Re: great idea -- explain own bids

In article <uQIQr0lgrNDIFw20@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 David Stevenson <bridge2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> 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.

I contend that the way those Laws are worded, and intended to be 
applied, seems to depend on the existence of partner****p agreements.  
The Laws governing disclosure, misbids, and misinformation turn into 
nonsense if there are no agreements for the Laws to refer to.

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