nige1, on 2014-November-25, 21:57, said:
In the old days, committee members were told to confine their comments to the official appeal report.
I don't think we should criticise lamford's contribution to this discussion, indeed I think we should be grateful for it. I don't think anything has been said that devalues the appeals process or undermines the confidentiality of discussions between the AC members themselves, and I for one am grateful for a chance to understand the sort of thinking that affected the AC's decision (however much I might disagree with some of the judgments involved!).
It is at least clear to me now that there is more scope for judgment in the ruling rather than simply logic than I had perhaps appreciated at the time, even if some of the judgments expressed seem to be based on a lack of understanding about the systemic inferences available (I'm thinking of dburn's rather forthright comments in particular). I gave the south hand to a Tollemache-standard player from another county who I found myself travelling with after the EBU's AGM yesterday and his judgments were:
a) it makes sense for S to bid only 2
♦ rather than 3
♦ on the second round of the auction given that
♠Q is likely to be of limited value;
b) once north bids 3
♦ over this it looks clear to bid 3NT. 4
♦ might be an alternative, but 11 tricks looks a long way off.
c) when pressed, he accepted that passing 3
♦ might be a LA.
d) when shown the north hand, he said he would probably have passed over 2
♦.
I really do not think, therefore, that it is obvious north has a maximum invite and that south has no reason to accept, even if that is your final judgment.