[Vampyr]

pran, on 2016-April-19, 09:11, said:

One absolute condition for Law 23 to apply is that the remark was deliberate and not an involuntary reaction to a surprising event.

Luckily, no, but I still don't understand you. I have never lived in Norway, but I have lived in four countries. In every one of them an involuntary (well, it can be controlled, but let's use your word) reaction to a surprising event can be: a gasp, a widening of the eyes, a sharp intake of breath or a scream. Sometimes "Oh my god" or the like is uttered. I have never seen surprise expressed by naming a bridge contract.

But anyway, as I said above, emotional reactions can be suppressed when we know we have to do so. Like at the poker or bridge table, or when we are frightened and don't want to frighten a child, or in some business situations, or other times. So a natural-type expression of surprise is uncalled for, and a comment is much worse.

Do you think that there is a participant in this thread who: a) doesn't know by now that you think that North's remark can be involuntary, b) agrees with you, or c) thinks it makes a difference? Give it a rest.

[campboy]

pran, on 2016-April-19, 09:11, said:

One absolute condition for Law 23 to apply is that the remark was deliberate and not an involuntary reaction to a surprising event.

That's such a basic error I'm shocked that any director could make it. The whole point of Law 23 is that you don't need to decide whether the infraction was deliberate.