Jump to content

EBL Lecture Notes


gordontd

Recommended Posts

Truly historical documents. They appear to be dated 210.

 

I am surprised by the document on Reveley Adjustments. Endicott says he knows of nothing that makes them illegal. Endicott seems to justify them on the grounds that the director is told to "do equity", and if he feels that a Reveley Score helps him do equity, then he should do it. By that argument, why not include a percentage of -730 and a bit of +10 if that also helps you do equity.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truly historical documents. They appear to be dated 210.

It does feel as though they've taken over 1800 years to appear.

 

I am surprised by the document on Reveley Adjustments. Endicott says he knows of nothing that makes them illegal. Endicott seems to justify them on the grounds that the director is told to "do equity", and if he feels that a Reveley Score helps him do equity, then he should do it. By that argument, why not include a percentage of -730 and a bit of +10 if that also helps you do equity.

I don't think his position on this matter is widely accepted.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think his position on this matter is widely accepted.

 

Indeed it made a selection of the Laws & Ethics Committee froth at the mouth when it was said. Current English guidance is that these rulnigs are not acceptable(doesn't stop them all from happening of course.)

I did a ruling at the Easter Festival a while ago and one of the committee wanted to give just such a ruling. When he was told he could not do so he railed at the stupidity of the law(or at least it's English interpretation) and roundly told off both me and my other appeal committee member for not deferring to a senior European figure(in his estimation anyway)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a ruling at the Easter Festival a while ago and one of the committee wanted to give just such a ruling. When he was told he could not do so he railed at the stupidity of the law(or at least it's English interpretation) and roundly told off both me and my other appeal committee member for not deferring to a senior European figure(in his estimation anyway)

 

"Told off", is it? Maybe it's just that I'm not fully awake, but this brash colonial would have told him where he could stick his "senior European figure". Or at least opined that if the tournament organizer felt his opinion was so all-fired important, they would have appointed him a committee of one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed it made a selection of the Laws & Ethics Committee froth at the mouth when it was said. Current English guidance is that these rulnigs are not acceptable(doesn't stop them all from happening of course.)

I did a ruling at the Easter Festival a while ago and one of the committee wanted to give just such a ruling. When he was told he could not do so he railed at the stupidity of the law(or at least it's English interpretation) and roundly told off both me and my other appeal committee member for not deferring to a senior European figure(in his estimation anyway)

 

 

 

 

ooooooooo do tell all jeremy :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Told off", is it? Maybe it's just that I'm not fully awake, but this brash colonial would have told him where he could stick his "senior European figure". Or at least opined that if the tournament organizer felt his opinion was so all-fired important, they would have appointed him a committee of one.

 

I think I expressed myself sufficiently clearly. He went and told my wife that I was very arrogant not to realise I should defer to his vast experience(so I probably got through). As he is now departed from this planet we will forgive him. One of the things I hate most on appeal committees are those who think it is the time and place to change the law or the regulations rather than apply then in as fair a away as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's true he is dead and in such circumstances it would be churlish to hold a grudge. If you ask me F2F I'll tell you who he was.

 

Oh, sorry, I thought you meant Grattan, who was alive and well the first week of the Posnan tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, sorry, I thought you meant Grattan, who was alive and well the first week of the Posnan tournament.

 

And long may he continue to be. He would never have behaved in that way; too much of a gentleman whatever his thoughts.

 

Why "on this matter"? I don't think his position on revokes is widely accepted either.

 

Well it was by the Appeal Committee in Poznan! Experience on the L&E has taught me that even if one doesn't agree Grattan is always worth listening to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He went and told my wife that I was very arrogant ...

I am sure she was mightily impressed! :) :D :P

 

The person to whom Jeremy referred gave an illegal decision of Ave+/Ave- in a Brighton midweek tournament.

 

It took me some time to realise his committee had given Ave+ to the offenders and Ave- to the non-offenders! :rolleyes: :( :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It took me some time to realise his committee had given Ave+ to the offenders and Ave- to the non-offenders! :rolleyes: :( :lol:

 

I've always wanted to see such rulings...

It might reduce the number of inane appeals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I observe that Ton Kooijman's paper on Adjusted Scores says (in my opinion) all that needs to be said about Reveley Rulings:

 

In my opinion there is only one reasonable conclusion: for the offending side the adjusted score does not include any weight for a result realized by committing an unauthorized information infraction.

Of course, this is not the full story. Suppose West "uses UI" to bid four spades over South's four hearts and his side scores well thereby. A Director or a Committee may cancel West's bid of four spades - but may still consider that East would (some or all of the time) bid four spades anyway after an in-tempo pass by West. In such a case, the Director or the Committee may make an adjustment based in whole or in part on a contract of four spades (doubled or not, according to circumstance) by East-West.

 

I observe also that I have read Grattan's paper twice now, and I don't understand it. But this is to be expected: on a fifth reading I will perhaps have some idea of what it means, and by the eighth or ninth I may even be able to say whether I agree with it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair to Grattan, he has told me he agrees that one shouldn't give Reveley rulings, he just believes that they are legal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...