has some 5 count with a bit of shape. That leaves the opener with the 1-4-6-2 16 count - much as you gave him. Now you may say that it is more likely the doubler will overcall 1S, but you know this is not the layout from the UI. In addition we have the possibility that 3S is not a splinter, but is either a cue bid, or a hand too good to raise to 4H; I would think these were more likely than a splinter, if I did not have UI. These only have to be logical alternative treatments for it to be wrong to discount them. So I think you are wrong in assessing "natural and forcing" as anything other than vaguely possible.

[jallerton]

The 2C bid can be something like 5-0-4-4 and has heard spades bid on his right, and does not believe 2S would be natural and does not want to bid it if it is. He has some 5 count with a bit of shape.

 

It seems that you are so busy looking for the next poster to insult that you do not bother to try to understand what anybody else writes. I repeat: from North's point of view, North has shown hearts and all his logical alternatives must be assessed on that basis.

 

If your partner opens 1♦, RHO doubles, you bid 1♥ (natural) and LHO bids 2♣, how many spades do you expect your LHO to have? Five?!? Many experts prefer to bid a 4-card major ahead of a 5-card minor in this position, yet you are expecting an opponent to bid a 4-card club suit ahead of a 5-card spade suit, when your side has just bid diamonds and hearts.

 

At last, one of your numerous posts to this thread becomes relevant.

 

Please don't try to treat the readers of this forum as imbeciles by writing such nonsense.

[jallerton]

One more thought: consider North's position when 3NTx comes back to him. What is supposed to be going on now? East has to be genuine, so South can't have the strong 5-6 previously envisaged unless West's take-out double was an outright psyche. I can't think of any plausible explanation, but it seems to me that North has a duty to try.

 

North's logical alternatives need to be considered at every turn, including this one. However, I think that the "strong 5-6" (which is based on strong playing strength) does not need as many high card points as the 2452 20-count you suggested, so the double (suggesting that East has some high cards) makes the former more relatively likely.

[lamford]

It seems that you are so busy looking for the next poster to insult that you do not bother to try to understand what anybody else writes. I repeat: from North's point of view, North has shown hearts and all his logical alternatives must be assessed on that basis.

I understood what you wrote, but do not agree with it. Nor does dburn, nor does Aardv. North has heard the alert, and he knows that he has misbid. As Dburn states, he is is allowed to know that he has shown spades, but must not use it to his advantage. Dburn made exactly the same point as me that East has heard North bid spades and may therefore not bid them. You cannot use this information to your advantage, but must use it if it is to your disadvantage. Logical alternatives are assessed in the light of all the information you have.

 

I don't understand where you get the idea that you are not supposed to use the UI. If you don't know what the UI is and what it indicates, how can you carefully avoid taking advantage of it?

 

And what I regard as nonsense is the idea that 3S is natural and forcing. Many have made similar points. "Moreover, the UI will cause him to think fantastical thoughts about his partner's bid of 3♠ - "maybe I can justify 3NT by making up a load of nonsense about not playing splinters in competition and about 2♠ being non-forcing" seems to be one quote from Dburn. And I do not regard it as insulting to suggest that you wrote nonsense. Edward Lear made a career out of it. You are not far behind.

[lamford]

However, I think that the "strong 5-6" (which is based on strong playing strength) does not need as many high card points as the 2452 20-count you suggested, so the double (suggesting that East has some high cards) makes the former more relatively likely.

So we have moved from "virtually impossible" in one thread to (the opposite of) "relatively likely" now. And what do you think your ethical duty is if one hand type is relatively likely, but suggested by the UI?

[Chris L]

Messrs Burn & Lamford have convinced themselves that the idea that NS play 2S as NF in this sequence and don't play splinters in competition except in the opponents' suit is a lot of fantastical self-serving nonsense invented to justify 3NT. They may be right; no one (apart from the pair in question) knows. At least some contributors to this thread apparently play (or know others who play) similar methods. What disturbs me about Messrs Burn & Lamford's utter certainty is that they are not prepared to concede for a moment that, self-serving though it may be, what was said might in fact be true and are quite happy to fill the roles of kangaroo court and lynch mob not only for North but also for the TD.

 

I much prefer the more balanced approach of Gordon Rainsford (who made the point, very early on in this thread, that we need to know the NS methods - a point which has yet to be answered). Given his recent "promotion" no doubt Messrs Burn & Lamford regard him as an apologist for the EBU and its TDs.

