[barmar]

gordontd, on 2017-March-30, 09:30, said:

Where did you get that from? The post to which you were replying said:

No mention of "several others considered ♦ raises!" Have I missed something or did you just make that up to justify your EBU bashing?

I found the wording of that post confusing, because of the double negative ("only one failed to discount"), I suspect Nigel misunderstood it.

[nige1]

barmar, on 2017-March-30, 12:34, said:

I found the wording of that post confusing, because of the double negative ("only one failed to discount"), I suspect Nigel misunderstood it.

Of the six pollees:

• Four chose 4♠.
• One chose 3♠.
• Another chose 4♦ --- not deemed to be an LA.

I presume that to discount a ♦ raise, you first consider it. If you chose to bid 4♦, then you consider it
The dictionary definition, however, backs Gordon

Dictionary said:

discount to decide that something or someone is not worth considering or giving attention

[Pig Trader]

Law 16B1b uses the words "serious consideration". With the one exception, my pollees considered and rejected raising diamonds in such a way that I did not seriously consider that they had seriously considered raising diamonds, which is why I worded my previous post after serious consideration as I did.

[mycroft]

...And they say *I'm* overly pedantic and too subtle...