Re: great idea -- explain own bids

In article <ghqs04pdbrdrciqegmgi9717melo0g2r8h@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Steve Grant  <ACE1242@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:56:51 -0500, Kent Feiler <zzzz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:01:41 +0100, David Stevenson
>><bridge2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>Kenny McCormack wrote
>>>In article <uQIQr0lgrNDIFw20@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>David Stevenson  <webjak666@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>...
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>  Where does it say that the Laws are based on an assumption of
>>>>partner****p?  Nowhere in the Laws:
>>>
>>>The phrase "based on an assumption" can be taken to mean "assumes but
>>>does not explicitly state".  If it were explicitly stated, it would not
>>>be an assumption (at least in the sense in which I am using the word;
>>>you are free to use it to mean something else, of course).
>>
>>   While true, there would be Laws that require it - and there aren't:
>>the Laws are written in a way that there clearly is no such
>>assumption.
>>
>>===================================================================
>>Kent Feiler wrote
>>>The big problem that F2F has had ever since the alerting system came
>>>into being is the idea of alerting "partner****p agreements."   No need
>>>to go into the endless difficulties that causes, but in F2F there
>>>really isn't a choice since it's the partner of the bidder that's
>>>doing the alerting and explaining.  The only alternative would be
>>>dumping the alerting system.  Hmm.
>>>
>>>Online bridge has tried to copy F2F bridge but this is one area where
>>>they should dump the F2F idea and go off on their own. What really
>>>happens now, in spite of what anyone may say or want to be the case,
>>>is that individual players are telling their opponents what they think
>>>their bid means.  That usually corresponds to partner****p agreements
>>>and always corresponds to the alerter's hand. That's enough!  If
>>>partner has a different idea of what the bid means, whatever strange
>>>pathways their misunderstanding leads them into  is punishment enough,
>>>no need for directors to be summoned, go into their directorial dance,
>>>and make a judgement.  In fact that would be a giant step toward not
>>>needing directors at all!
>>
>>   It is a very big step backwards if online bridge ever took this
>>step. Of course, the sad people to whom bridge is meant to be by rote
>>with no personality would like it, but proper bridge players would
>>hate it, and novices would lose the point of the game.  A very
>>unfortunate idea.
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>David,
>>
>>I sometimes read something you write and have no idea what you're
>>talking about.  Then I read it again and still have no idea what
>>you're talking about.  How about an expansion on this answer?
>>
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>
>>Kent Feiler
>>www.KentFeiler.com
>
>Indeed.  I have no clue what he means either.

My reading is like this:
1)	Kent Feiler seems to think that online bridge should be more
like "pure, theoretical bridge", because the technology makes it
possible to avoid some of the "nonsense" (my word) that is inherent in
real life/FTF bridge.  By "nonsense", I mean the chaos caused by partner
alerts/explanation (partner mi***plaining your bid) and/or _you_
mis-explaining your own bid (by giving, as the laws, as currently
written [oriented towards FTF play] not only allow you to, but compel
you, to do, the partner****p agreement, not what is in your hand - which
may bear no resemblance to the explanation you give).  Kent would like
people to simply explain what is in their hands.
2)	David Stevenson, being a traditionalist at heart, wants none of
this - wants the online game to be played by the same rules as the FTF
game, and, further, has made disparaging remarks about those who feel as
Kent does.

There.  Do I get the prize?