[blml] adjudication

[Nigel]

[Robert Geller]
One point that has been ignored on this thread is the importance of 
middle cards. For example, A432  A432  K32  K2 is probably not a 1NT 
opener (upgrade to 15-17) even if you use the Schenken point count, 
but A1098  A1098  KT09  K10, IMO, is defintely worth a 1NT open.  The 
second hand will probably be an average of one trick or more stronger 
than the first one.  I don't know of any formal system that is simple 
enough to actually be used at the table to quantify middle cards, but 
obviously all good players do take middle cards into account to some 
degree when they decide whether or not to open 1NT. I don't know any 
easy way to describe this to oppts simply, but if they are reasonable 
players they are already doing this themselves anyway.   .
[Alain Gottcheiner]
AG : that last sentence from Bob is the most important in the thread 
so far. We started from a pair's attempt to recover from a bad result 
through lawyering. Pairs who don't won't have any qualms about 
admitting that some hands might be upgraded or downgraded a little 
according to factors that might vary from one pair to another ; all 
that's needed is that we take care to specify those factors at some 
obvious place on our CCs ("general style" seems right).

If somebody questioned Bob's last example as a 15-17 1NT opener (or 
even a 16-18 opener), I'd apply but one law : L74A2, against the 
plaintiff. However, if somebody wished to call Bob's first example a 
15-17 NT, one should rather make a statement about it.

[nige1]
Several times in this thread, I've high-lighted Bob Geller's 
adjustment. I called it *texture*. It is one of several possible 
adjustment factors. Among others are honour *distribution*, 
*concentration*, and *placement* (all terms defined earlier).

Pairs vary in how much they adjust for such factors. Some BLMLers 
write that they adjust by plus or minus 2 points or more. I adjust 
less Anyway, it does not matter in my case, because like most walrus, 
I declare the full raw HCP range).

When we walrus declare 12-14 HCP (say) we mean 12-14 HCP. Others 
declare 12-14 HCP and mean 10-16 HCP.

Apparently, I'm unique in BLML in advocating that the law should 
insist that pairs declare HCP accurately and adjustments separately.

That isn't a perfect solution; just simpler and better than current 
practice.

Everyone else seems loyal to John Probst's Ministry of Truth. Few 
appear willing to read let alone address the basic arguments.