Re: self-explanations and self-alerts

On Apr 21, 4:15 pm, dranon <dra...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:07:38 -0700 (PDT), OldPalooka
>
>
>
> <ashut...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >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?
>
> The information consistent with the presumed, agreed upon system.
> Some sites say that is SAYC, others say something else. ALL of them
> say that in the absence of a discussion, there IS a presumed system.
>
> Gee, I wonder why they do that?

Gee, I wonder where they publish these conditions.  Not that I doubt
you -- OK I doubt you because I have never seen such a presumption of
system and expect that I am in the 98% who have not.

But if you know we are playing this widely known system because you
are aware we are a pickup pair that has exchanged no messages
regarding agreements, then I completely agree the proper explanation
is not "we have no agreement".  The proper explanation is "Bridge,
Mister".

== Bill Shutts