[blml] adjudication

[Nigel]

[nige1]
[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".
[Alain Gottcheiner]
IBTD. Nobody can compel you to count QJ bare at full value.
Furthermore, even if you have agreed "6-10 strict", you may deviate from 
your agreements.You may also write on your CC, in bold type, "*point 
ranges are only indicative*".
[nige2]
IMO the law *can* insist that you count HCP rigidly A=4  K=3 Q=2  J=1 if 
it wants to restrict conventions or simplify disclosure.


[nige1]
[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.
[Alain]
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".
[nige1]
We all count raw HCP the same way. For example Q=2 J=1. When we adjust 
for other factors, our judgements differ. For example take your QJ 
doubleton.
Like Alain, I  would adjust for shortage. But by how  much  one? two? 
three? points. Opinions differ. Let us take an actual hand...
S: Q J H:Q J D: Q J C: x x x x x x x
IMO this hand has 9 HCP but after downgrading for honours in short 
suits, it is worth anything from 0-6 points (depending on whom you 
consult). Some would add nothing for the long suit. Others would add up 
to six points. Re-evaluations will differ even more after partner opens 
1C or 1N.


[nige1]
Rigid adherence to the simple law-book definition of HCP would eliminate 
legal ambiguity.
[Alain]
do you really want us all to be Walruses ?
[nige2]

[A] For *disclosure purposes* yes.  I think it would be better to start 
with "objective facts". For example HCP and suit lengths. I recommend 
that, for legal purposes, HCP descriptions should be kept crude and 
simple. I think you should divulge other factors too;  but since they 
are  more subjective and less widely agreed, I feel that they should  
be  declared  separately.

Here is an analogy. The available evidence for a court trial comprises 
(1) an authentic but crude surveillance camera tape and (2) eye witness 
reports that differ among themselves. I'd be unconvinced if the 
prosecution presented only a dramatic reconstruction loosely based on 
the tape but modified by a selected eye-witness report and concealed the 
rest of the evidence. I'd rather see the tape and hear the witness 
separately.

[B]The introduction of uncertainty into the *regulation of agreements* 
is even more irritating. I remember that when David Stevenson, John 
Probst, Tim Westmeads and others were advocating that players should be 
allowed to use their judgement when evaluating a hand as rule of 19 (and 
so on). Unfortunately, it transpired that they did not really mean that 
*players* should be allowed to use their judgement. What they meant is 
that *directors* should be allowed to impose their judgement on players.

If I remember correctly, David Burn pointed out the obvious flaw of 
letting players use their judgement with an an apt and amusing reductio 
ad absurdum. Tongue in cheek, David claimed that in his experience the 
combination of an 8 and a 5 in the same suit tends to be worth a trick 
or two.
 
Sadly, the EBU tournament committee gave into pressure from the 
directors who who wanted more scope for judgement. The new Orange book 
has introduced director judgement into evaluating "rule of 25" (or 
whatever) by adding the qualifier "or equivalent". The old restrictions 
were daft and crude but objective and fair. Players who read the rules, 
knew where they were. Now a player has to wait in the dark to discover 
whether he has complied with the regulations until a director vouchsafes 
his evaluation of the player's hand -- which will often differ from the 
player's own evaluation..

If Alain regards increasing dependence on director judgement as 
progress, I assure him that some players disagree.
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070625/220dc703/attachment.htm