Re: self-explanations and self-alerts

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:22:51 -0700, "raija d" <mustikka@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>
>"Bob" <rfrick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:a8ff7c5b-d762-4a42-89ac-4363e93b0f4b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Hi. These are thoughtful replies, though not always on the issue of
>> just whether or not you like the online system.
>>
>> I will start a new thread for people who want to argue any of this. I
>> can state my point baldly (not a misspelling!), then you don't have to
>> argue with someone who was just trying to ask a question.
>>
>> I was told that if you open 2D online, you cannot say "no agreement".
>>
>> Bob
>
>I would be curious to know who said that. 
>

I can tell you one person who used to say it, and that was Tony Reus,
aka Tuna, in the days when he was OKBridge Club Manager. One of his
club rules was that "no agreement" was *never* a sufficient
explanation, and he went on about it at some length in OKBridge's
"Spectator" newsletter. Maybe the OP has heard it from someone else,
but Tuna/OKBridge was the original source? I remember a number of
arguments about it on the Discuss list, and also about Tuna's rule
that it was perfectly legitimate to ask BOTH opponents to explain a
bid, and thus find out whether opponents were having a
misunderstanding or not. 

Whether these rules are still in force on OKBridge, I have no idea. 


Brian. 
This message has been sent from an invalid address
Replace 'Usenetposting' with my name to reply by e-mail. 

Brian