[blml] adjudication

[Tim West-Meads]

Just for the record I refuse to work as a TD for the EBU on the grounds 
that they would require me to enforce illegal regulations.  Any pressure 
I may have brought to bear on the EBU has been as a player and not as a 
TD.

Any attempt to regulate bidding by mandating a mechanical approach (e.g 
HCP, Ro19 etc) would be restrictive of judgement - and thus against the 
laws of bridge.  As such I actually bothered to enquire of the EBU as to 
whether their regulations were illegal and, on being assured that the 
regulations were legal, concluded that they were not supposed to be 
treated mechanically.  Any player who bothered to read the law book 
could have made the same inquiries and reached the same conclusions so I 
have no sympathy for a team which "lost matches" purely because they 
were too lazy to find out for themselves.

None of which has anything to do with *disclosure*.  Law75c is quite 
clear that when answering questions my partner must disclose relevant 
experience regarding her understanding of how I value hands whether I am 
a slave to HCP or not.  She won't mislead opponents by saying my NT 
openers are "10-15" since I open damn few 15 counts and even fewer 10s.  
An initial answer on her part of "About a good 11 to 14" is as accurate 
as she can make it.

Our CC description of weak 2s reads "Weak 6 (sometimes 5) card suit, usu 
4-9 HCP in 1st/2nd, wide-ranging in 3rd.  c9-14 with decent 6 carder in 
4th."  I find the suggestion that we should try and describe our 
agreements purely in terms of HCP absolutely ridiculous - even I don't 
know what HCP range MY 3rd seat weak 2s cover (can't always be bothered 
to count or remember) so there's pretty much no chance of partner being 
able to tell opps.

Varietal approaches to hand evaluation have always been, and probably 
always will be, part of bridge.  Get used to it and learn to ask opps 
for more detail when you think it might matter.

Tim