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

[Konrad Ciborowski]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <gesta at tiscali.co.uk>

> +=+ 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 ~   +=+
>

The problem is that +3 IMPs = 60% of a board
isn't very helpful when trying to determine the
equivalent of a 60% session in IMPs.

What it boils down to is that the Tournament
Organizer will have to devise his own method
anyway.

So without the remarks in paranthesis
the Tournament Organizer would have to
devise his own method of how to
calculate the equivalent of a 60% session in IMPs.
With the remarks in paranthesis
the Tournament Organizer has to
devise his own method of how to
calculate the equivalent of a 60% session in IMPs.

So the remark in paranthesis makes no difference,
it is useless. And sentences that are sematically
null should be avoided in laws.

Much like the following sentense in the Systems Policy:

"A pair may prepare written defences against
the Brown Sticker elements of any system. "

Have you ever needed a special permission
to prepare a written defense to anything?

Konrad Ciborowski
Kraków, Poland 



---------------------------------------------------------------------- 	 
Najlepsze zdjecia listopada!
Zobacz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1ca8