[hrothgar]

LH2650, on Jul 18 2005, 04:36 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 17 2005, 07:22 PM, said:

Active ethics has no standing under the laws

Active Ethics has four components:

Principle of Full Disclosure - Law 40B
Social Behavior - Law 74
Slow Play - Law 90
Statement on Conventions - generally leads to misinformation, Laws 21 and 47.

I prefer Bobby Wolff's definition

>We are dealing with players, at the expert level, who have diverse talents, morals,
>motivations and reasons for playing. Consequently, to create a level playing field we
>MUST eliminate the following insidious trio of i's:

1. intimidation
2. intentional convention disruption
3. inactive ethics.

>Primarily because of this, bridge justice at the very high levels has to be handled in a
>different way than natural justice. We need to roll up our sleeves and fight the i's the
>only way we might have a chance in order to stop them or at least slow them down.
>We cannot wait for 100% evidence of violations, but must rather act with harsh
>punishment for apparent disrespect of the game itself. Yes, at times it will be
>subjective, but as long as solid people are in control, it will work. And at the very least,
>under threat of bad scores (plus some embarrassment) the players will be aware of
>the horrors of not conforming.

...

>To accomplish this goal we must put pressure on everyone to conform and must >either write or interpret the laws to that effect.

Active ethics is an atrocity.

My BIG problem with the ACBL has always been the "activist" nature of the the regulatory who seek to twist and pervert the laws in order to impose their own subjective notions of regaridng how the game "ought" to be played...

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

[asdfg2k]

hrothgar, on Jul 18 2005, 07:32 AM, said:

Silly question here...

For the moment, I will asume that everything you say holds true and that all players have tacitly agreed that they will

1. Learn BBO Basic priory to entering events
2. Assume that BBO Basic applies by default unless there is specific discussion to the contrary

[For what its worth, I don't accept either of those points as being true. In particular, I'm quite sure that a significant percentage of the participants in Indy's don't have a clue regarding standard bidding. However, for the moment I will assume that these points hold true]

Furthermore, lets assume that the we're all playing at a table.
Play has just started and no one has discussed bidding systems.
I have just opened 2D and you want to know what I hold in my hand.

Under this set of assumption, WHY DO YOU NEED TO ASK A QUESTION?

If your assumptions hold true, than there is no need for you to ask. In theory, you already know the answer. You "know" what a 2D opening shows in BBO Basic. More importantly, how are you damaged by being told "No Agreement". As others have pointed out, this is (effectively) shorthand for playing BBO Basic, 2D promises XYZ

If the assumptions do not hold true, than you are justified in asking for information. However, I am than equally justified in stating "No Agreement".

In either case, how are you damaged? (Please recall that Bridge's regulatory structure is based on restoring equity following damage)

There are no silly questions, except those unasked.

You don't "need" to ask. One never "needs" to ask. However, the laws give you the right to ask and if you do, you are entitled to an answer, even one that you are 99% sure is the same as what you would have thought had you not asked the question.

As stated earlier, just because your ops come to the table with blank profiles it does not mean that they don't know each other and have agreed to play reverse-MOSCITO (OTICSOM?).

So, you are entitled to ask and you are entitled to an answer.

So, the assumption as to what the opps are playing does not hold true. What about the situation you posit where your assumption that they don't know each other and have blank profiles is, in fact, true.

Now we split the baby so to speak.

Let's now assume that the reason you asked is because you are, in fact, ignorant of the requirement to use BBB. In fact, you always discuss with your partner before you commence, at least, the basic system you will use. The laws don't require you to know anything in order to be protected by them (I think it was somebody else who made this argument earlier in this thread, but I agree with it).

Hence, you are entitled to ask and you are entitled to an answer.

Life is so simple.

George

[asdfg2k]

hrothgar, on Jul 18 2005, 08:33 AM, said:

asdfg2k, on Jul 18 2005, 09:58 AM, said:

In essence, I'm ducking the individual questions because they beg the bigger question: what is disclosable in a circumstance where the opps have not pre-arranged a basic system?

I submit that it is the SO's requirement to provide something which must be superimposed so as to facilitate something other than random results.

