[blml] adjudication

[Nigel]

[Nigel]
(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.

[Alain Gottcheiner]
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.

[Wayne Burrows]
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.

[Alain]
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".

[Wayne]
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 tendency 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.

[nige1]
Wain disagrees with Alain. also disagrees with Alain; but he, too, 
seems to regard the basic argument as not worth comment.

So far nobody has addressed the essential argument, so I'll present it
in a slightly different way...

Take Waynes's example of a pair who open a weak no-trump. To clear the 
decks, let us suppose that they don't use Milton Work HCP at all. 
Perhaps they use the more accurate Vienna count (A=7 K=5 Q=3 J=1) or 
something else. Even so, with a little extra work, they can still 
declare an objective HCP range, computed using the ubiquitous.

A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1

They can easily work out, *using their own evaluation methods*...
(A) the hand with the *least Milton Work HCP*, with which they would 
open 1N.
(B) the hand with the *most Milton Work HCP*, with which they would 
open 1N.

The pair can now declare their 1N HCP range is A-B.

They should *also* attempt to explain how their judgement and special 
evaluation methods might affect this, especially at the extremes;
although that information may be harder for opponents to grasp and use.

Notice, however, that once again, suit lengths and HCP are rocks of 
objectivity, to which we can cling in a turbulent sea of judgement.
They are *crude* and present an *incomplete* picture; but, in so far 
as they go, the do present an *accurate* picture.

IMO the law should insist on *at least* that level of disclosure.

Surely there is somebody on BLML who will accept that this information 
is more useful to opponents than "nominally 12-14" or whatever when
the true HCP range varies between wider limits.

In my experience accurate knowledge of HCP ranges and suit lengths 
would be especially helpful when ...
(1) Defending.
(2) Up against a partnership who are reluctant to disclose how they 
arrive at their judgements.

Another variation on the argument....

An *expert* partnership will build a rapport so that each knows how 
the other evaluates various factors to adjust crude HCP. However, they 
may not be privy to how another expert pair exercise such judgement.

Anyway, we *walruses* outnumber experts ten to one, so it is vital 
that disclosure-rules pander to *our* needs. The required rule-change 
is simple. All we want is that players initially describe hands in 
terms of suit lengths and raw HCP that we can understand; and declare 
other adjustments and refinements separately.

Incidentally, Wayne wrote...

"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."

I know that Wayne would not dream of doing so, but there are
long-standing partnerships who seem to have built up an entire system 
from undiscussed implicit agreements.