Re: Adjudication Question

I'd say before the 2000 rules came out that that the support order without the coast specified is not only valid,
but MORE correct that the support order with a coast specified which is extraneous information intended to get an
extra advantage that was not supported by the rules.

Regards
Peter


----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Kuehn" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: [CAT23-GM] Adjudication Question


>
> Libby wrote:
> >Is the support order valid?
> >
> >F MAO support F W MED to Spain
> >F W MED to Spain (SC)
>
> What would be the grounds for ruling it invalid?  F Wes cannot move
> to the other Spanish coast, so there is no facial ambiguity to the
> support order.  If F MAO was intending to give any support for that
> unit's move to Spain, it could only be to Spa(sc).  The actual move
> specified the correct coast explicitly.  You'd have to be a True
> Perfectionist to rule this support invalid.
>
> The reverse case would be more interesting, since F MAO could move to
> either coast, and the owner of F Wes could well care a great deal
> which coast was meant.  Personally, I would rule the support valid
> without a coast designator, as well, but at least there is a
> colorable argument.
>
> I don't see any dispute in the case you present.  It is valid.
>
> -Adam
>
>
>
> Community email addresses:
>   Post message: [email protected]
>   Subscribe:    [email protected]
>   Unsubscribe:  [email protected]
>   List owner:   [email protected]
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
>   http://www.onelist.com/community/CAT23-GM
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/7tRolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->