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

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
***********************
"Le congres ne marche pas, il danse"
 (The Congress makes no progress ,
  but it dances.)
                           Prince de Ligne
+++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Konrad Ciborowski" <cibor at poczta.fm>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] 60% session in IMPs
                    [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]



> 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.

+=+ I am not quite sure, Konrad, what is the point 
that you are trying to make. We are aware that in 
matters of scoring various authorities prefer to follow 
their several ideas. The laws are framed loosely in 
order to allow of  that. The default position is that 
60% on a board in pairs is to be regarded for the 
purpose as the equivalent of  +3 imps in team play; 
if they are not imposing some alternative value 
regulators or Directors in charge normally reiterate 
this. Where is the problem in this?
                                       ~ Grattan ~   +=+