[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 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] 60% session in IMPs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]



----- 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.

+=+ I have a curiously simplistic mind that tells me 
I will have a 60% session if I score 60% on each 
of its component boards. 
                                     ~ G ~   +=+