[blml] ACBL NABC Casebooks

[Marvin French]

From: "Ron Johnson"

> Marvin French writes:
> >
> >
> > From: "Todd M. Zimnoch"
> > >
> > > While I know not all AC members are involved in every case,
> > > it looks like most of the commentators have already had
> > > their chances to have their opinions included in the
> > > casebook.
> >
> > It is obviously inappropriate for those who served on an appeal
to
> > comment on their own case. They had their say already and should
not
> > get a second bite of the apple when that is denied most AC
members.
>
> I don't buy this for a second. Even the best AC reports
> aren't full transcipts of the AC hearing.

But they must be the sole basis for comments. We have had very
dubious "additions" by AC members aimed at excusing a committee's
apparently poor performance (e.g., Pittsburgh Case 3).
>
> (As a matter of policy I look with suspicion on all arguments
> that contain "obviously" -- it's obviously uneccessary to
> include the word "obvious" if the position is obvious.)

Well, it was not obvious to you, so the adjective was needed.
>
> I'll go further. I'd think it stupid to reject something
> from (say) Barry Rigal or Adam (or ...) simply because they've
> served on the AC in question.
>
I would never doubt anything that Adam says (barring second-hand
information or hearsay), but we must treat everyone equally. AC
members have a say, I believe, in what goes into the writeups, and
an opportunity to correct them before they are published.  Post-hoc
comments can be accepted only if signed off by the entire committee.
Memories are notoriously unreliable when they involve justifying a
position.

Marv
Marvin L. French
San Diego, California
www.marvinfrench.com