[blml] Disclosure f2f

[Guthrie]

[nige1]
It may be hard to persuade local beneficiaries from jingoist local
legislatures but my experience coincides with Brian's: Players find it
hard to understand current over-sophisticated, over-subjective,
incomplete laws. Rulings seem incomprehensible, subjective and
inequitable (dictionary sense). Chauvinistic regulation variants are
the last straw for many would be-players.

[Grattan Endicott]
+=+ I am not sure what is intended by 'beneficiaries' in the above.
However, tournament by tournament, I would think that what is
most useful to players is alerting or announcement of meanings
that are unfamiliar among the players.+=+

[nige2]
By "local beneficiaries" I meant those local players who are ...
- familiar with the idiosyncracies of local disclosure regulations and
- enjoying favourite methods that have been locally licensed.

I understand Grattan's point: I accept that not all local players are 
familiar with the subtleties of local methods.

Strangers and foreigners, however, ...
- are likely to be *completely* unfamiliar with local methods;
- on top of that, they struggle with unfamiliar *system cards*
- they must also cope with unfamiliar disclosure *regulations*.

As well as this information famine, foreigners have to play with 
favourite clubs removed from their bidding-bag.

I concede that it depends on what you judge to be "equity".

It also depends on perception. For example, Bob Geller believes that 
this results in "no big problem". Maybe so. Big or small, however, 
there seems to no need to impose such artificial handicaps.