[nige1]

gordontd, on 2016-October-18, 01:22, said:

I think a statement like this requires more corroboration than "he claims that he can reliably predict..." In an international event the TD team is international and TDs do not rule without consulting each other.

The opinion I quoted was extreme but the perceptions of others can be amusing.

MrAce, on 2016-October-18, 16:26, said:

This TD is also TD in major WBF events.

The committee and most commentators seem to agree with his ruling

[gordontd]

MrAce, on 2016-October-18, 16:26, said:

This TD is also TD in major WBF events.

I was replying to nige1's quotation of another player's claim that players' and TDs' nationalities are significant in determining rulings.

[Fluffy]

barmar, on 2016-October-17, 08:25, said:

But it's relevant whether the MI was given to the player who took action based on it.

I think it's safe to assume that the TD established that Versace was given MI, since otherwise there would be no basis for the ruling or appeal at all.

I am glad you are used to this high standard for TDs, but I am not

[MrAce]

barmar, on 2016-October-17, 08:25, said:

But it's relevant whether the MI was given to the player who took action based on it.

I think it's safe to assume that the TD established that Versace was given MI, since otherwise there would be no basis for the ruling or appeal at all.

Yes.
Two different explanations. TD had to figure which of them explained the correct version of their agreement/system to their screen mate. And whether Versace had the correct version of it or not.
If NS pair had a way to prove that the explanation to Versace was the correct one, EW would have no case.
Lack of cc, or any system notes, or lack of another example hand played in same match, made TD to not give benefit of doubt to offending side.

[MrAce]

helene_t, on 2016-October-16, 05:18, said:

Result stands. I don't believe that the misexplanation makes double more attractive.

This is exactly how I thought what the law cares.
Apparently I was wrong.
According to people who dealt with so many appeal cases like this on screens, the law says E had the right to receive correct explanation of opponent system.
According to them it does not matter that South hand coincidentally matches to the explanation.
They say "Yes, East made a speculative double that we may not make, and the south hand was not something he did not expect, but this is irrelevant because if he received correct information he would not make this double"