[blml] adjudication

[Nigel]

[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.

[Harald Skjæran]
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.

[nige2]

I don't think that is nearly enough. Not all players are like Harald, 
happy to learn a radical new evaluation method from scratch, every two 
boards.

I feel that if you invent a sophisticated evaluation method, you must 
try to disclose your agreement *in simple terms* that your opponents 
understand.

For example, as Richard Willey demonstrated, it is possible to 
translate any consistent method of evaluation into a true HCP range.

If you don't feel that declaring a *true range* is appropriate, I am 
equally happy with a *decimal range*, as suggested by Tim West-Meades: 
  (You include a point only if you open more than 5% of hands with 
that number of HCP).

For example suppose that your Oslo group open 32% of 11HCP hands and 
6% of 19HCP hands, they can declare their range as 11.3-19.1HCP 
(Walrus decimal notation).

Of course, then, I should *also* explain the complete complex 
evaluation calculation. but the latter seems insufficient, on its own, 
as opponents are unlikely to grasp it in the time available.

Currently, this is all just a matter of opinion.

In future, IMO, the basis on which you disclose such things should be 
a matter of simple law.