[blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Nigel]

{Nigel] I've made similar proposals in BLML: that if a pair adopt an 
untrammelled *standard system*  convention card (or one with deletions 
but no additions) then they should not be penalised for  misinformation; 
but it is even better to allow them to consult the card, as Richard 
suggests.

[Ed Reppert]
"A pair" is not the same thing as "players in a novice tournament".

[Grattan Endicott]+=+ What would be the reaction if a Law 40E1 
regulation were to allow a player to consult his own convention card 
when answering an opponent's question? (It would call for a literal 
interpretation of L40E2.)

[Nige2]
My fault. Sorry. I didn't make myself clear: I was (again) proposing a 
*change* in the laws.

By and large, it is learners who adopt the standard system and this 
suggestion benefits them in both novice and open tournaments. It 
encourages novices to start off on the right foot -- with properly 
completed convention cards. Of course, it may be of marginal benefit to 
experienced players who are prepared to adopt the simple standard system 
-- but many such players regard a simple system as too much of a 
handicap. Finally, you may start to penalize experienced players for 
forgetting their sophisticated systems -- thus reducing Bobby Wolff's 
dreaded "convention disruption."