Re: great idea -- explain own bids

Barry Margolin wrote
>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.

   Let us try a different approach.  You think the laws are based on the 
assumption that there are *always* partner****p agreements, **even though 
you know there are not**.

   How do I know that?  Ok, I shall ask you, and trust you: with how many 
of your partners have you got an agreement to a 5H response to a 2D 
overcall with a 2NT bid in between?

   It is a silly example, sure, but it is a matter of degree.  No doubt 
with certain partners, especially the ones with whom you have played 
less, there will be some sequences that are not a matter of partner****p 
agreement.

   **Every** pair has some calls that are not a matter of partner****p 
agreement, except one or two very scientific types that have very 
broad-ranging meta-agreements.

   Now, we know that the norm is for a pair not to have an agreement 
somewhere.  You say that the Laws assume agreements, but the trouble 
with that is

[a] they do not say so
[b] no authority interprets them that way
[c] there is no inference of any sort in them leading to this conclusion
[d] bridge is not played that way
[e] it would be a very silly rule because of [d]

-- 
David Stevenson           Bridge      RTFLB       Cats       Railways
Liverpool, England, UK    Fax: +44 870 055 7697        ICQ:  20039682
<webjak666@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>                             bluejak on OKB
                           Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm