[blml] adjudication

[Alain Gottcheiner]

At 13:01 25/06/2007 +0100, Nigel wrote:


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

I don't see where this interpretation comes from.

Director judgement has nothing to do with this. There are four relevant 
questions :

1) Is a player bound by announced ranges ? No (L40A, L40E1 last sentence, 
and L75B last sentence)

2) Should a pair that considers ranges as a mere indication subject to 
frequent adjustments mention it ? Yes (L75B second sentence)

3) May SO demand that ranges be explained using a fixed unit ? I'd say yes, 
and furthermore when a pair uses other criteria they have to say it.

4) When the range for a bid is 6-10, and you occasionnaly downgrade
12-counts to 10, should you rather state 6-10 or 6-12 ? If it's only 
occasionally, I'd say the former. Writing 6-12 would give the false 
impression that it is normal for you to open weak twos on hands worth an 
obvious 1-bid.

One solution is to allow the typographical convention for carding, putting 
uncommon cases between brackets, to be used for bidding conventions, here 
6-10(12).


Best regards

    Alain


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070625/d9b96921/attachment.htm