Re: great idea -- explain own bids

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:01:41 +0100, David Stevenson
<bridge2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>Kenny McCormack 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).
>
>   While true, there would be Laws that require it - and there aren't: 
>the Laws are written in a way that there clearly is no such assumption.
>
>===================================================================
>Kent Feiler wrote
>>The big problem that F2F has had ever since the alerting system came
>>into being is the idea of alerting "partner****p agreements."   No need
>>to go into the endless difficulties that causes, but in F2F there
>>really isn't a choice since it's the partner of the bidder that's
>>doing the alerting and explaining.  The only alternative would be
>>dumping the alerting system.  Hmm.
>>
>>Online bridge has tried to copy F2F bridge but this is one area where
>>they should dump the F2F idea and go off on their own. What really
>>happens now, in spite of what anyone may say or want to be the case,
>>is that individual players are telling their opponents what they think
>>their bid means.  That usually corresponds to partner****p agreements
>>and always corresponds to the alerter's hand.

Oh, my Gosh!  Another of the "thou shalt not psych" groupies.  Away
with thee!

> That's enough!  If
>>partner has a different idea of what the bid means, whatever strange
>>pathways their misunderstanding leads them into  is punishment enough,
>>no need for directors to be summoned, go into their directorial dance,
>>and make a judgement.  In fact that would be a giant step toward not
>>needing directors at all!
>
>   It is a very big step backwards if online bridge ever took this step. 
>Of course, the sad people to whom bridge is meant to be by rote with no 
>personality would like it, but proper bridge players would hate it, and 
>novices would lose the point of the game.  A very unfortunate idea.

Actually, I don't think it would be that big of a step backwards.  I
think the cir***stances where "no agreement" is the appropriate
response are quite limited.  There are certainly cir***stances where
it IS appropriate to indicate no agreement, but usually they are
limited to bids made in the middle of an auction.  Those at the
beginning and end are usually well defined.  Or should be.  And if
not, in many cases, those are precisely the types of bids where the
opps, in the absence of an agreement, will offer to allow
communication so as to ensure no "silly" results.  I know I do.  The
first time you bid blackwood at my table?  Feel free to say "0314,
partner".  You just sat down and opened 2D?  Feel free to say "weak",
or "multi".

But that double of 3h in a competitive auction, that you intended to
show cards but partner has a fair chance of interpreting as "telephone
number on the way, partner"?  "No agreement" is perfect.  

Now, how do I get people to alert their TOX when they use it over 1c
with xx Qxx AQxx KQXX? "I play idiot TOX's, and I hope my partner
does, too!?"