Re: self-explanations and self-alerts

dranon wrote
>On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:05:20 +0100, David Stevenson
><bridge2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>Bob wrote
>>>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".
>>
>>   You were told wrong.
>>
>>   I have a new rule for you: Online, if you make a call and have no
>>agreement for it, explicit or implicit, you are not allowed to do
>>*otherwise* than indicate no agreement.
>
>But my position is that if you have agreed to play SAYC, or even if
>you think that you have agreed to play SAYC (by viewing CHO's profile
>and it lists SAYC as the preferred system, and you note that your
>profile does as well), then you have an agreement in effect and should
>your opp ask about that bid they are entitled to know what you think
>your agreement is.  That is to say, they are not required to:
>
>1) look at your profile
>2) note it says SAYC
>3) Look at your partner's profile
>4) Note it says SAYC
>5) Magically understand everything that SAYC means
>
>Now, you may argue they are required to do 1 through 4, but that still
>doesn't mean they are required to do number 5.

   My position is that if you have no agreement you are not required to 
disclose it.

   Your position is that if you have an agreement ["SAYC"] you are 
required to disclose it.

   It is not without the bounds of possibility that both are true.

-- 
David Stevenson           Bridge      RTFLB       Cats       Railways
Liverpool, England, UK    Fax: +44 870 055 7697        ICQ:  20039682
<webjak666@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>                             bluejak on OKB
                           Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm