Re: great idea -- explain own bids

In article <fuiat1$kaq$2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 gazelle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (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.

This is a GAME.  Except for the tiny minority of pros, we're playing it 
for fun.  Rules that cause frustration and strife aren't fun for anyone.

> 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.

Someone else?  I said it right up there in the paragraph you quoted!

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***