On May 1, 11:55 am, Henk Uijterwaal <he...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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
Henk,
thanks for the clarification. Based on your re****t of the decision,
it appears that John has misremembered the situation. While there was
a reformation of the appeals committee as a tournament committee,
(1) they did not make the Lightner double alertable, but affirmed that
it was non-alertable;
(2) since Lightner doubles were not made alertable, the issue of going
back to the beginning of the tournament is not relevant;
(3) my faith in experts everywhere knowing that the double of a freely
bid slam is probably lead directing is restored.
Henrysun909
|
