[blml] 60% session in IMPs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Konrad Ciborowski]

> Konrad Ciborowski:
>
>>Makes perfect sense to me but it is written
>>where exactly in the laws?
>
> 2007 Law 86A:
>
> When the Director chooses to award an artificial
> adjusted score of average plus or average minus
> in IMP play, that score is plus 3 IMPs or minus
> 3 IMPs respectively. **Subject to approval by
> the Regulating Authority, this may be varied by
> the Tournament Organizer.**

Sure - I know that the Tournament Organizer
may come up with any method of scoring
and of computing the average plus.
I know that the Tournament Organizer may
further define what exactly is meant by the equivalent
of a 60% session in IMPs, BAM or whatever.

But when one uses a phrase "a 60% session
(or the equivalent in IMPs)" without any further
clarification one creates something that is
semantically null.

Because currently if the remarks in paranthesis
didn't exist at all we would be exactly in the
place as we are now - the Tournament
Organizer wuold have to define a specific method
of his own, agreed? Just like with avg+ in BAM.

So this remark in paranthesis has no meaning at all.

>
> Konrad Cibororowski:
>
>>It looks that this one of those "we all know
>>how to do it" laws. Much like scoring a passed-
>>out hand in the previous version of the laws.
>
> 2007 Law 77:
>
> [snip]
>
> If all four players pass (see Law 22) each side
> enters a zero score.
>

I said "in the previous version".

Konrad Ciborowski
Kraków, Poland 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bedac w toalecie korzystala z ...

>>>   http://link.interia.pl/f1cbc