[lamford]

I much prefer the more balanced approach of Gordon Rainsford (who made the point, very early on in this thread, that we need to know the NS methods - a point which has yet to be answered). Given his recent "promotion" no doubt Messrs Burn & Lamford regard him as an apologist for the EBU and its TDs.

No, I have the highest respect for Gordon's opinions and his ability as a TD, and his objectivity. But if neither of North or South, nor the TD, posts on here, we are always going to be a kangaroo court. Indeed Gordon mentioned last night an earlier case on here which criticised one of his rulings, but the facts were incorrect. We are discussing the facts as presented by the OP, as I think bluejak advised on at least one occasion. How else would you have the forum work when the TD does not contribute?

 

There was a way of having all the facts analysed ... an appeal.

[bluejak]

Messrs Burn & Lamford have convinced themselves that the idea that NS play 2S as NF in this sequence and don't play splinters in competition except in the opponents' suit is a lot of fantastical self-serving nonsense invented to justify 3NT. They may be right; no one (apart from the pair in question) knows. At least some contributors to this thread apparently play (or know others who play) similar methods. What disturbs me about Messrs Burn & Lamford's utter certainty is that they are not prepared to concede for a moment that, self-serving though it may be, what was said might in fact be true and are quite happy to fill the roles of kangaroo court and lynch mob not only for North but also for the TD.

 

I much prefer the more balanced approach of Gordon Rainsford (who made the point, very early on in this thread, that we need to know the NS methods - a point which has yet to be answered). Given his recent "promotion" no doubt Messrs Burn & Lamford regard him as an apologist for the EBU and its TDs.

One thing you must not do is to forget posts made because a poster does not post frequently in a long thread. I still think it relatively easy to find out whether 3♠ was natural, and was shouted down by arguments which were nothing to do with what I said. I stick to what I wrote, but I see no reason to write it again and again. I believe Burn and Lamford's certainty to be not justified by the facts in the OP or elsewhere.

[lamford]

One thing you must not do is to forget posts made because a poster does not post frequently in a long thread. I still think it relatively easy to find out whether 3♠ was natural, and was shouted down by arguments which were nothing to do with what I said. I stick to what I wrote, but I see no reason to write it again and again. I believe Burn and Lamford's certainty to be not justified by the facts in the OP or elsewhere.

If the TD retained, or copied, the CC, then it will indeed be easy to find out, but I would give long odds against the sequence appearing therein. There just isn't room unless they had accompanying system notes. The TD would probably have to make a decision based on the balance of probabilities. Note that it is not just Burn and Lamford that think 3S is not natural - as a read of the thread, and a glance at the other poll shows.

[Chris L]

One thing you must not do is to forget posts made because a poster does not post frequently in a long thread. I still think it relatively easy to find out whether 3♠ was natural, and was shouted down by arguments which were nothing to do with what I said. I stick to what I wrote, but I see no reason to write it again and again. I believe Burn and Lamford's certainty to be not justified by the facts in the OP or elsewhere.

 

I hadn't forgotten your very constructive post and was about to pray it in aid but you beat me to it :)

[dburn]

One thing you must not do is to forget posts made because a poster does not post frequently in a long thread. I still think it relatively easy to find out whether 3♠ was natural, and was shouted down by arguments which were nothing to do with what I said. I stick to what I wrote, but I see no reason to write it again and again. I believe Burn and Lamford's certainty to be not justified by the facts in the OP or elsewhere.

Oh, nothing is certain except death and taxes (and if you are Vodafone, even the latter is far from being a certainty). I observe merely that I do not believe I or anyone has ever heard the following auction at the bridge table:

 

1♦ - Double - 1♥ (natural) - 2♣ - 3♠ (natural) - all pass. If I had heard it, I would hitherto have regarded it much as I would regard the sudden appearance of a Yeti or a basilisk, things that I am "certain" do not exist. But I recently had the pleasure of playing on a team with Jeffrey, and it seems that had the relevant cards been dealt, this auction might have been conducted at the other table in one of our matches.

 

Perhaps fortunately for the equilibrium of all concerned, the relevant cards have not yet been dealt. The fact remains, though, that if North had heard South explain 1♥ as "hearts" (or, what is the same thing, not heard South alert 1♥ as "spades"), I doubt very much whether the "natural" explanation of 3♠ would have occurred to him any more than it would occur to me.

