[BLML] Rushing in (was Pear(-shape) of Davids Burn)
dalburn at btopenworld.com
Mon Jan 18 14:13:07 CET 2010
Crying out loud about "protecting infractors" and what not while
simultaneously wanting to let the director protect the infracting side from
establishing their revoke seems ludicrous to me, to put it politely.
What worries me is the notion that if Directors are supposed to act on their
own initiative in rectifying irregularities, then which irregularities are
rectified and which are not becomes, in effect, a random process.
Suppose that X and Y, A and B are tied for first going into the last round
of a pairs tournament, and that both X and A in their anxiety happen to drop
a card on the floor. A director is passing X's table, sees the card on the
floor, and prevents X from revoking. No director is passing A's table, so A
revokes and finishes second. Does A have a legitimate grievance?
More information about the Blml