[BLML] Back to the Future

Herman De Wael hermandw at skynet.be
Sun May 31 10:03:34 CEST 2015


Richard Hills schreef:
> Herman De Wael asked:
>
> "One of the pairs now has a good result. Why take that one away?"
>
> Two answers to that question.
>
> Firstly, a good result is a meaningless result if it is a fouled board
> played in that direction at only one table. +7600 versus -7600 is merely
> scored as Ave+ to both sides.
>

First answer is ridiculous. We are not talking about a fouled board, but 
about a board which was played in the wrong direction. +7600 in both 
cases. Only to the other pair than first expected.

> Secondly, a good result cannot stand if illegally contrary to the
> Conditions of Contest.

That just depends on the Conditions of Contest. If the conditions of 
contest describe that any grand slam will be scored as a small slam, 
then that is what will be done. Does not make them good conditions of 
contest, though.
And if your conditions of contest describe what you suggest, then my 
question simply becomes: "why should the conditions of contest take away 
a good result from one of the two pairs?"

> For example, the final of the World Pairs
> championship at Lille was scheduled to be a Barometer Flower Howell
> movement, with every pair supposed to play every other pair once and
> once only. But for one session a junior Director deployed the wrong
> guide cards. By the time the error was discovered the movement was
> mangled beyond repair. If you were the Chief Director, what would you
> have done?
>

What does this have to do with anything? The boards that were played 
have to be let stand. Why should you take away the good results that 
were achieved? Or the bad ones, for that matter!

> Law 81B1 gives the Director in charge retrospective power to amend the
> CoC in emergencies such as this. So the Chief Director ruled that
> partnerships meeting for the second time must not play their boards, but
> would be awarded a bye instead.
>

Seems OK to me - makes the tournament a bit longer but satisfies the 
premise that you should meet everyone just the once.

> Suppose at Lille two pairs met for the second time. Also suppose that
> the lengthy world championship left them both so exhausted that they did
> not realise that they had met before. Hence they unintentionally commit
> an infraction by playing a board. One of the pairs now has a good
> result. Why take that one away?
>

Indeed, why?

> The answer to that question is the Definition of Infraction.
>

Which is? Anything that goes wrong? But some things go wrong and are 
settled in some other way. Your argument seems to imply that if a player 
revokes (=infraction), the board has to be scrapped.

Again, strange argument.

> Best wishes,
>
> Richard Hills
>

Herman.


More information about the Blml mailing list