Re: great idea -- explain own bids

In article <barmar-E0D8AA.20224121042008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Barry Margolin  <barmar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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.

I'm not so sure this is true for online bridge.
Online is often an exercise in masochism.

>> 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!

True.  My mistake...