 

Bluejak asks me to clarify what I believe to be the discrepancy between Law 16 and Law 73. For the purposes of Law 16 and in the absence of Law 73, it would be open to North to reason that 3♠ "must be" natural and based either on the misunderstanding that actually existed, or on the possible existence of Yetis and basilisks as described above. That is: if 3♠ cannot "logically" agree hearts, then North may bid 3NT without breaking Law 16. But Law 73 does exist, and places a greater onus on North; he must not take any advantage of the presumption (which he knows to be true) that South has four spades in a limit raise - he may not "deduce" it unless his deductions are logically true in all possible worlds. They aren't, so he can't bid 3NT.

[Chris L]

No, I have the highest respect for Gordon's opinions and his ability as a TD, and his objectivity. But if neither of North or South, nor the TD, posts on here, we are always going to be a kangaroo court. Indeed Gordon mentioned last night an earlier case on here which criticised one of his rulings, but the facts were incorrect. We are discussing the facts as presented by the OP, as I think bluejak advised on at least one occasion. How else would you have the forum work when the TD does not contribute?

 

There was a way of having all the facts analysed ... an appeal.

 

In the majority of cases, maybe - but not in his one because, shortly after the conclusion of this match, one of NS was on his way to the airport, driven by the other. So all the A C would have had would have been their C C plus the T D's account of what he had been told by them - and whatever "evidence" their team-mates would have been able and permitted to give - as Frances & Jeffery have tried to inform the debate on this thread, only to have their views treated with utter disrespect by you and Burn, as if they were doing no more than defending what you evidently regard as the indefensible. Your stance reeks of "my mind is made up; do not confuse me with [attempts to get at the] facts" which, given that you are purporting to sit in judgement on the ethics of the players concerned I find reprehensible.

 

I was not aware that contributors to this forum were obliged to deliver a judgement on every problem presented to it; sometimes the only intelligent, rational response (as demonstrated by Gordon Rainsford and David Stevenson) is to get at the facts first - and, if they can't be got at then to say "if this, then that but if ..." etc. I followed just such an approach when practising law in the City of London for 25 years and it did me no harm.

[lamford]

Your stance reeks of "my mind is made up; do not confuse me with [attempts to get at the] facts" which, given that you are purporting to sit in judgement on the ethics of the players concerned I find reprehensible.

 

I was not aware that contributors to this forum were obliged to deliver a judgement on every problem presented to it; sometimes the only intelligent, rational response (as demonstrated by Gordon Rainsford and David Stevenson) is to get at the facts first - and, if they can't be got at then to say "if this, then that but if ..." etc. I followed just such an approach when practising law in the City of London for 25 years and it did me no harm.

Au contraire ... I prefaced several of my posts, or suffixed them, with a comment such as " ... if the facts are as stated." And I think Cambs and Hunts would have done just fine with a lawyer of 25 years experience attending the AC hearing on behalf of the players who could not attend - apart from the SEWOG nature of the double. I think the L&E should contact the players and the TD to obtain further facts, assuming they can do so even there was no appeal. I think in any case there should be a statement from the L&E after contacting the TD, through one of the eminent members of the former. This case has attracted a lot of interest, and this forum is only a discussion of the facts that it has. I have no official capacity, nor do the majority of posters, and express my views of all decisions - including ethical ones - as I see them, always assuming the OP is factually accurate. North-South and the TD can be invited to post on here, and I am sure we would all welcome their views.

 

In passing, I post on a number of sporting forums, where often the actions of players or officials are questioned, and sometimes their ethics. These players and officials almost never contribute, as you might imagine. Rarely do posters change their views (which can be far more vitriolic than on here) from day one. Do you find this reprehensible?

[Chris L]

Au contraire ... I prefaced several of my posts, or suffixed them, with a comment such as " ... if the facts are as stated." And I think Cambs and Hunts would have done just fine with a lawyer of 25 years experience attending the AC hearing on behalf of the players who could not attend - apart from the SEWOG nature of the double. I think the L&E should contact the players and the TD to obtain further facts, assuming they can do so even there was no appeal. I think in any case there should be a statement from the L&E after contacting the TD, through one of the eminent members of the former. This case has attracted a lot of interest, and this forum is only a discussion of the facts that it has. I have no official capacity, nor do the majority of posters, and express my views of the ethics of all players as I see them, always assuming the OP is factually accurate. North-South and the TD can be invited to post on here, and I am sure we would all welcome their views.

