[blml] adjudication

[Wayne Burrows]

On 26/06/07, Alain Gottcheiner <agot at ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> At 18:28 25/06/2007 +0100, Nigel wrote:
>
> >Explanation
> >(1) Objective evidence like HCP [A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=2]
> >(2) Hodge-podge of factors like suit texture, honour placement and so on,
> >evaluated differently by different players.
> >
> >I guess that the argument is not difficult to understand; just hard to
> >repudiate.
> >
>
> AG : the only flaw is that it addresses the wrong target. We weren't
> speaking about upgrading all 11-counts to 12-counts, which simply means
> non-disclosure. We were speaking about the right to upgrade or downgrade
> your hand in cases where honor count is clearly flawed.
>
> Bridge is about making tricks, and your "objective evidence" isn't the most
> important factor. We all know AKQJ10x - Axx - xxx - x is more powerful than
> KJx - QJx - KJxxx - KJ.
> If a player upgrades the former to a strong club (say 16+), it should be
> allowed. If he upgrades the latter, it shouldn't. But if he downgrades the
> latter to a 12-14 NT, most TDs would allow it.

I can't see that this is the right approach.  Bridge is a game of
judgement.  We want good players to exercise their good judgement and
bad players to exercise their bad judgement.

If someone wants to upgrade a hand that others will downgrade then we
should be letting him.  If it is good judgement to do so then he will
beat us and if it is poor judgement then we will beat him.

We certainly do not want the regulators telling the bad players that
they are not allowed to exercise their bad judgement.

> There was a time when opening a game force on a 11-trick 12-count was
> considered a psyche.
> Fortunately, this is past.
> Perhaps there will be a time when Nigellians (aka Walruses) will admit that
> side factors can be more important to this game than "objective evidence".

One local pair used to describe their opening point ranges as "around
10-14 ...".  I like this approach.  Everyone knows or should know that
players can and do upgrade and downgrade hands.  We also know that the
particular hands that one player upgrades or downgrades will in all
likelihood be different than the particular hands that another player
upgrades or downgrades.

In an ideal world a complete explanation will tell us this information
but in practice this is often impractical.  Nevertheless if we are
really interested as sometimes happens perhaps most commonly in the
play as for example when you are trying to find a stray jack a player
can ask about his opponent's tendancy to upgrade or downgrade.

Aside from anything else it is impractical because the hands that we
upgrade or downgrade might be different today than it is tomorrow and
that of course is different than it was yesterday.  In my partnership
we began life playing a 12-14 NT.  At some point we changed to "good
11-14".  My partner thought that I thought that meant "Good I have 11
I can open" while she exercised superior judgement and only opened
"Good"  11 counts.  At some point we introduced a variable 1NT so we
were "Good 11-14" in 1st and 2nd seat and "15-17" in 3rd and 4th seat.
 Later our 1st and 2nd seat openings became dependent on vulnerability
"10-13" Not Vulnerable and "Good 11-14" Vulnerable.  After a run of
bad results with 10-counts at nil vulnerable in a recent long event I
discussed with my partner about only opening "Good 10-13" at nil
vulnerable while keeping "10-13" at favourable vulnerability -
although I have occasionally experimented with 9-counts favourable.
We didn't come to any firm conclusion but I might show some discretion
depending on the vulnerability.  Also I have tightened up my
Vulnerable 1NTs - without discussion.  How is she supposed to know
when I do this.  And if she doesn't know how can she possibly
disclose.

The reality is we have a philosophy of opening a variable NT.  The
exact parameters of which are fluid and we are still discovering them.

Its absurd to have to give a point count for all of this and expect
that to be an accurate description.

Wayne