On May 1, 1:55=A0pm, 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
> =A0 no necessary to alert. =A0Table result stood.
>
> AC: The AC (Wolff, Beineix, Endicott, Polisner and Sandsmark) agreed
that
> =A0 the a Lightner double was not alertable.
>
> After the hearing, Kojak informed that in the past there had been
rulings
> =A0 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.
=A0In=
> 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. =A0The committee agreed and the CoC were
amende=
d.
>
> 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. =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?
>
> 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. =A0As 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. =A0(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
>
> --
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-=AD---
> Henk Uijterwaal =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
Email:=
henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
> RIPE Network Coordination Centre =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
=A0http://www.amsterdamne=
d.org/~henk
> P.O.Box 10096 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Singel 258 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Phone:
+31.20.=
5354414
> 1001 EB Amsterdam =A0 =A0 =A01016 AB Amsterdam =A0Fax: +31.20.5354445
> The Netherlands =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Netherlands =A0 =A0Mobile:
+31.6.558617=
46
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-=AD---
>
> Is one of the choices leaving the office open?
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
=
=A0 =A0Alan Greenspan on the next elections
Thanks for coming up with the exact words. I was in the room when this
was done taking notes. I know "retroactive to the start of the
tournament" was discussed but if it was not in the write-up that might
not have been agreed upon. As you mentioned there were no other
Lightner cases that I can recall.
JB
|
