[blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Harald Skjæran]

On 11/08/07, Ed Reppert <ereppert at rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2007, at 5:47 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote:
>
> > S AKQJ
> > H xxx
> > D xxx
> > C xxx
> >
> > S Axxx
> > H Kxx
> > D QJx
> > C xxx
> >
> > S Axxx
> > H Kxx
> > D Qxx
> > C Jxx
> >
> > All these hands fit the above WBF definition. Do they all have the
> > same strength? If not, the WBF definition is flawed. As it must be,
> > I think, particularly if it relies on the Work Count.
> > <
> > +=+ The definition within the Systems Policy is given in relation
> > to the interpretation of the term for the purposes of the Systems
> > Policy.  The definition is not flawed for that purpose since it is
> > merely a tool for the understanding of the regulations. The WBF
> > is entitled to rely on Work Count in establishing regulations.


I didn't question the legality of the WBF Systems Committee (I presume)
using the Milton Work Point Count in their regulations.
The fact that it's flawed and not useful for the purpose doesn't render it
illegal. But I still maintain that it would be better with a regulation that
didn't use any spesific hand evaluation method in determining the policy,


If this regulation is in force in a particular contest, the TD has to
> understand it, in order to apply it correctly. So I ask again, do
> these hands all have the same strength? Put it another way - on the
> assumption they do not have the same strength, which one is "average"?


According to the definition they're all "average", since they all contain 10
hcp.
Of course we all know that the playing strenght is far from equal, but
that's another kettle of fish. :-(

-- 
Kind regards,
Harald Skjæran

_______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070811/a8c16297/attachment.htm