Umm...Aahz, I think you missed the point about standardization in contra versus MWSD.
Yes: technically there are poorly understood and detailed applications in squares that are not clearly defined, and in contras some of us discuss the terminology we want to use. But Callerlab prints definitions and rulebooks; CDSS does not.
A and B aren't really analogous in any meaningful way.
:-)
Neal Schlein
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, John Sweeney via Callers wrote:
>
> Whether complete standardisation is a good thing or a bad thing is another
> matter entirely; we all have our own opinions about MWSD :-)
Note that MWSD is not completely standardized -- it's more like the C
programming language with areas that are ill-defined, or at least which
only extremely nitpicky people know how to do correctly. An example
someone told me about last night:
Given a right-handed ocean wave with girls in the center, call "girls
U-turn back and Roll". What should be the result? (Side note:
reviewing the definition right now, I think the person I was talking with
had the wrong answer, but it's ambiguous.)
Therefore, competent callers consider stuff like that to be either
avoided or workshopped if you want to do them (the latter being just
like contra).
An interesting point that mostly only MWSD callers are aware of: the
CALLERLAB Applications Review Committee uses the terms "proper" and
"improper" rather than "right"/"wrong" or "legal"/"illegal" because they
have zero power to enforce their decisions.
CALLERLAB also has "Standard Application" documents for Basic through
Plus, they tell you which formations/arrangements are more likely to
succeed/fail for any given call.
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net