🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <sp7h4zCi6aj6EwuG@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,
David Stevenson  <bnewsr@blakjak.com> wrote:
>
>  The Appeals from the EBU Summer Congress 2000 have been published.
>This is a first for the EBU!  Initially the booklet has only been
>published on the web.  Feedback is sought, whether good or bad, and
>whether from England or elsewhere!  Whether a hard copy is published for
>purchase in the future, whether it is produced in future years and
>whether the style is right depend very much on comments received.  The
>booklet contains details of where to send feedback.
>
>  Commentary is by David Stevenson, England and Herman De Wael, Belgium,
>both of whom serve on World Bridge Federation Appeals Committees.  Also
>included is official comments by the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee.
>
>    To download your copy, please go to
>
>                http://www.ebu.co.uk/landec

Big plus over anything I've seen: Excellent information on the initial
ruling. I would like to see more detail on the actual AC ruling. 

One comment though on appeal 10.

I believe everyone misses an important point. It doesn't matter what
you, Herman or the AC feels about balancing on

K954
J754
94
A73

after partner hesitates over a 1D opening. (with nobody vul)

There are millions of people for whom pass is not a LA. I can find
no evidence that the AC inquired about balancing agreement or
style. (In the absence of any agreements I guess pass is a LA --
maybe. At least I suppose I could be convinced.)

This is not meant as a disagreement with your comments about a 
player's obligations when he has UI. They're spot on and 
deserve to be more widely circulated.

It's the comment by the AC that "North's bidding is based mostly
on the hesitation." that's out of place. Frankly it's utter nonsense.
I know I wouldn't consider pass a LA in my partnerships. And I disagree
with Herman's contention that "North's hand is nowhere near an obvious
reopening." 

Nor does the AC have any business in telling South what he "should" bid.

Unless South also had UI -- and there's no mention of this. 

-- 
RNJ

Ron Johnson <johnson@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote
>In article <sp7h4zCi6aj6EwuG@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,
>David Stevenson  <bnewsr@blakjak.com> wrote:
>>
>>  The Appeals from the EBU Summer Congress 2000 have been published.
>>This is a first for the EBU!  Initially the booklet has only been
>>published on the web.  Feedback is sought, whether good or bad, and
>>whether from England or elsewhere!  Whether a hard copy is published for
>>purchase in the future, whether it is produced in future years and
>>whether the style is right depend very much on comments received.  The
>>booklet contains details of where to send feedback.
>>
>>  Commentary is by David Stevenson, England and Herman De Wael, Belgium,
>>both of whom serve on World Bridge Federation Appeals Committees.  Also
>>included is official comments by the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee.
>>
>>    To download your copy, please go to
>>
>>                http://www.ebu.co.uk/landec
>
>Big plus over anything I've seen: Excellent information on the initial
>ruling. I would like to see more detail on the actual AC ruling. 

  One problem that I have is that we have no scribes.  In effect to get
more detail from ACs depends solely on their Chairman.

  However, I think it is a good point generally and I shall mention it
to our L&EC.

-- 
David Stevenson               Bridge   RTFLB   Cats  Railways    /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK        Fax: +44 870 055 7697               @ @
<bridge@blakjak.com>          ICQ 20039682     bluejak on OKB   =( + )=
           Bridgepage:        http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm      ~