Re: great idea -- explain own bids

In article <672omhF2nd35sU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Martin Ambuhl <mambuhl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Bob wrote:
> 
> > I prefer the term "understanding". When I agree to play negative
> > doubles through 3D, I have an understanding that they are not on if I
> > open 1NT. Of course, my partner might not have that same
> > understanding.
> 
> > Then, to rephrase the issue, in face to face bridge, I tell them my
> > understanding of the meaning of my partner's bid. But my partner might
> > have a different understanding. And my partner's understanding will
> > more accurately describe partner's hand.
> 
> This is illegal.  If you pull this "understanding" crap at my table, the

> director is coming.

If the partners don't know that they don't have an agreement (i.e. they 
each assume their own understanding IS their agreement), then one of 
them is going to give MI regarding their agreements.  It seems fairer to 
the opponents if the MI more accurately describes what the bidder 
actually had.

The basic problem is that the Laws seem to implicitly assume that the 
partners know what their agreements are.  They're hard to apply to 
casual partner****ps, especially the fleeting partner****ps that are 
common in online bridge.  The opponents don't enjoy being told "no 
agreement" for everything, simply because you sat down and started 
playing with little discussion.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***