Re: great idea -- explain own bids

On Apr 21, 11:12=A0am, gaze...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Kenny McCormack)
wrote:
> In article <barmar-BF879C.02111721042...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Barry Margolin =A0<bar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> ...
>
> >The basic problem is that the Laws seem to implicitly assume that the
> >partners know what their agreements are. =A0They're hard to apply to
> >casual partner****ps, especially the fleeting partner****ps that are
> >common in online bridge. =A0The opponents don't enjoy being told "no
> >agreement" for everything, simply because you sat down and started
> >playing with little discussion.
>
> They may not like it (and I know I wouldn't), but that's the way it is.

It isn't always this way and it could be different.

I have sat down to play with a partner, said "2/1 forcing to game", he
said "yes", and then on the first board the opps ask what his bid
meant. I feel like mentioning to them that they have heard our
complete verbal agreement.

But I don't do that. If I am pretty sure I know what the bid means, I
describe the meaning. I am not saying I have to according to the laws,
here I am just saying what I do. If I would need to guess at the
meaning, then I leave the table and let partner explain.

Also, when the new laws come out, the director can say that you leave
the table and let your partner explain the bid to the opps whenever
you are not sure of the meaning. This is again a comment about what is
the case versus what could be the case. Of course, there is no point
in doing that if the players do not enjoy it more. It also leaves the
issue of what happens if your partner also says there is no agreement.
But your partner is less likely to say that.

> The point is that you are guessing every bit as much as they are.

Well, if I am more experienced than the opps, I can almost certainly
use my general knowledge and experience to understand my partner's bid
better than they will be able to understand it. According to a poster
above, I do not have to tell them, for example, that an opening 2D bid
with no agreement in my area cannot possibly be a Roman 2D or a Multi,
and apparently I do not have to tell them that it could be a weak 2D
bid or Flannery. Even if they do not know what Flannery is.


> =A0You
> have absolutely no advantage over them in guessing/figuring out what
> your pd-of-the-moment is doing.

As noted above, I can use experience to outguess them. And for a
familiar partner****p, I can probably outguess the opponents based on
experience with my partner that would be extremely difficult to
desribe. I don't think I can do a whole lot better in guessing than
the opps, but I must be able to do a little better. (I know that you
might have been just considering the new partner****p.)

> =A0So, they are not entitled to any more
> info than you have (which is none).

Well.... I am not sure how you are going to get this out of the laws.
The laws are clear that the opps are not entitled to more information
than you have about partner's bid being a psych or misbid. But those
presume pre-existing agreements about meaning.

What if I can conclude that my partner's opening 2D bid is 65%
probably of being a weak two and 35% probability of being Flannery.
Are the opps entitled to that? If they are, then if partner is
required to explain his own bid, then he also has to give his
estimated percentages. That should be revealing.

And the old law 40 grants the opps the right to know the full meaning
of a bid.

>
> As someone else pointed out, the Laws are all based on an assumption of
> at least some kind of partner****p (if only for a span of, say, 24
boards).=

> Playing online, partner****ps sometimes last for just 1 or 2 boards.

I direct so I have face-to-face partner****ps lasting one board. But
those aren't really the issue.

I think the laws make the most sense if you assume that the partners
have agreed on the meanings of their bids, and that they either do not
use a bid if they have not agreed on the meaning, or the bid is
natural. Unfortunately, this does not fit modern reality. The example
I have been belaboring is agreeing on a convention. But another
example is if when you have to guess if partner is playing a
convention, e.g. 2C (strong and artifical) - X - ? . You have a bust,
and a common convention for your and your partner's skill level is
that a XX shows a bust, but the default it to play natural if the
situation is ambiguous. What do you do with a bust if you have no
agreement?