[blml] adjudication

[Nigel]

[AGF]
E/W are playing weak 2s with a maximum of 10 points
The bidding goes
_W__N__E__S
-- -- -- _P     
_P _P 2H _P
_P _X _P 2N
3D _P 3H _X
AP
It turns out that E held 12 Points. The contract makes and S call the 
director and says that his side has been damaged a he would not have 
doubled if E had opened a normal 1H, furthermore West, (holding 11 
points and 5D) by bidding 3D had given his partner unauthorised 
information. Your comments would be appreciated.

[Robert Geller]
The 4321 point count is just a crude first estimate of strength.  Everyone knows it overvalues queens, undervalues aces, and ignores distribution. Anyone who watches BBO or reads tournet reports knows that good players routinely upvalue and downrate their hands from what a robot-like 4321 count says.  So if, for example, the "12 point" 2H opening was based on xxx  KQJxxx  QJ  QJ, I don't see what the problem is.  That hand is a piece of junk with no chance for game opposite a passed hand.

Furthermore if West decides to compete by bidding 3D, that's his right.

NS took a shot by doubling and lost.  That's their problem. But to demand an adjustment is utterly 
unjustifiable.  They should forfeit the deposit.

[Alain Gottcheiner]
Me too. That's what the "general style" box is for.I'd welcome an "official" checkbox on CCs : "point ranges absolute / adaptable / loose". This case is among the most obvious ; anybody who plays club tournaments should know 3d-seat preempts are adaptable. And anyway I bet that if opener's hand had contained a seventh heart and a little less in high-card strength, the contract would have been made, too.

However, some cases are less classical ; pairs that use lightish takeout 
doubles or 2/1, for example, should be careful to mention it in plain sight.

[Ed Reppert]
And that fourth seat weak twos (which this was) are typically 10-13 HCP. 
Bottom line, south needs to learn to live with the consequences of his 
mistakes, not ask the TD to bail him out. West gave his partner UI by 
bidding? Hogwash.

[nige1 cross-posted to Bridge Talk]
I agree with Robert Geller that West had a perfect right to bid 3D but 
the rest of the above makes little sense to me. 

[A] Let us start with the simple and obvious. The EBU Orange book 
defines (Milton Work) High Card Points, *HCP*, as *A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1*. 
Moat Bridge books confirm this meaning. Everybody accepts that that HCP 
are a rough measure of high card strength but for those capable of 
understanding a short definition and accomplishing simple addition there 
can be no ambiguity, legal or otherwise, about the number of HCP  in a hand.

[B] Of course,  even simple players like me know that when evaluating 
the trick potential of a hand we should consider other factors. 
Typically,  we make point count adjustments for *Hand shape* (shortages 
and long suits) *Honour distribution* (honours work best in long suits), 
*Honor concentration* (honours re-enforce each other), *Intermediates* 
(texture, especially tens), partner's and opponents' bidding (honours 
are better placed in fitting suits and suits bid on our right).

[C] Most players are also aware that points for length, shortage, 
placement and so on are not *high card* points. For example we realize 
that a long suit can be worth more tricks than a high-card but it is 
*not* a high card.

[D] It is perfectly easy to take adjustments into account but still 
accurately describe HCP. For example, when you open 2H...
--  if you sometimes upgrade 5-point hands and downgrade 11 HCP, then 
you can accurately describe the HCP range as "5-11". Better perhaps is 
"a good 11 HCP to a poor 15 HCP". If you regard even that as misleading 
you can detail your shape and other requirements.  IMO, however, you 
should not tell a deliberate lie, such as "6-10" if that is not your 
real agreement.
-- if  you open on 12 counts in third seat, again you can declare that. 
The new EBU card specifies how to can highlight such exceptions to 
opponents. If you don't declare exceptions, IMO you should alert them. A 
few pairs don't vary at all but most pairs do vary requirements 
depending on vulnerability and position at the table. Different groups 
vary requirements in different contexts and in different ways. Thus, I 
think Ed is wrong to imply that it is quite legal to declare *a maximum 
of 10 HCP* but expect opponents to know that you sometimes open 12HCP 
hands by agreement.

[E] Many players seem reluctant to divulge HCP; most directors are happy 
to grant players lee-way in declaring ranges; such sloppiness seems 
endemic; but I wish this trend were reversed. Unadorned HCP give 
opponents useful and accurate information about high card strength. HCP 
may be a crude yardstick but it is well-defined and objective. whereas 
there is wide disagreement about adjustments for other factors. 
Arbitrary adjustments just complicate matters and blur the definition. 
Rigid adherence to the simple law-book definition of HCP would eliminate 
legal ambiguity.

[F] The law should insist that players describe shape and other 
requirements *as well as but not instead of* HCP.

 
 
 

 
                                                                                          

 
 
                                                                                           


------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml at amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.1/857 - Release Date: 
20/06/2007 14:18