[blml] Nondisclosure

[Grattan Endicott]

Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
**********************
"One writes only half the book,
the other half is with the reader."
                   ~ Joseph Conrad.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

+=+ Do I have it right that 
1. Systems Cards were sent by the pair at fault 14 days 
before the trial - required by regulation;
2. There was a meeting at which changes should be 
disclosed before the first match;
3. Changes to conventions of high complexity were 
not allowed, by regulation;
4. The first time Wayne became aware of the use of 
this BS convention was when he met the pair at the 
table ?

If so, then on what basis could the pair be allowed to 
play the convention? The law requires disclosure "in 
accordance with the regulations"  The regulations seem 
sound enough so I would think it a Director's error on 
a massive scale to permit its use.  I take it an appeal 
went to the national authority. Is Wayne asking us to
condemn a decision of a national authority?  If so, 
have we had warning of this and have we been told 
the grounds for its decision?  
                                     ~ Grattan ~   +=+
-----------------------------------------------

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Amos" <sarahamos at onetel.net>
To: "Wayne Burrows" <wjburrows at gmail.com>;
 "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Nondisclosure

+=+ Wayne Burrows said:

>> The opponents were allowed to play the method and 
>> we were denied any time to prepare a defense.
>>
and:
>>> > 20 Board Match - National Trial
>>> > System Cards have been sent in weeks in advance.  
>>> > There was an opportunity to register changes at a 
>>> >meeting immediately before play began in the first 
>>> > match.  This is match three on the evening of the
>>> > first day.
>>> >
>>> > Mike Amos commented: 
> I would invite the pair concerned to appeal.  It really 
> p***es me off when I'm the CTD for an event and the 
> Regulations are useless.  If a suitable Appeals Committee 
> ruled that the system was allowed I'd accept their advice 
> but suggest that a new CTD was found (in the next ten 
> minutes :))
>