[blml] adjudication

[Alain Gottcheiner]

At 17:46 22/06/2007 +0100, Nigel wrote:

>[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".

IBTD. Nobody can compel you to count QJ bare at full value.

Furthermore, even if you have agreed "6-10 strct", you may deviate from 
your agreements.

You may also write on your CC, in bold type, "point ranges are only 
indicative".

>[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.

Once more, I don't agree. My view is that HCP are a poor estimation of a 
hand's potential. I want to be allowed to count tricks rather than points, 
for example. If you ask me the range for an Acol two-bid (I use Benji), I 
would reply "13-23" because I have to, and think to myself "what a silly 
question".

>Rigid adherence to the simple law-book definition of HCP would eliminate
>legal ambiguity.

... do you really want us all to be Walruses ?


Regards

    Alain
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070625/970c3043/attachment.htm