Two comments:

First and foremost, BBO is not a sponsoring organization. When tournaments are held on BBO they are sponsored by the ACBL or BBO Italia or Abalucy or ... In theory, BBO could become a sponsoring organization. Personally, I think that it would be more trouble than its worth.

Equally significant, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. In this case, the sponsoring organization can pass all the laws it wants that players must learn BBO Basic, however, this doesn't mean that players will do so.

Ultimately, your arguments collapse into a belief that players should be compelled to describe their hand type and there is no provision for this in the Laws...

Whether it meets your definition of an SO or not is not particularly relevant. To me, it meets the definition. Which, to you, I'm sure, isn't particularly relevant.

So, how do we decide who is correct?

We don't.

We await real laws intended for online play.

Until then we are each supposing that the laws for f2f apply to the extent practical and that things that are not logical are somehow modified logically. Your definition of modified logically is: "there shall be no modifications - live with the f2f laws because they are all we have.". I am saying that the game must not be allowed to become a mockery.

To some extent, I therefore grant you that I am operating from the belief that the existing structure PLAINLY calls for my interpretation as the only fair way to play the game. You, of course, are arguing the opposite.

Such is life.

BTW, just because BBO cedes SO authority to various organizations who are effectively leasing its tables does not mean that it gives up SO when playing at tables where SO authority has not been ceded. Nice try, though.

George

[asdfg2k]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 18 2005, 07:39 AM, said:

These two cases aren't a precendent for the case being discussed here, because they both hinge on you and your partner having different information. But I'm trying to show that the analogy is flawed.

Quite right. Unfortunately all that leads me to conclude is that in the absence of agreement, you MUST understand the default system and quote it accurately or else potential for MI exists.

I can live with that.

George

[hrothgar]

asdfg2k, on Jul 18 2005, 05:00 PM, said:

Whether it meets your definition of an SO or not is not particularly relevant. To me, it meets the definition. Which, to you, I'm sure, isn't particularly relevant.

So, how do we decide who is correct?

We don't.

We await real laws intended for online play.

Until then we are each supposing that the laws for f2f apply to the extent practical and that things that are not logical are somehow modified logically. Your definition of modified logically is: "there shall be no modifications - live with the f2f laws because they are all we have.". I am saying that the game must not be allowed to become a mockery.

For what its worth, the WBF has had a set of laws for Online Bridge on the books for several years now.

You can find these posted at http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/laws_..._laws/law40.asp

In this example, the Online Laws and the F2F Laws are identical...

[asdfg2k]

Well, I suppose we have come to the point where we must look to the existing laws (the online version) for guidance and finding only what we have already found, return to what I think I've been saying all along: the laws contemplate that there will be cc's. BBO has decreed a default cc. I can live with that.

I am not going to claw through all of the prior posts to ensure that everything I've said falls neatly into the existing online laws.

However, with respect to the original situation, the answer of "No agreement" is still, as previously shown, inconsistent with the laws.

Might there be a circumstance, especially in the individual situations you posited where "No agreement" might make some sense? Sure, but I already said that might be the case.

But let's go down yet another path. Let's presume that the laws don't really apply because they contemplate cc's and we all must admit that cc's are the rarity when playing in the open room. No requirement for cc's? The laws must not apply to the extent they rely upon cc's. BBO has handled this quite nicely. They have decreed a default cc. I don't buy the argument that BBO rules are mere suggstions because so many are unaware of them. They exist, they are there and a yellow should know of them even if a newbie player (or even an experienced one that has never had cause to have it pointed out to them) might not.

Personally, I think that it is obvious that people will have too many opinions as to what "to the extent" means. If that is the case, then maybe the online laws don't apply AT ALL to the open room and now it falls upon BBO's rules to cover all circumstances. While I wouldn't wish that on BBO, I could live with that, too. Note that in this circumstance we are led down the same path as before as it relates to the opening 2D bid. Just tell her what it means!

