Re: great idea -- explain own bids

Kenny McCormack wrote
>In article <barmar-BF879C.02111721042008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>Barry Margolin  <barmar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>...
>>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.
>
>They may not like it (and I know I wouldn't), but that's the way it is.
>The point is that you are guessing every bit as much as they are.  You
>have absolutely no advantage over them in guessing/figuring out what
>your pd-of-the-moment is doing.  So, they are not entitled to any more
>info than you have (which is none).
>
>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.

  Where does it say that the Laws are based on an assumption of
partner****p?  Nowhere in the Laws:


Law 99.  No two players shall ever play a board together if they have
not played a board together before.


  Sure, there are Laws over disclosure of agreements, but those Laws do
not say there have to be those agreements.

=============================================================
Bob wrote
>On Apr 21, 11:12 am, gaze...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Kenny McCormack)
>wrote:
>> In article <barmar-BF879C.02111721042...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> Barry Margolin  <bar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>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.

  Only if you have an agreement - in other words, exactly the same as
now.

>> 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.

  Now you are talking about implicit agreements.  Of course they have to
be disclosed.

                                [s]

>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.

  You do have to explain implicit agreements, and it is far easier for
the player who did not make the call, which is why self-explanations are
over-rated.

                                [s]

>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.

  The Laws make perfect sense over agreements without this sort of
untruth.

-- 
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