[blml] adjudication

[richard willey]

> 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.

Lets assume the following:

Partner and I are using some hand evaluation metric other than Milton
Work High Card Points.  Partner and I are playing in a well
established partnership.  We've been palying the same system forever
and have been good enough to keep very accurate records of all of our
1NT opening.

We decide to revist all our NT openings and calculate the strength of
our hands using a naive Work HCP scale.  Here is histogram describing
the frequency distribution

10 HCP:  37 Hands
11 HCP:  346 hands
12 HCP:  3696 hands
13 HCP:  3183 hands
14 HCP:  2622 hands
15 HCP:  154 hands
16 HCP:  13 hands

Using your proposal, I assume that we should describe our agreements
as 10 - 16 HCPs?

While I agree that the information provided is "accurate", its also
completely useless.  Defining a range without any kind of accompanying
frequency distribution doesn't provide any kind of useful information.

As I have tried to point out before, there really isn't any good way
to skin this cat.  Different groups of players won't be able to
communication effectively if they don't share a common vocabulary.








__
The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity