[blml] adjudication

[Nigel]

[Eric Landau]
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".

[nige1]
As Richard Willey showed, you can translate any simple range based on 
a 7531 or 6421 or whatever count into an *accurate* (wider) HCP 
range.  At the extremes of the range, fewer hands qualify.

Exactly the same can apply when you agree a narrow HCP range. Suppose 
you agree that 1NT shows a flat 12-14 HCP. There is no rule obliging 
you to open all 1NT on all flat 12 HCP and 14 HCP hands. You might 
agree, for example
- to pass with hands like S:QJx H:QJx D:QJx C:QJxx
- to make another opening bid with say S:xx H:xxx D:AKQJ C:AT98

Obviusly, such exceptions don't alter the true agreed range; but IMO 
you should still explain the basis for the exceptions, whether it is 
using a different point count or adjusting for other factors.