[blml] Fwd: Decimal HCP ranges.

[Wayne Burrows]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:37 +0100 (BST), Tim West-Meads <twm at cix.co.uk> wrote:
> "Collins Williams" wrote:
> >
> > What all of this about high card point ranges seems to overlook is
> > that some, (are they called Zonal Authorities?).
>
> System regulations are matter for the Sponsoring Organisation which might
> the WBF (for a world event), a Zonal Org/National
> Authority/County/District/Club/Charity or even an individual.
>
> > the ACBL for example, regulate conventional
> > responses to 1NT openers based on the width of the range (presumably
> > measured in Work HCP).
> >
> > How is a TD to interpret such a regulation in the face of a
> > disclosure of a pairs NT range as a probabilistic measure?
>
> The TD makes a judgement as to whether the range of hands covered by the
> probabilistic agreement is wider than the range permitted.
> For example if the permitted range was 5Hcp and the probabilistic range
> included 5% of 11 and 17 counts and only 15% of 12/16s I'd judge it to be
> within legal tolerances (it covers many fewer hands than a Walrus 12-16).

This might be practical and sensible but I don't like it when the
regulation is interpreted in a way that is in conflict with standard
usage of a word.  'Range' normally means the biggest value less the
smallest value and I can see no reason not to interpret it as such
here.

The problem of course is an implicit assumption by the Walrus who
happened to write the regulations that everyone uses hcp to evaluate
their hands.

>
> > Or is it the view of people who are trying to get such information
> > into disclosure that such a regulation is not legitimate?
>
> Such regulations are legal - reprehensible and morally abhorrent IMO -
> but legal.
>

Wayne