[blml] Disclosure f2f

[Guthrie]

[nige1]
Hence, at least until there is a global standard,
our local regulations would be simpler and better if they defined
"Standard English" as a local "Standard" from which we disclosed
departures. As previously explained, one advantage (of many) would be
that beginners wouldn't need to alert or announce anything.

[Richard Willey]

And here we see the one of the basic flaws with your proposal:

You are stating that it is beneficial that beginners won't need to
learn the alert / announcement system because it with be based on the
same system that they are learning.  You cite this as a basic
advantage for your system.  However, this is only a stop gap measure:
Long term, you argue that that alerts / announcements should be based
on deviations from some hypothetical "global standard" system.

This complete negates your initial position.  Lets assume that the
hypothetical global standard is based on North American methods.  (5
card majors, strong NT, yada, yada, yada).  This guarantees that every
one Poland (who is raised on Polish Club) and Great Britain (who is
raised on Acol) and even France will be forced to learn both their
local standard as well as the hypothetical global standard.

[nige2]
Consistently, I've argued that the law book should detail how you 
should disclose disclose departures from a standard system. I would 
prefer a global standard as a *default* although local legislatures 
could substitute a local standard like the Hanoi Heart, Leghorn 
Diamond, or Polish club.

IMO, as the number of on-line players increases, "strong notrump and 
five card majors" will become an international common language. I 
teach "Standard English" Acol to my classes but already I am under 
pressure to switch to teaching a SAYC variant. Hence, I feel that such 
a system is quite likely to become a de-facto global standard.

I may be wrong about this trend. Suppose then, that each legislature 
insists on keeping its own different standard system. Even so, the 
*underlying* disclosure rules (system cards, screens, bidding boxes, 
stop-cards, alerting or announcing, and so on) can still be part of 
the law-book and be the *same world-wide*.

[Richard]
I admit:  A global standard, would in theory, provide some value to
players who travel frequently between different regulatory Zones.
However, I'd argue that the proposal fails on simple utilitarian
grounds.  The number of players who never play outside their own Zone
vastly out numbers those who do.  Why should we (dramatically)
inconvenience the 99% of Poles, Brits, Aussies, etc who are never
going to play a game in foreign country?  Place the burden where it
belongs:  Those players who want to compete internationally should be
the ones who need to spend time preparing.

[nige2]
I agree with the potential benefits but question Richard's numbers. No 
Bridge legislature shows any enthusiasm for polling players about 
practices or preferences. I argued, however, that, as on-line play 
increases, most players will become familiar with a SAYC-like system.