PeterE

May I object? But, I admit, perhaps I wrote my thoughts somewhat mistakable ... If a pair A uses a system or conventions to which written defenses are allowed by the sponsoring organisation, those written defenses (of pair :) are deemed to be part of the cc of pair A. And this makes those written defense usable for pair B during the bidding (and playing) process.

Furthermore free's opponent was not looking at his cc. In case of allowed written defences against HUM and Brown Sticker systems and conventions those written defences are considered to be part of the cc of the opposing pair (this example: part of free's cc).

No, Gerben It's not the task for you and your teammates to finish in time. Neither is a time penalty in individual tournaments assigned to a single player ... You sit down at one table and the timelimit for the following boards to be played at that table before changing seats is fixed by the general regulations or by the CoC. In your example where at table 2 NS took 55 and EW took 50 minutes of a total of 100 minutes, the total fault is with the NS pair (if those time facts are established) and the NS pair will 'get it all' ;)

and here are the votes from the German jury ... # Bds w/o screens with screens 8 65 min. 70 min. 10 80 85 12 100 105 14 115 125 16 130 140 = normal league's segment distance 20 160 170 = same as the EBL OT: anyone, who knows a more comfortable way of making a table ? :unsure:

Amen ! Peter

No ! Of course the additional time is owed to the use of screens. You need more time with screens, because 1. you see the bidding sequential at both sides and not simultaneous and therefore you have to make up your mind in sequential order 2. you ask and answer (to) all questions in writing - which is far more time-expensive 3. you alert and explain all unusual bids twice - and explain them twice 4. you are expected to delay the tray sometimes with the aim to randomize the used time and to ascertain that periods up to 20 seconds dont carry any UI

What a nice event, where Kibs are walking around, especially between the OR and the CR in a championship ... :D :D :D

Question: Attempt of answer: Although I don't know more at the moment, I also noticed this part in the regulations. My guess is, that this is a kind of layout-bug in the regulation. The original BS definition has two exclusion parts (combined with an AND) and two exception parts. In the regulation on the EBL homepage there are now two exclusions, then one exception and - surprisingly - another exclusion. The wording is IIRC the same as before. For me its inadvertent :) But this is only a guess at the moment. I made an appeal ;) to the EBL, but got no response till now. Ad Roland: The Seniors will play a Categorie 3 event ...

Hi mitkohr, I assume a slightly different understanding problem as inquiry does (although he should know much better than me :) ) Your quoted part of the help-files is related to the feature, that you can edit some text-files on your computer that contain a list of BBO-names. And you can apply those list(s) additionally or instead of your profile-list of friends by chosing the respective file(s). Those "friends"-files are called 'Include'-lists. A further text-file with "enemy"-BBO-names can be added and applied as 'Exclude'-list. And, as you are able to chose more than one 'Include'-list and in addition to it an 'Exclude'-list, the statement you quoted shows the effect of chosing more than one list (file). And it seems to me that the intersection (and not the union !!) of all chosen 'Include'-lists will apply to your tournament. From those eligible BBO-member those in the 'Exclude'-list are substracted.

ok, agreed on this one :) But only on this one.

I wouldn't even trust myself, when ruling BOOT without the lawbook :) There are so many minimal differences and cross-references to other laws in the laws 30-32 and it depends so much on the (relative) position of the BOOT-bidder that I strongly recommend to NOT do it by heart. Peter