[blml] adjudication

[Nigel]

[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.

[Alain Gottcheiner]
You're plain wrong, Nigel. Robert's first example is "a very poor 15 
HCP", perhaps worth about 14.2, whence it falls within a 14-17 range 
but perhaps  not within a 15-17 range. Declaring 14-17 as your range 
means you'll open many balanced 14's and about all balanced 15's with 
1NT, and that's precisely why you'd be wrong declaring 14-17 range 
when 14 HCP openings are very uncommon.

[nige1]
If I'm plainly wrong and you're plainly right that would end the 
argument. Pity. This has been great fun but I fear that I may be 
running out of new arguments.

IMO, the *difference* between my recommended approach and that 
avocated by BLMLwers *is plain*.

Suppose we are describing a no-trump opener with a (true) range of 
14-17 HCP (As defined in the Orange Book etc).

IMO you should specify HCP requirements (here 14-17)
- Qualified later by requirements that create *exceptions*.
- Examples of possible *exclusions*
[A] Shape
..(1) Hands with a singleton, void, or six card suit.
..(2) Dull 14-15 HCP hands eg KQx KQx KJx xxxx.
..(3) Shapely 16-17 HCP hands eg AKJxx Axx Axx xx
[B] Honour distribution.
..(1) 14-15 HCP hands with short honours eg KQJ KQJ QJ xxxx
..(2) 5422 hands without two doubleton honours.
[C] Honour concentration
..(1) Hands with honours in 1 suit eg AKQJT Jxx Jxx QJ
..(2) Hands with honours in 2 suits eg AKxx xx xxx AKQx.
..(3) 14 HCP with isolated honours eg Qxxx KJx KJx KJx
[D] Honour quality. 14-15 HCP with quacks eg QJx QJx QJx KQJx
[E] Texture. 16-17 HCP with intermediates eg AQT9 AJT9 AJT Tx

BLMLers prefer to be describe a *typical interior HCP range*
  - Later qualified by information about *exclusions and extensions*.

Reasonably, you may regard the explanation above as overkill; I agree 
that you can assume some requirements like A1 above but you still need 
to specify exclusions such as B2, C1 and C2 above.

In particular, however, please note that these exceptions illustrate 
that you don't need to open all balanced 15 HCP hands with 1N, *no 
matter what range you declare*. Hence Alain's examples don't show I'm 
wrong.

Using the BLML approach, however, most of qualifications are 
*extensions*; also, some *extensions* will have *exceptions*

*Whatever the level of detail*, IMO
(a) It is easier to specify exclusions than extensions.
(b) The BLML method is less helpful to defenders.

You might even picture requirements as dimensions, so that a full 
description of any call is an irregular n-dimensional solid. Well... 
for a convention like multi, it could be several solids.

Developing that analogy, BLMLers describe *a* typical core fragment, 
hoping to build surface mountains later.

In practice, it seems simpler and more helpful to describe *the* 
envelope and then excavate craters.