Semi-finals

[LozCooper]

Sussex beat Staffs in the Open semi which was played at Bourne End. There were 3 games outstanding including Loz when I left.

That makes for a Lancs v Sussex final which is one of the occasions when a midlands venue for the final makes reasonable sense.

Congratulations to Sussex who defeated Staffordshire yesterday. It was 9-6 when I left but I suspect 9-7 was the final score. Despite the distraction of the world cup there were few quick draws

[Sean Hewitt]

Lincs 6.5 - 9.5 Middlesex (Syston). So it's a Middlesex - Leics/Herts Minor Final.

You'll be playing Herts after they defeated Leics 8.5-7.5 yesterday. The match was close on paper but in actual fact was less close than the score suggests. Herts got in front early on and it never looked like we could catch them. Indeed a couple of our wins were very lucky indeed.

Congratulations to Herts, and good luck to both teams in the final.

[David Sedgwick]

That makes for a Lancs v Sussex final [in the Open] which is one of the occasions when a midlands venue for the final makes reasonable sense.

And the Middlesex v Hertfordshire encounter in the Minor is one of the occasions when it doesn't.

[Neil Graham]

U-140 Nottinghamshire 8 Yorkshire B 8* Yorkshire win on Board Count. Notts have raised an appeal concerning an eligibility matter,

U-100 Yorkshire 2.5 Warwickshire 7.5 (I think).

The event controller has upheld the Notts appeal making the final result Nottinghamshire 9 Yorkshire 6 - however Yorkshire have the right to a further appeal to the Director of Home Chess.

[Alex Holowczak]

I assume we can't be privy to the details of the appeal, but can we at least see the result, board-by-board, and the new corrected result, and see if we can find the problem for ourselves?

[Neil Graham]

I assume we can't be privy to the details of the appeal, but can we at least see the result, board-by-board, and the new corrected result, and see if we can find the problem for ourselves?

I have already sent off the result to the Controller and IMHO until the appeal process is finished and a final result arrived at, the matter is sub-judice. No doubt the ECF will publish the result in full then.

I would have thought Warwickshire's win in the U-100 was of more interest to you!

[Joey Stewart]

In a nailbiting finish, the Warwickshire u180 team managed to defeat Devon on board count after being 3.5-6.5 down.

Most of the results went according to the position on the board although there were a couple of swindles by certain members of these forums...

[Alex Holowczak]

I would have thought Warwickshire's win in the U-100 was of more interest to you!

Not really, I play for Worcestershire.

However, one of my friends was playing in it. He was disappointed by the quality of the Yorkshire team, saying that the team were flooded with youngsters. I said that this strategy was sensible, because they're likely to have improved so much since the grades were published. Apparently, they hadn't.

In which case, a rules dispute is far more interesting.

[David Sedgwick]

I assume we can't be privy to the details of the appeal, but can we at least see the result, board-by-board, and the new corrected result, and see if we can find the problem for ourselves?

From the Rules of the Counties Championships:

"B10. The penalty for playing an unqualified, over-graded or ineligible player in any match shall be the loss of such player’s game and the deduction of one penalty point for each unqualified, over-graded or ineligible player from the resulting total score made by the County in that match."

I would concur with Neil Graham's response. However, the following can be deduced from Neil's earlier posts in this thread:

1. The original score was Nottinghamshire 8-8 Yorkshire B, with board count favouring Yorks.
2. Notts protested that one of the Yorks players was ineligible.
3. The controller has upheld the complaint.
4. The Yorks player in question originally won his/her game, resulting in the score being adjusted from 8-8 to 9-6. (Had the Yorks player drawn or lost, the adjustment would have been to 8.5-6.5 or 8-7 respectively.)

I have a shrewd suspicion what has happened here. However, as I've indicated above, I don't want to speculate until the matter has been finally resolved.

[Joey Stewart]

I would like to know some more about this speculation

[Neil Graham]

I would like to know some more about this speculation

I suggest instead of this you get ready to pick up your loser's shield in the final when Notts U-180 get revenge after their loss in the MCCU event.

I was interested to see the Warwickshire web-site suggesting that both teams might be "strengthened" for the final - unless you can find some players we don't know about - WYSIWYG with Notts - we ain't got any more players to strengthen the team with!

PS - Does anyone know what happened in the other U-140 semi (Suffolk-Hants)?

[Joey Stewart]

I dont know exactly who will be playing, as I am not the captain of the under 180 team, but there are a LOT of players in the 170 regieon around warwickshire who might be called upon.

In fact, I might even go as far as saying that it might not be worth nottinghamshire turning up at all and conceeding the match without having to lose face over the boards.

[David Sedgwick]

Does anyone know what happened in the other U-140 semi (Suffolk-Hants)?

According to Richard Haddrell on the SCCU website, it's not being played until 26th June.

[Neil Graham]

Does anyone know what happened in the other U-140 semi (Suffolk-Hants)?

According to Richard Haddrell on the SCCU website, it's not being played until 26th June.

Thanks for that. I can confirm that the Warwickshire v Yorkshire Under 100 score was, as suggested, 7.5-2.5 in favour of the Midland county.

[John Philpott]

The Yorkshire website states, in respect of the dispute concerning the U140 match:

The U140 B team drew and should have won on board count - but after the result was known there was an objection to the eligibility of one of our ungraded players by the opposing captain and the game was awarded to Notts later by the Organiser. We are in the process of a counter appeal regarding one of their ungraded players