[blml] An EBU L&E decision.

[Stefanie Rohan]

> L&E comment:
> It is clear from the large percentage of the table score included in 
> the weighting by the Appeals Committee that there is a plausible 
> argument that N was not damaged.  However, the L&E has concluded on 
> balance that no adjustment at all should have been made because the 3H 
> bid did not require an alert.

> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The L&E Committee has reached entirely the wrong conclusion from the score adjustment made by the Appeals Committee.  The AC felt that North was not greatly damaged; however, the Committee did conclude that the bid in question was alertable, and this was the main basis for the appeal.

Surely these are two different decisions, which the L&E Committee seem to have conflated into one.

A review of this case seems to have been the basis for the major change in the Orange Book, since the auction is used as an example case.  I think that the change is wrong, but I suppose that the L&E Committee felt they had a good reason for making it.  The Orange Book's chief author was the director in the case, and the Appeals Committee chairman is also on the L&E, so it is clear that there were differing views and that the decision was not made lightly.

This appeal took place over a year ago; why have the L&E decided to post the details of it now?

Cheers

Stefanie Rohan  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071028/f8e6a5b3/attachment.htm