[blml] adjudication

[Nigel]

[Robert Geller]
Why don't you try the following experiment.  Go to the BBO archives
http://bridgebase04.bridgebase.com:81/vug/
and look at the files for semi-randomly selected major national
and international events.  I don't have the time to do a detailed 
analysis,  but I'm sure (based on the kibitzing I've done) if you 
analyze the actual records from top-level play you'll find that almost 
all good players are upgrading like crazy (and maybe even once in a 
while downgrading). That's the way top-level bridge is today.   When 
Meckstroth and Rodwell say 14-16 (or whatever) and open 1NT with a 
good 13, Zia isn't calling  the cops; he's doing the same himself.  I 
don't see any problem with this at all.

If there is a problem somewhere, it's in the fact that in some 
countries the wording of regulations is a bit outdated and fails to 
reflect the fact that hand evaluation is an essential skill for 
winning bridge.  The wording of the "orange book" regulation is just 
silly; someone should rewrite it to bring it up to date in the real 
world, as it exists today. And instructional material for 
beginning/intermediate players should explain this, so that they don't 
feel aggrieved when their opponents upgrade and downgrade.

[nige1]
I *know* that many experts regularly "upgrade". I accept there is an 
increase in poetic license when describing *all* calls not just 
opening bids. You can hardly blame players, when BLML stalwarts 
advocate and practice the same.

I understand current practice but I'm advocating a *change* in the 
rules to *improve disclosure*.

[Robert]
The argument that someone who doesn't open 1NT on QJx QJx QJxx KQJ 
(because he has "15 HCP") or does open 1NT on A1098  A1098  K10 K109 
"with only 14 points" is committing a violation of some rule or other 
and should be punished is ridiculous and would destroy the game of 
bridge as we know it.  Theoretically there needs to be a disclosure 
mechanism for how the adjustments are being made, but in a match with 
only reasonable players this isn't a serious problem because everyone 
is making more or less the same type of adjustments. So the only thing 
that may be needed is an effort to educate beginning/intermediate 
players that this is part of the game.  The exact details of each 
player's adjustments may vary slightly, but everybody reasonable is 
more or less doing the same thing.

[nige1]

Let's shred another straw man :)

If you agree a *14-17 HCP* 1N I see no problem with you passing on 
Robert's first hand and opening 1N on his second. Nor can I imagine 
anybody else objecting.

The problem arises when a pair don't declare that agreed range.
For example if their *agreed range is *14-17 HCP*, but their *declared 
range* is 14-16 HCP* or *15-16 HCP* or *15-17 HCP*

*In practice* Robert approves of them doing this, even against beginners.

I believe that, on the contrary, *in theory and in practice*
(A) A pair should declare their true agreed HCP range for a call.
(B) They should also declare other requirements.

Furthermore, I feel strongly that, if you adopt the BLML approach of 
allowing prevarication about [A}, then [B] is *practically essential*.