[blml] Borderline rulings

[Tim West-Meads]

Todd wrote:

> 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.  

Clear is ostensibly good, but "clearly inadequate" is fairly obviously 
bad.

> 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.

Ok, but the EBU explicitly gives permission to use personal evaluation 
methods (proviso that they should be explainable) and the yardstick is 
"weaker than RoX" not "compliant with RoX".  Thus judgement is required 
*and* the basic measure is silly.


> 	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. 

They would not feel misled if the *description* of the 1 level opener 
included such hand types (disdainful of the system maybe, but not 
misled).  Given proper disclosure I'd not argue with a player who judged 
the former hand to be "within a King of average strength".
nb even "old-fashioned" hand evaluation, there being a known fit, makes 
this hand 6hcp+3+3+2 (for 2 singletons and a doubleton)=14.

Tim