[blml] adjudication

[Eric Landau]

On Jun 26, 2007, at 8:07 PM, Nigel 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 :)
>
> 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.

Perhaps we should add a checkbox (possibly with a pre-alert) to the  
convention card (in the vicinity of "General Approach" on the ACBL  
card) for "Do Not Use Standard Point-Count" or some such, to be  
checked by a pair whose agreements were based primarily on something  
other than the 4-3-2-1 count (e.g. Vienna, LTC).  A pair that checked  
the box would be required to explain their evaluation method on  
request.  They would still be required to supply approximate 4-3-2-1  
HCP ranges in those places where the CC calls for them, but it would  
be understood that they were "rough translations" of their actual  
agreements, not the agreements themselves (opponents could, of  
course, request that the actual agreement be stated in Vienna, LTC or  
whatever).

I anticipate the biggest problem at roll-out would be educating  
players who may not be aware of the existence of alternatives to the  
4-3-2-1 count (!) that the new box does *not* apply to "standard  
point-count but with lots of latitude for judgment".


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net