BGonline.org Forums

32S-62 Snowie Data — Clarification requested

Posted By: Nack Ballard
Date: Thursday, 22 March 2012, at 2:22 a.m.

In Response To: 32S-62 Snowie Data — Clarification requested (Taper_Mike)

Your deductions are correct. For purposes of data compilation, you should ignore the fourth nacbrac, which is redundant (and also happens to incorrectly imply 31k instead of 36k for the two top plays).

Nack

Messages In This Thread

• 32Z-41? RO 46K XG4
  Claude Landry -- Tuesday, 19 October 2010, at 11:59 a.m.
  • 32Z-41? RO 46K XG4
    David Rockwell -- Tuesday, 19 October 2010, at 12:47 p.m.
  • Here's my 52S 41 to compare (just finished it)
    neilkaz -- Tuesday, 19 October 2010, at 4:46 p.m.
    • 32S-62 started
      neilkaz -- Tuesday, 19 October 2010, at 6:20 p.m.
      • 32S-62 started
        Nack Ballard -- Tuesday, 19 October 2010, at 7:49 p.m.
        • 32S-62 started..yes S included for at least 5k
          neilkaz -- Tuesday, 19 October 2010, at 7:53 p.m.
          • 32S-62 started..yes S included for at least 5k
            Nack Ballard -- Tuesday, 19 October 2010, at 8:18 p.m.
        • 32S-62 Snowie Data — Clarification requested
          Taper_Mike -- Wednesday, 21 March 2012, at 9:47 p.m.
          • 32S-62 Snowie Data — Clarification requested
            Nack Ballard -- Thursday, 22 March 2012, at 2:22 a.m.
            • 32S-62 Snowie Data — Clarification requested
              Taper_Mike -- Thursday, 22 March 2012, at 3:48 a.m.
    • 32Z-41 and 52S-41, data
      Nack Ballard -- Tuesday, 19 October 2010, at 7:12 p.m.
      • 32Z-41 and 52S-41, data — Correction
        Taper_Mike -- Saturday, 10 March 2012, at 5:28 a.m.
        • 32Z-41 and 52S-41, data — Correction
          Nack Ballard -- Wednesday, 21 March 2012, at 10:23 p.m.