Re: great idea -- explain own bids

In article <fuinbe$tep$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Kenny McCormack <gazelle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In article <uQIQr0lgrNDIFw20@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>David Stevenson  <webjak666@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>...
>>>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:
>
>The phrase "based on an assumption" can be taken to mean "assumes but
>does not explicitly state".  If it were explicitly stated, it would not
>be an assumption (at least in the sense in which I am using the word;
>you are free to use it to mean something else, of course).
>

I should add, since if I don't, someone will misconstrue it, that the
word "can" above should be taken to mean "is" (or "should), not "could".