George

[tooncestdc]

I would suggest for indi tournaments that the rules were clarified by the tournament director at the beginning of the tournament. In the first indi I played in, I was asked for explanations several times for bids that wouldn't be listed on a CC. I think it's silly to have to tell opps what the bid means, but I'd still like to know if an explanation is expected in an indi tourney.

[1eyedjack]

asdfg2k, on Jul 18 2005, 01:29 AM, said:

I will probably be accused of not responding to each and every comment that has been left open in many of the prior posts which responded to posts of mine.

Not at all. It was about time that the arguments were consolidated.

There are several possible breaches of laws, bye-laws and ethics being discussed here, and we should not confuse them. I deal with this further below.

Firstly let me deal with the matter of the completion of a CC. It is up to the SO to require (or not) a CC, and to provide its design. BBO provides a facility to complete a CC. The help documentation is limited to a technical review of how to go about completing one (ie which keystrokes), but I cannot find any express requirement for its completion in the site rules. Unless I have missed something, its requirement therefore is not "universal". Indeed in the site rules BBO states "The management of BBO is not going to get involved with trying to make rules in this area". The context of that quote is in relation to which bids are alertable, rather than the creation of a CC, but it is as close to a relevant context as I can find. In the case of tourneys, BBO delegates that responsibility to the tourney host. It would be sensible of a tourney host to require a CC, but it remains discretionary. If as a player you do not wish to participate in a tourney that makes no such requirement then you are free to avoid them. Several tourneys are in fact run by the ACBL and presumably ACBL licensing and disclosure rules apply. At tourney level I would also expect the host to have the power to override the "deemed BB-Basic system sans agreement".

Let us proceed on the assumption for the time being that a completed CC is required.

Some years ago I played as a stand-in at short notice for a pairs (f2f) competition with an unknown partner. I had to dash across the country like a bat out of hell to get the venue on time. In the end I was a few minutes late and under threat of time penalties, which we thankfully avoided. Our partnership agreements developed over the course of the competition, duly noted in the CC as and when. At our first hand, however, our only agreement was 12-14 1NT opener with SAYC responses but otherwise natural overall structure. We had not even agreed on 4 or 5 card majors, let along get onto carding methods. I don't know what a 2C opener would have been read as, so I simply resolved not to open one. At round 2, still under time pressure as round 1 was late, our next opponents complained that our CC was incomplete (this in a venue were completion was explicitly required). Rightly or wrongly the TD ruled that our CC was complete, because there were no agreements that were omitted from the card. The fact that the card had spaces designated for specific circumstances was not an obligation to have an agreement to cover those circumstances - the design was purely so that IF there WERE agreements to cover those circumstances then the opponents would be able to find the explanations without any delay, the design of the card being familiar to all.

So, even where there is a requirement to have a complete CC, a blank CC that is consistent with the partnership having no agreements does not appear to be an offence.

If a SO either deems or requires a complete set of agreements sufficient to fill a CC with other than blanks, then a blank CC would be an offence, despite being consistent with the actual facts of the case in which no agreement is held. Even so it would be a separate offence to that of explaining "no agreement" where an agreement is present.

I therefore reject the matter of CC completion as being relevant to the validity or otherwise of a "no agreement" explanation.

At the crux of the matter, George, your argument stands or falls on the effect of the deeming provision within the site rules that sans agreement you are deemed to be playing BB-Basic.

I freely admit that I was not aware of this deeming provision prior to your bringing it to our attention in this thread. If I am at fault for failing in a duty to familiarise myself with site rules then I hold my hands up. If the measure of that fault is the extent by which my opponents are damaged in excess of my own partners, then that failing has to be about the legal equivalent of doing 75 on an empty motorway.

I wonder whether even you were aware of this provision prior to your decision to research the site for additional armoury in support of your original argument. Given that your argument requires this lynchpin for any validity (which is not to say that it makes it valid, which I address below, only that without it the argument is certainly invalid) it would appear that your conviction up to that point was flawed. That is perhaps only of passing interest, because if your argument is now valid it makes little difference that it may have been invalid earlier.

