On May 1, 8:09=A0am, henrysun...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Apr 30, 6:28 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> The head director at the
> tournament (Kojak) informed Wolff that according to the the extensive
> rules of the WBF Tournament, Lightner Doubles were indeed alertable.
> Wolff adjourned the appeals committee and reopened it as a tournament
> committee and moved that Lightner Doubles would not be alertable at
> WBF tournaments retroactive to the start of the tournament.
>
> ************
>
> I'll start with a disclaimer:
>
> I wasn't at Albuquerque, haven't read anything about this incident,
> and have no reason to believe that John is making any of this up. =A0So
> with the "assuming all of this is true" disclaimer in place,
>
> this is one of the most disturbing things I've ever read about. =A0In
> the first place, how dare they change the conditions of contest in the
> middle of an event and make it retroactive to the beginning of the
> tournament? =A0Second, how dare they do that and then not invite all
> 'lightner double' boards into appeal for review for a failure to alert
> and adjustment?
>
> And third, why on earth would internationalists need to alert a
> lightner double of a slam? =A0Us that so unusual and uncommon a
> convention everywhere except the US that it needs an alert? =A0And if I
> bid a slam, knew that doubles of slam were not alertable, and had any
> inkling that I might run to notrump, couldn't I have just asked
> whether it was lighter or negative slam double or the steven and my
> favorite convention, 'i know you're going to make it, have a few extra
> imps on us' double rofl?
>
> As I said, very disturbing.
>
> Henrysun909
Henry,
This is all included in the appeals write-up of the committees in
Albuquerque. Every word was approved by Wolff. I think it is still
available through the ACBL.
JB
|
