[blml] Borderline rulings

[Todd M. Zimnoch]

Tim West-Meads wrote:
> Nigel wrote:
>>To me, it seems the director may still have a
>>problem when an expert swears by some esoteric new
>>evaluation method (For instance, David Burn's
>>tongue-in-cheek contention that "In my experience
>>'85' combinations are worth a lot of tricks.")
> 
> Not too much of a problem:  "That's fascinating David, sadly I lack the 
> experience to comment myself so I'll guess you'd like to take it up with 
> the AC - if I could just have the £100 deposit please."

	It is difficult to tell when a third-in-hand opener is too 
light to be legal.  The advantage of RoX or Work Count is 
that the distinction is clear and the method of evaluating 
is known to most players, even those who ridicule those 
methods as insufficient.  When players get to choose their 
own evaluation methods, the distinction becomes less clear 
and you open the door for argument that one player is being 
obtuse about his own evaluation skills.  Two players could 
easily disagree with each others' evaluation methods and the 
dispute gets settled in an appeals committee rather than in 
the L&EC committee.  Some people may be unhappy about the 
decisions either committee would make.

	Further, argue some modern hand evaluation techniques 
aren't suited for showing general strength as much as 
trick-taking potential.  KQJTxxxxx x x xx (13.35 K&R) may 
take more tricks and is evaluated as stronger than Kxxx Kxx 
Kxx Qxx (9.85 K&R).  But the former is not a 1-level opener 
and players may feel misled if the hand were indeed opened 
1S in 3rd seat.  The latter may not be a 3rd-seat opener 
either, but I wouldn't feel so terribly mislead if someone 
did open that in 3rd.  I believe this is the sort of 
distinction the regulation is trying to enforce.

-Todd