[blml] adjudication

[Wayne Burrows]

On 27/06/07, Nigel <Guthrie at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> [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 :)

Maybe but as Richard pointed out it is inherently inaccurate.

>
> 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.

This may be so for the Vienna count (and others) but it will not
always necessarily be the case.

I don't even know what I will do next time with many (most) hands that
are on the boundary of my 1NT range for example.  How can my partner
know?  And if she does not know how can she explain?

To me "around 12-14" (or whatever is appropriate) is a more accurate
description of my 1NT as noone - not even me - knows any different.
My partner knows from frequent "I only experimented a little bit this
time" or "I have been a little creative" or "I only told a little lie"
that variations will occur but I doubt she knows the nature of those
variations.  Although I am sure there is a pattern it is unlikely to
be simple and future 1NTs maybe influenced positively or negatively by
previous 1NTs and there are many other factors - simulations, thought
experiments, actions I have taken with other partners (or seen from
partner's and opponents), state of the match, quality of the opponents
... the list goes on.

"Around 12-14" is more accurate and useful with everyone knowing that
variations will occur.  And these variations will differ from player
to player.

To my mind it is equivalent that the player who never varies from
their stated range - the walrus - discloses that information.

> 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.

Accurate useless information.

Wayne

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>