Re: 169:14 - INVALID +2

From: Glenn Overby II (
Date: Tue Oct 02 2001 - 09:34:07 PDT

Rich writes:

>> Style:  A unique stretch to avoid perpetual doubles (+1).
>Grumble mutter mutter.  Redefining "letter" to include apostrophes
>would've merited at least a -1 style, and probably a summary ruling of
>invalidity, had I been judging...

Possibly.  I could take two views on style thinking that it's clunky and
flies in the face of common sense (similar to your view), the other thinking that it's
a clever way out of a tricky set-up, never mind common sense which rarely
matters in FRC (my judgement).  Since he lost the crucial close ruling on validity,
and since I've been relatively soft on style scores and rewarding to most
"stretches", I went positive.  YMMV.  :)


Rule Date: 2001-10-02 16:35:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST