From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Wed Apr  1 16:31:26 1998
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.8) id QAA12296
	for britdisc-outgoing; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 16:14:08 +0100 (BST)
Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA12249
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 16:13:50 +0100 (BST)
Received: from Tebewebb@aol.com
	by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id OADHa03578;
	Wed, 1 Apr 1998 10:12:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Tebewebb <Tebewebb@aol.com>
Message-ID: <30fb10cf.35225964@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 10:12:34 EST
To: lpaulson@postmaster.co.uk, britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Tour VI?
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 49
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

I really don't understand Lawrence's suggestions, particularly on the proposal
for who advances and who declines.

Clearly, if you are going to have the top two teams from each pool advance,
they should then cross-over, with the bottom bracket teams then dropping out
and playing the winners of the losers in a double-elimination back-door round,
which would leave the 4 teams remaining undefeated after the first round of
play-offs playing each other in a second round single game, first to score
three advancing over the top.

And then the winner of the winning pool and the winners of the losing pool
with meet, preferably in dueling pistols down the line at ten paces.

Stephen
formerly GUN, still Happy