[blml] adjudication

[Nigel]

[Richard Willey]
BTW, here's a fairly simple illustration:

Lets assume that the definition of a weak NT opening is as follows:

An "average" weak NT hand contains 1 Ace, 1 King, 1 Queen, 1 Jack,
plus a second King.
The width of a weak NT opening is one "King"

Using a standard "Work" 4-3-2-1 HCP scale, an average weak NT opening
has 13 HCP.  A maximum strength weak NT opening has 14 HCP.  A minimum
strength weak NT opening has 12 HP.

Using the Vienna 7-5-3-1 point count, an average weak NT opening has
21 "Vienna points".  A maximum strength weak NT opening has 23 Vienna
points.  A minimum strength weak NT opening has 19 Vienna points.

Now, lets construct a couple hands designed to maximize the skew:

Here's a 19 Vienna Point hand

Axxx
Axxx
Kxx
xx

Here's a 23 Vienna Point hand

KQJx
KQxx
Qxx
Qx

Notice that the first hand is an 11 count using Work HCP, while the
second is a 15 count.  Using the Work Count to describe agreements
based on the Vienna count is intrinsically inaccurate.


[nige1]

Now I understand what Richard is getting at. Clever! And fair enough!

I agree that if you use the Vienna count, then the most accurate 
description of your agreements is in terms of Vienna count. If you 
translate the range into Milton Work HCP it will become broader. I 
dare say that might happen in the other direction too.


I concede Richard's point that there is no complete solution, short of
expecting players to learn a new system of evaluation with every new 
pair they meet :(

Describing HCP ranges and suit lengths seems the simplest possible 
compromise :)

IMO if the true range is 10-16 HCP then 10-16 HCP is a more accurate 
description of the range than 12-14 HCP.

Here you should qualify that description by describing the Vienna 
count and range -- although I'm afraid that clarification may be of 
marginal use to the average walrus.