[blml] Sea shalls, weevils, dWs, MS and the next laws

[Matthias Berghaus]

Nigel schrieb:
> My tuppence worth on DISCLOSURE
>
> 1. What are our agreements? Are they
> [A] What we currently remember of our discussions? That is the 
> interpretation favoured by Richard Hills but IMO it is too subjective.
> [B] What is on our convention card? OK in so far as it goes but IMO it 
> does not go far enough.
> [C] What we have verbally agreed plus what is is in our system notes 
> plus other agreed and implicit sources (books or whatever).  IMO yes.
> For example, to me (but not to Richard) the fact that one of us is lazy 
> and has never actually read the system notes is irrelevant -- they 
> remain part of our agreement.
>   

I think you got Richard slightly wrong there. Anyway. I think (and I 
believe that Richard is with me here) that the agreements are everything 
agreed explicitly and implicitly, including everything _both_ knew  at 
any stage has been put down in the notes or CC. If one forgets it still 
is an agreement, if you never were aware of it then it isn`t. For the 
last league match I gave our notes a work-over, and I put in something 
from another source which he could have seen, but I was quite sure he 
hadn`t. I sent it to him by mail. Guess what, he didn`t look into his 
inbox for 3 days. Did we have a new agreement superseding the old one? I 
don`t think so.
Promptly it came up in the next match. I suddenly realized that I didn`t 
know whether he had read it (I know that he is somewhat unreliable when 
it comes to checking his email. He has to switch from telephone to modem 
by getting the thing out of the cupboard, switching connections, and 
then pray it actually works. It is not actually older than he is, it 
just feels that way, and he hates doing it. So I told my screenmate what 
the old system was, what the new system should be, and what odds I would 
apply.


>
> 5. Standard system anyone?
>   

Not me :-)

> [A] I've left this proposal to near the end because so far nobody agrees 
> with it. Note that proposals 1-4 don't depend on 5.
> [B] The standard could be local (for example Simple English in the UK) 
> or better global (so far SAYC is the most likely candidate).
> [C] A standard system would be easy for beginners to learn, perfect for 
> pick-up partners, and an automatic choice for no-fear competition and 
> individuals.
> [D] The standard would be great for PR. You could organise events that 
> spectators could understand with the help of an ordinary sports commentator.
> [E] It would simplify universal disclosure laws. You would disclose 
> (announce or alert) only departures from the standard system.
>   

While I do not really disagree with the above I think it unworkable. 
Various federations have invested a lot of money in their own standard 
system (which makes all of them not standard at all, since they are not 
identical. My own federation has devised _two_ versions of the standard 
system....), and they want some return for that. They will never agree.

> 6. Advantages and disadvantages.
> [A] Advantages have been trumpeted by me, so often and at such length, 
> that even I am bored. Most are obvious to a child of three.
> [B] Disadvantages are more subtle.
> [C] Most BLMLERS ignore proposals Some reject them out of hand. A few 
> add a personal attack. There are welcome exceptions:
> Frances Hinden kindly criticised the *standard system* proposal in 
> detail. Thank you Frances. Below are some of the many drawbacks that she 
> and others raised {with my defences in curly brackets}
> [a] It would be impossible to agree a universal "standard system". {Fair 
> enough but  the WBF could suggest a global default. Local legislators 
> could over-ride that default. In practice, events have overtaken 
> legislation at big on-line sites, where SAYC is virtually standard}
>   

Please observe that online-bridge is a microcosmos of its own. People 
were more or less forced to agree on basic standards to play at all 
outside set games. If you look at the systems each player proposes it is 
no longer very standard.

> [b] Beginners would find it hard to learn two systems {The standard 
> system is a prime candidate to teach to beginners. This would simplify 
> life for beginners because they would not need to alert/announce}
>   

See further above. Literature on the system to be taught to beginners 
would become obsolete in quite a number of federations.

> [c] Players would refuse to learn another system {I contend that local 
> alerting rules, for example the EBU Orange  book, implicitly define a 
> complex system from
> which you alert. This system is a kind of "local standard" but it is 
> nearly unplayable -- which is one reason so few players read or comply 
> with local regulations. In comparison with most alert rules, the 
> standard system is simple and coherent. It would also be useful for 
> playing with pick-up partners, anywhere. In practice, on-line, almost 
> everybody has SAYC as a second language}
> [d] If the standard system were suitable for beginners it would be 
> inadequate for experts. {The system could be modular. 

Nice idea, but would that not force everyone to learn all modules to 
understand what opps are doing, or be where we started in the first place?

> Modular extensions 
> would be of the form:
> normally we proceed naturally here; but if you  want a  conventional  
> interpretation then this is it;  this could result in a fully fledged 
> system -- like 2/1 say.
> Such extensions would require a brief announcement or alert in low-level 
> competition but would be implicit in top level competition}
> [e] If your system is completely non-standard, then you must 
> alert/announce almost every call, even if the meaning is completely 
> logical and natural in context. {true I'm afraid :( }
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
>