[BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 9 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Marvin French mfrench1 at san.rr.com
Thu May 13 18:39:41 CEST 2010

Richard Hills wrote:

>> The Appeal Panel ignored (or was ignorant of) repeated WBF
>> LC advice that a serious error must be a Serious Error.  An
>> error in hoping for a not vul -500 versus a vul -620 is
>> merely a misjudgement, not a Serious Error.

Not ignorant of, supposedly

WBFLC Tues 8 Sept 2009, Adam Wildavsky (AC Chairman) present as 

"...the standard for a 'serious error' must be extremely high and 
the calibre of player is also relevant."

ACBLC Nov 22, 2008

"The commission concurs with the WBF...in that a player's expertise 
be considered in determining whether that player's error was a 
serious one..."

When I suggested to Adam that "extremely high" should be 
incorporated into that statement in a future meeting, I think he 
said that would be considered. However, the Reno LC minutes are two 
months late in being posted and I don't know if it was discussed.

Marvin L French
San Diego, CA

More information about the Blml mailing list