I would be very surprised if I were alone in being (formerly) unaware of this (deeming) provision. Indeed I may at one time have noticed it and forgotten it. How many times do you reread the site rules, especially if you do not make the connection at the time between the deeming provision and the subsequent effect on disclosure requirements in the circumstances described by the OP? Indeed even now I have not read the BB-Basic system, although I suppose I had better do so now.

The practical question remains: if you are deemed to be playing BB-Basic, what response to an enquiry do you give if you are unaware that you are deemed to be playing it, or if you are aware but do not know BB-basic? The latter scenario is more culpable and consequently I expect rarer, although if I at present were to sit at a table prior to learning BB-Basic I would fall into that category. Far more likely you are unaware of the deeming provision.

There is no way on earth that you can give information that you do not know. The fact that you do not know may be an offence (that of failing to read the site rules) (I am not convinced, in this case, but let that ride), but if it is an offence it is a separate offence. The right and proper response in that event remains "no agreement" if that is the most honest response that you can give.

I do not believe that you make any secret of your opinion of what is right, but I do feel that you have a biased opinion of the transgressions of others, and I do believe that you have attempted in arrears to construct arguments to fit that opinion. At the outset you made no reference to the deeming provision of the site rules, critical though they now are to your position. You then insinuated that the motive of a "no agreement" explanation is to annoy the opponents. Later still you acknowledge that there are additional references contained in the site rules that do not support your position, after you initially listed only those quotes that support your position. Actually I think that your opinions are for the most part genuine, and it is in the heat of exchanges that intemperate language ensues. You have I think made a brave effort in your latest argument but I still think it is flawed for the reasons stated.

The tenor of your posts presupposes that there are implicit agreements that are not being disclosed when "no agreements" is being offered as an explanation. I certainly accept that possibility, just not its necessity, and I give the benefit of the doubt until there is evidence otherwise. I agree that it is easier to test the question of possible MI where a positive explanation is proffered. Just because a hypothesis is difficult to test that does not mean that unethical behaviour should be assumed.

I shall close with a hypothecical scenario:

A Limey sits down opposite a Yank in the main playing area for the first time on BBO. The Brit is neither experienced nor well-read. So keen is he to get set up on BBO that he decides to "have a go" now, and read the rules later. "Faster, please" says the seasoned Turk sitting East (preparing to redouble, as Turks do), as soon as they sit and find the cards are pre-dealt with the Brit as the dealer. Being cosetted in to date in his local club (the sort where Landy is the only defence to 1NT that has ever been conceived, and there is no licence for alcoholic drinks), the Brit opens 1NT (12-14, of course) and the opponent asks for an explanation.

Already flummoxed by the the fact that the question has been addressed to him rather than his partner, he realises that he can respond privately without UI, and he has just enough nous to respond "no agreement" (as advised by his friendly teacher at the Thursday night session preparing them for the local Ace of Clubs heat, albeit envisaging a double at the 3.5 level after all parties have been bidding).

Undeterred, the Turk asks the Yank, who has done a bit of research on the old BBO site (RTFM is the first word they speak West of the Atlantic, upon weaning).
Yank is in a bit of a quandary. He is quite well read, as Yanks go. He knows that there is no land border with Iraq. He does not know from Adam whether his partner has read the BBO site rules, but he does know that 12-14 prevails in UK and he knows his partner's country from his profile. Better safe than sorry, he replies "15-17" (I guess I can predict that much from BB-Basic, from general bridge knowledge, mind). Nevertheless, even if he continues to bid on that assumption, the Yank at least has a better inkling that it might be 12-14 then do the opponents, *I* reckon that gives him an unfair advantage.

[1eyedjack]

Double !, on Jul 17 2005, 01:42 PM, said:

I have a very simple question.

Give me one good, coherent reason why one should not explain any and all bids, whether alertable or not, if an opp asks for it.

Assuming by "bids" you mean "your hands" rather than "your agreements", a point of confusion endemic among those who insist on disclosure without agreement, I respond by asking you a question in turn:

Give me one good, coherent reason why, as declarer, you should tell a defender that a finesse against dummy that he is about to take will fail.

