ais523 wrote: > --- On Tue, 22/9/09, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: >> ============================== CFJ 2680 ============================== >> Judgement: >> FALSE > > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgement. At the time, the status > of CFJ 2670a was rather unclear; and I don't think a belief that that appeal > existed would have been unreasonable. Therefore, a player who held that > belief (such as BobTHJ) could have legally stated that CFJ 2670a existed; e > would probably have been mistaken, but e wouldn't have been breaking the > rules.
I support.
