[blackshoe]

Given the age of most bridge players, no system card should contain small print.

The OP's idea is IMO unworkable. So, IMO, is 'you must state a HCP range in MW HCPs, and if you ever deviate from that range, you will be deemed to have an illegal agreement' (which the ACBL does with the mini-NT). ACBL gets away with it because there aren't many players who play mini-NT.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2019-September-06, 06:51, said:

I'm not a fan of a checkbox approach which can never be flexible enough. Styles can be described with text, following examples. I really think players would have no issue doing that, so long as they know it is really useful because it will be displayed contextually, not hidden in the small print of a System Card (and of course, opponents would be quick to point out any reticence or discrepancies).

But if we want to be able to use a computer to analyze the accuracy of the disclosure, it needs to be in a form that can be understood precisely by computers. Although natural language processing by computers is improving, plain text is still the antithesis of this.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-September-07, 12:36, said:

But if we want to be able to use a computer to analyze the accuracy of the disclosure, it needs to be in a form that can be understood precisely by computers. Although natural language processing by computers is improving, plain text is still the antithesis of this.

Sure, I have zero hope of computers understanding what we are writing. But opponents will. What computers could do is to capture data on what kind of hands we have when we make a certain opening and display it graphically when asked to do so (thus helping smart opponents to decide and giving no excuses to distracted partners). This would be really useful for suit openings which are a bigger problem than 1NT (IMO). 27% of his 2H openings were 5-cards? Nice to know.