Re: self-explanations and self-alerts

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:24:00 +0100, David Stevenson
<bridge2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>dranon wrote
>>On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:07:56 -0400, CBFalconer <cbfalconer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>dranon wrote:
>>>> dranon <dranon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>... snip ...
>>>>
>>>>> I do not allow the opps to hide behind such folderol.
>>>>
>>>> For example, an opening bid of 2c, inquired and responded with "No
>>>> agreement" would be dealt with swiftly (at least, if I am host).
>>>
>>>Ridiculous.  With no agreement either responder or opponent is
>>>entitled to come to whatever conclusions their little minds
>>>envision.  There is no requirement that the conclusions be
>>>correct.  There is also no requirement that either detail what
>>>conclusions they came to.
>>
>>So, you like playing "not bridge", huh?
>
>   No, we like playing bridge.  It is a game where two sides are pitted 
>against each other, and make mistakes, and you try to get the better of 
>them either through their mistakes or otherwise.
>
>   You want to invent new rules so as to reduce the interest and the 
>thrust and parry of the game.

"Random bids" is not my idea of a partner****p that can be defended
against.  Why not have two dradles?  One 7 sided and the other 4
sided.  Spin them both and bid whatever they say.  Respin if it ends
up being too low.  No, wait.  Why not just allow insufficient bids to
be determined by the spin, too?  Barring partner should add some more
thrust and parry.  

Kind of reminds me of the old definition of EHAA and Wonder.