On May 1, 2:07=A0pm, henrysun...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> 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
> > =A0 no necessary to alert. =A0Table result stood.
>
> > AC: The AC (Wolff, Beineix, Endicott, Polisner and Sandsmark) agreed
tha=
t
> > =A0 the a Lightner double was not alertable.
>
> > After the hearing, Kojak informed that in the past there had been
ruling=
s
> > =A0 where a Lightner double was considered to be alertable.
>
> > (I guess he referred to a ruling in the 1992 Olympiad, where the
committ=
ee
> > decided that a Lightner double was alertable but made no adjustment.
=A0=
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
committe=
e
> > and moved that Lightner doubles were specifically added to the list of
> > non alertable conventions. =A0The committee agreed and the CoC were
amen=
ded.
>
> > 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
th=
e
> > >> 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
aler=
t
> > >> 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
Emai=
l: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
> > RIPE Network Coordination Centre =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
=A0http://www.amsterdam=
ned.org/~henk
> > P.O.Box 10096 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Singel 258 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Phone:
+31.2=
0.5354414
> > 1001 EB Amsterdam =A0 =A0 =A01016 AB Amsterdam =A0Fax: +31.20.5354445
> > The Netherlands =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The Netherlands =A0 =A0Mobile:
+31.6.5586=
1746
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---=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
>
> Henk,
>
> thanks for the clarification. =A0Based on your re****t of the decision,
> it appears that John has misremembered the situation. =A0While 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I thought all that was exactly what I said. Maybe I didn't make it
clear enough.
JB
|
