[blml] adjudication

[Eric Landau]

On Jun 28, 2007, at 3:05 AM, Harald Skjæran wrote:

> On 27/06/07, Nigel <Guthrie at ntlworld.com> wrote: [Eric Landau]
> Of course you should "explain the basis for the exceptions" -- you
> should explain whatever considerations may be relevant to your choice
> of call; that's what full disclosure is about.
>
> But Nigel is still missing the point, which has nothing to do with
> "exceptions".  "Using a different point count" cannot validly be
> contrasted with "adjusting for other factors", because using a
> different point count has nothing whatsoever to do with adjusting for
> anything at all!
>
> I think it would be a terrible idea to require "adjustments" to be
> declared on the CC.  99.9% of pairs would need to write an essay
> ("upgrade lots of 10s and 9s or good honor combinations, downgrade
> lots of HC in Qs and Js or short or unguarded honors...") -- and
> that's just for NT openers! -- and would merely be stating what is
> near-universal and obvious to most.  I'm talking about pairs who
> really do use alternative evaluation methods (which can include far
> more than merely "a different point count"); they are rare, but
> definitely do exist.
>
> Nigel seems to have fallen into exactly the trap I anticipated, by
> failing to appreciate the fundamental difference between using a
> genuine alternative evaluation method and making adjustments to a
> base evaluation using standard point-count.
>
> [nige1]
>
> Wallowing in Eric's Walrus trap :)
>
> I understand Eric's distinction and recognise its validity; I just
> suggested the *same* solution to the two problems.
>
> My suggestion is that you disclose:
> [A] True HCP range.
> [B] Other requirements.
>
> As Richard Willey demonstrated, that does not work well with
> alternative point counts (like Vienna's 7531) but it seems adequate
> if there are adjustments for other factors.
>
> I recommend that you declare your 15-18 HCP notrump opener as, say...
> [A] 15-18 HCP.
> [B] Flat may have 5 card major. We adjust for factors like texture,
> shape, distribution, and concentration. For example, we don't open
> 4333 15 counts with poor texture; On 18 counts we open something else,
> unless they are 4333 with poor texture.
>
> Your true 15-18 HCP range is more useful to opponents than a *16-17
> HCP* or *15-17 HCP* or *16-18  HCP* curtailment. For example, it is
> clear that you don't open 1N on 14HCP or 19HCP.
>
> IMO you should still declare [B] but failure to do so is less damaging
> to opponents because even Walrus know that there are often exceptions
> at the extremes.
>
> I play 15-17NT myself, but upgrade some 14 counts. I've 'always'  
> declared my 1NT openings as (14)15-17, which IMO is appropriate.  
> This tells opps that the nominal range is 15-17 and that some 14- 
> counts are upgraded. Some declare 14+-17, which to me indicates  
> that they open more 14-counts 1NT than I do. Most people declare in  
> Norway declare 12-14/13-15/14-16/15-17 with no qualifiers, which is  
> also OK according to our LC. Everyone knows (even at club level I  
> believe) that it's standard practice to upgrade (or downgrade even  
> if that's more seldom) hands due to "texture", suit length and  
> quality or other non-objective reasons. It's impossible to declare  
> this sufficiently on a normal CC where there's no place for it.
>
> Declaring my 1NT as 14-17 would be nonsense IMO, since at least 80%  
> of the 14-counts don't qualify for a 1NT opening.
>
> Here in Oslo we have a group of players playing their own system,  
> using a hand evaluation method far more sophisticated than the Work  
> point count. They don't evaluate hands themselves at all, their  
> "point count" adds or subtracts points for suit lenght, honour  
> placing, honour combinations, fit etc. It's impossible to  
> accurately translate their hand evaluation to hcp. They declarer  
> their 1NT openings as 12-16, but they could have 11, and it's  
> possible to construct a 19 hcp hand they would open 1NT!
>
> The ZAR point count is also gaining popularity. That too is  
> impossible to translate accurately to hcp.
>
> Those employing different evaluation methods might tell this on the  
> front of their CC, and mention that hcp ranges is inaccurate, thus  
> hands will fall outside the declared range more often than for others.
>
> This should be enough.

To reinforce Harold's point, one has to wonder how Nigel would want  
us to deal with the original (albeit quickly superceded) form of  
"Animal Acol", a system that had its brief moment in the sun 35-40  
years ago in the New York area.  It mandated evaluation by "losing  
trick count", which, compared to point-count methods, heavily  
overvalues distribution relative to to high cards.  Unlike subsequent  
(and rather more playable) variants of AA, it initially abjured the  
use of point-count altogether.  The minimum strength for an opening  
bid in this system was seven or fewer "unadjusted" losers.

Playing this way (I didn't say it was any good, did I?), you opened  
the bidding as dealer with a 6-6 zero-count, but passed a 4-3-3-3  
hand with four aces and four jacks.  I don't see how one might  
translate these requirements into Nigel's "true HCP range" and "other  
requirements" in any meaningful way.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net