[blml] adjudication

[richard willey]

> 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.

I am being completely serious.

A 7-5-3-1 point scale is very different than a 4-3-2-1 scale.  The
entire reason in adopting a different point scale is that it produces
very different results than the traditional Work point count.  Almost
by definition, the act of approximating a 7-5-3-1 scale using a
4-3-2-1 scale is going to increase variance.

> 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).

This has nothing to do with psyches or different opening styles in
different seats.
Its a simple question of math.






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