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

[Matthias Berghaus]

Nigel schrieb:
> [Nigel]
>
>   
> I accept that implicit agreements and 
> discussions must be disclosed; but, IMO, the convention card and system 
> notes are objective evidence. That is why I'm so keen on them being 
> accurate.
>   

As should everybody else, to be sure. My only "problem" here are 
borderline cases, where one player does not know what is on the CC or in 
the notes because of very recent changes or the documents being new. It 
is borderline, and a very thin line to boot. Only when there is _no_ 
doubt (which will only very rarely be the case) can the verdict be "no 
actual agreement".

> [Matthias]
> 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.
>
> [nige2]
> Most young players play on-line. So what may be be partially true of the 
> current generation of Bridge-players is unlikely to be true for the next 
> generation.
>   

A valid point. I am not sure which way it will take, but the future may 
well prove you right.

>
> [nige2]
> Standard system documentation could be kept up-to-date on line. With any 
> luck it would not change too much. For example Culbertson would find few 
> surprises in 2/1.
>   

This could work as well, especially if either the WBF or an individual 
gets going fast and comprehensively, so that no need for diversification 
(i.e. different websites with different content) is felt. I am still 
sceptical, but I have been wrong with predictions before.

Regards
Matthias