[blml] adjudication

[Nigel]

[nige1]
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.

{Richard Willey]
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.


[nige2]
If those are your *current agreements* and you don't vary agreements 
according to *context*, yes. You should also briefly describe how you 
upgrade 10 counts or downgrade 16 counts, and so on.

Are being frank, Richard?

First, you eliminate psychs and mistakes; because you are enjoined to 
disclose *agreements*,

Then, you ensure that the hands comply with *current* agreements.

Finally, you would classify hands by scoring, vulnerability, position 
at the table, and so on; because when an opponent asks for an 
explanation he has a right to know your agreement *in context*.

For example: At teams, vulnerable against not, in first seat, you 
agree to open 1N on 10 HCP hands.  IMO you should include that in your 
declared range. You should specify other criteria and perhaps even add 
that few 10 counts meet them (if that is true).

I accept that such information may be general knowledge and experience 
to BLML experts like Richard, but I assure him that it comes as a 
helpful revelation to Walrus like me.