[blml] adjudication

[Eric Landau]

On Jun 27, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Nigel wrote:

> [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.

Of course you should "explain the basis for the exceptions" -- you  
should explain whatever considerations may be relevant to your choice  
of call; that's what full disclosure is about.

But Nigel is still missing the point, which has nothing to do with  
"exceptions".  "Using a different point count" cannot validly be  
contrasted with "adjusting for other factors", because using a  
different point count has nothing whatsoever to do with adjusting for  
anything at all!

I think it would be a terrible idea to require "adjustments" to be  
declared on the CC.  99.9% of pairs would need to write an essay  
("upgrade lots of 10s and 9s or good honor combinations, downgrade  
lots of HC in Qs and Js or short or unguarded honors...") -- and  
that's just for NT openers! -- and would merely be stating what is  
near-universal and obvious to most.  I'm talking about pairs who  
really do use alternative evaluation methods (which can include far  
more than merely "a different point count"); they are rare, but  
definitely do exist.

Nigel seems to have fallen into exactly the trap I anticipated, by  
failing to appreciate the fundamental difference between using a  
genuine alternative evaluation method and making adjustments to a  
base evaluation using standard point-count.


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