Re: self-explanations and self-alerts

On Apr 21, 3:22 pm, dranon <dra...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:03:30 +0100, David Stevenson
>
>
>
> <brid...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >dranon wrote
> >>On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:05:20 +0100, David Stevenson
> >><brid...@[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.
>
> And I'm saying that it IS beyond the bounds of possibility that one
> makes an initial call without not only an understanding of the basic
> system one is playing, but also a presumption that partner believes
> the same basic system is in play.  If there is doubt, a simple "SAYC?"
> or the like preceeds the bid (or, at least within a very short period
> of time thereafter).
>
> To believe otherwise is nonsensical.
>
> I do not allow the opps to hide behind such folderol.

Do you cry "Off with their heads!" when you sniff a hint of folderol?
If you have seen the full chat trail and there has been no discussion
of methods, could it be some other form of misbehavior such as
codswallop?  Do you leave the table in a huff when you get what you
can see is an honest gewgaw?

When I have a few minutes, I will occasionally drop into a random
game.  I never offer to define systems, and generally neither does
partner. What crime are we committing? What information do you believe
you are entitled to, oh anonymous one, under the cir***stances?

== Bill Shutts