It appears that current procedures, in this area, are less than ideal. In
my
opinion, two changes would do much to improve the situation:
A. Use of a standardized "one-line system summary" message.
B. Pre-registration (most likely electronic) of "unusual methods".
The "system summary" message has become fairly-common practice on
OKBridge;
basic intent to disclose the "most significant" methods:
"2/1, UDCA, Multi, CAPP . . "
"Precision, Roman 2d, . . "
Opponents are thus placed "on notice" that an artifical 1c and/or 2d
opening is
"definitely possible"; absent prior agreement on defenses, they are
well-advised to (briefly) discuss same.
Ideally, there would be standards, concerning what should be included,
specific
abbreviations, and the sequence of entries. There'd be no requirement
that
such standards be complied with, nor that any form of message be issued.
It
would, however, be "strongly presumed" that a standards-compliant message,
which included mention of a convention, constituted compliance with any
applicable pre-alert requirements. .
My primary interest, at this time, is to determine whether there's
significant
interest in promoting use, and appropriate "standardization", of such
messages.
Consistently, I am cross-posting to rec.games.bridge,
rec.games.bridge.okbridge, and the Bridgebase forum.
Steven P Haver / Phoenix AZ USA / 602-242-9708
|