 

First, the players who could not have attended were from Surrey, not C&H, so I wouldn't have been representing them (though I have tried, apparently with no success, to ensure a fair hearing for them on this forum).

 

Secondly, given that the final double was made by E not W, I thought it had been accepted that SEWOG was irrelevant.

 

Thirdly, though on some occasions you qualified your posts in the way you say, the posts themselves actually assumed that three material "facts" (namely that, after a natural 1♥ and 2♣ overcall, (1) 2♠ would have been NF, (2) 3♠ would have been natural and forcing and (3) 3♠ could not, systemically have been a splinter) were not as stated.

 

I find your assumption of a right, particularly in the absence of all the facts, to pronounce on the ethics of other players breathtakingly arrogant. I offer you (gratis, now that I have retired) a small piece of advice: the law of libel applies equally to matter posted on the internet.

[lamford]

I find your assumption of a right, particularly in the absence of all the facts, to pronounce on the ethics of other players breathtakingly arrogant. I offer you (gratis, now that I have retired) a small piece of advice: the law of libel applies equally to matter posted on the internet.

This forum provides for all members to offer their opinions on all decisions. On your first sentence, I would say that people often find faults in others that are most prominent in themselves. The arrogance is in your posts and it comes across at all times ... I suggest you read them again.

 

"I have been doing the job now for 20 years with some success". "practising law in the City of London for 25 years and it did me no harm".

 

But, more seriously, you claimed that I attacked the ethics of someone in this thread, and you added a veiled threat of litigation. None of my postings did so; at all stages I only commented on the merits of the decision and whether I considered North was in breach of Laws 16B and Law73C, based on the facts as presented.. Unless you withdraw that assertion and apologise, I shall make a formal complaint to the L&E. And while you are it, you might like to apologise for this at the same time:

 

Chris L, on 2011-February-19, 15:05, said:

I much prefer the more balanced approach of Gordon Rainsford <snip>. Given his recent "promotion" no doubt Messrs Burn & Lamford regard him as an apologist for the EBU and its TDs.

[lamford]

Thirdly, though on some occasions you qualified your posts in the way you say, the posts themselves actually assumed that three material "facts" (namely that, after a natural 1♥ and 2♣ overcall, (1) 2♠ would have been NF, (2) 3♠ would have been natural and forcing and (3) 3♠ could not, systemically have been a splinter) were not as stated.

Very few posters on here accept that 3S is natural and forcing. Most would assume 2S was natural and forcing unless specifically discussed. Those that would issue a PP certainly do not think 3S is natural. Most of the forum would adjust. It is perfectly in order for forumites not to accept "self-serving statements" - any idea that this could be libellous is utterly barking. I did not dispute that North-South stated as they did - indeed I have no idea what they said. DBurn goes much further than me in criticising the North-South actions. I have said in a few posts that a third meaning for 3S other than splinter or natural is more likely. I expect, however, that as stated by gnasher and I think jallerton there were a lot of gaps in the North-South system file, and that the meaning of 3S is "undiscussed". So we are back to 73C, and a clear adjustment.

 

But, as you say, it is better to get the facts, and it certainly is not up to me to do that.

[Chris L]

This forum provides for all members to offer their opinions on all decisions. On your first sentence, I would say that people often find faults in others that are most prominent in themselves. The arrogance is in your posts and it comes across at all times ... I suggest you read them again.

 

"I have been doing the job now for 20 years with some success". "practising law in the City of London for 25 years and it did me no harm".

 

But, more seriously, you claimed that I attacked the ethics of someone in this thread, and you added a veiled threat of litigation. None of my postings did so; at all stages I only commented on the merits of the decision and whether I considered North was in breach of Laws 16B and Law73C, based on the facts as presented.. Unless you withdraw that assertion and apologise, I shall make a formal complaint to the L&E.

 

Arrogance. Nice one. Are you the same Paul Lamford as the person by that name quoted in N16 magazine in the summer of 2006 as saying:

 

"I only play for low stakes in casinos, as I have an advantage and am likely to win. If I played for high stakes I'd be asked to leave." ?

 

And, apart from associating yourself (with evident approval) with Mr Burn, have a look at your post no. 50. I wasn't threatening anybody, just suggesting that you be a little more restrained in your "opinions". On the other hand your last sentence does look like a threat to me.