John Blubaugh wrote:
> On May 1, 8:09 am, 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.
The write-up (AC Decisions from ABQ 1994, ISBN 0-939470-55-6), case
34 says:
(NS bid 6H, doubled by RHO of declarer, down 3 on a defensive crossruff,
NS said that if they knew that the double was Lightner, they'd bid 6N).
TD: The TD believed that all bridge players used this double, so it was
no necessary to alert. Table result stood.
AC: The AC (Wolff, Beineix, Endicott, Polisner and Sandsmark) agreed that
the a Lightner double was not alertable.
After the hearing, Kojak informed that in the past there had been rulings
where a Lightner double was considered to be alertable.
(I guess he referred to a ruling in the 1992 Olympiad, where the committee
decided that a Lightner double was alertable but made no adjustment. In
the 1989 Europeans, a Lightner double was ruled as alertable and an
adjustment was made).
Wolff, as WBF president, reformed the committee as a tournament committee
and moved that Lightner doubles were specifically added to the list of
non alertable conventions. The committee agreed and the CoC were amended.
The experts (***mings, Kooijman and Goldman) agreed with the ruling and
the addition to the CoC.
>> this is one of the most disturbing things I've ever read about. In
>> 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? Second, how dare they do that and then not invite all
>> 'lightner double' boards into appeal for review for a failure to alert
>> and adjustment?
Well, the tournament committee is allowed to amend the CoC during the
contest in order to clarify things _or_ to deal with cases that aren't
covered in the CoC. As there was confusion about the alertability of
this double, I think Wolff did the right thing to clarify this.
I couldn't find any other cases related to lightner doubles in the
write-ups, so the second point is moot. (I'm also not sure if the
decision was retroactive, but I take John's word for that).
>> As I said, very disturbing.
I think this one is OK, not that this make me a Wolff fan.
Henk
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal Email:
henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre
http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is one of the choices leaving the office open?
Alan Greenspan on the next
elections
|
