[bluejak]

Seems a silly post. We are running a bridge game, not making childish judgements to try and prove we are macho people.

Of course the TD is not God, and no-one could possibly think so from our working system. Your over-worrying about irrelevant single imps in England is called:

Penny wise, pound foolish.

We try to run a bridge game, not to win debating points with impractical and unhelpful ideas which sound good at first hearing but have no substance.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on Aug 22 2009, 01:00 AM, said:

Of course the TD is not God, and no-one could possibly think so from our working system. Your over-worrying about irrelevant single imps in England is called:

A regulation that says that the appeal committee is to treat arguments about TD errors of judgement as frivolous as you claimed earlier in the thread is effectively saying that the TD judgements are above question. When those judgements may win or lose a match or tournament then I believe that such a regulation is quite improper.

[bluejak]

Nothing in the regulation nor my posting said that TD errors of judgement should be treated as not frivolous. Please try reading what was written.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on Aug 22 2009, 02:07 AM, said:

Nothing in the regulation nor my posting said that TD errors of judgement should be treated as not frivolous. Please try reading what was written.

Nothing in my post suggest that you did say that.

I will repeat what I said

"to treat arguments about TD errors of judgement as frivolous "

That is it is the arguments that are to be treated as frivolous.

And what you said was

"and to treat as frivolous any appeal based solely on an attempt to change the weightings in a non-major way."

That is the appeal was to be treated as frivolous.

My intention when using the word argument was that it was referring to the arguments that were being made in the appeal that you were referring to.

David, "Please try reading what was written."

[suprgrover]

Cascade, on Aug 20 2009, 07:50 AM, said:

1. At least "the most favourable result that was likely" for the non-offenders is objective.

You must be operating under a different assumption than I am about what "objective" means.