Re: great idea -- explain own bids

In article <sLqgNwwo4TDIFw24@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 David Stevenson <bridge2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Barry Margolin wrote
> >In article <uQIQr0lgrNDIFw20@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > David Stevenson <bridge2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>   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.
> 
>    Do they turn into nonsense if players do not revoke?
> 
>    There are Laws covering revokes, and they apply when there is a 
> revoke.

These laws make absolutely no sense in online bridge, where it's 
impossible to revoke.

> 
>    There are Laws covering partner****p agreements, and they apply when 
> there is a partner****p agreement.
> 
>    Neither set of Laws turns into mush on hands where there are not such

> things.

I don't think they're analogous.  Revokes are simple, concrete actions, 
requiring practically no interpretation; either you were or weren't able 
to follow suit.  Thus, it's simple to determine whether the revoke Laws 
apply to a given situation.  Also, in forms of the game where revokes 
are impossible, it's simple to just ignore those Laws, they just never 
come up.

The Laws about partner****p agreements are at a higher level, dealing 
with more abstract aspects of the game.  When you look at these Laws in 
combination, it becomes difficult to interpret them consistently unless 
you include the assumption that there ARE agreements.

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