I can think of three (perhaps four) reasons why you might NOT wish to do so:

1) you are not required to do so under the laws
2) to do so puts your own side at a positive disadvantage.
3) to do so distorts the results at other tables.
4) I have not researched it but I suspect that you may be required NOT to do so under the laws (frivolous actions etc, not taking the game seriously, destroying the game for others etc)

With the exception of the 4th item listed, the other three principles also apply to the explanation of your hand over and above the expectation of your partner.

[asdfg2k]

Let's assume all that you state in your scenario. First, the "No agreements" answer should be gently addressed, as one would expect, considering the individual is a newbie. A yellow is called, or not. Most of the time. 99.99% of the time, not. But whoever takes on the role of continuing the discourse with our poor British newbie, they explain that "No agreements" is not an acceptable response and inform him that the site has rules indicating that BBB is the default system in the abence of discussion. I can see many things happening here. A kind op offers to skip. The newbie asks for a redeal. The newbie asks for an undo so that they can bid differently (well, if you can avoid 2c, maybe they can decide not to open the bidding!). The newbie says I'll take my lumps and risk the MI issue (whatever it happens to be). But the courses of action are so well defined that I just don't see the problem.

Ah, but your resourceful Turk just skirted the issue and asked the other op. Ahh, the joys of online bridge. How are MI issues handled in this situation? I don't know. Surely some Solomonic methodology can be found. Maybe something that says if an opp asks both opps then they have all the information they can ever have and even if there is MI, then there is deemed not to be any MI?!? As I said, I honestly don't know. I'd like the laws of online bridge to address this. If they don't, then it falls on the SO.

Burdens, burdens. Everywhere burdens.

But not insurmountable and most, once scaled, would be looked back on with a collective: "How DID we get so worked up about them?"

George

[asdfg2k]

BTW, you are quite right about the order of things. I am convinced that the only rational way that the rules can be held together is with the interpretation that I posit. So, yes, indeed, I found the BBB site after having initially posted.

Had to be. Just had to be.

And, yes, if it weren't, I would then believe that the rules required modification.

If you end up convincing me that the letter of the existing rules is contrary to what I know to be fair and just, I will no doubt come to the same conclusion.

George

[1eyedjack]

asdfg2k, on Jul 18 2005, 02:45 PM, said:

Ah, but your resourceful Turk just skirted the issue and asked the other op.

I do not believe that this is skirting the issue. Certainly the online community regards self-alerts and self-explanation as the default. However the overriding regulation is that partnership agreements must be disclosed. This is no different from f2f bridge: in that scenario (in the absence of screens) the primary responsibility rests with the the partner of the bidder. Nevertheless ultimately the bidder himself has an obligation to correct any misrepresentations: as declarer or dummy, after the conclusion of the auction. As defender, at the conclusion of play, but at any time on enquiry by a TD. If you are not satisfied with a self-explanation I believe that you are entitled to require clarification from his partner.

I reckon that the population can be roughly divided into three groups:
(1) Those who genuinely have no (or very few) agreements
(2) Those who profess to agree to a system that is essentially "natural"
(3) Those who play artificial methods.

IN GENERAL I rate categories (1) and (3) as the most ethical. I would not like to choose between them. The greatest problem lies with category (2), perceptions of what constitutes natural being so diverse. I believe that illegal concealment of agreements, whether culpable or otherwise, are more frequent both in opportunity and advantage taken of opportunity, within that category.

If someone opens 2D against me and professes no agreement on enquiry, then either it is is an outright culpable brazen lie or I am going to beat these opponents. I choose not to believe the outright lie, until I have evidence to that effect.

[Double !]

Regarding the assumption that most people playing on bbo KNOW or assume that bbo basic is the default system. I suspect that many players, at least from the USA, assume that they are playing SAYC in the absence of further discussion. Perhaps it might have been helpful had the TD further informed the person asking about the 2 diamond bid that bbo-basic is the default system in the absence of other agreements.

I do not suggest that one feel that they are being asked to divulge their hand, just their agreements including system when asked about a bid. In the "rules of the site" area of bbo, I believe that there is a statement that effectively advises us to remember that people who play on BBO come from all over the world, that one should NOT assume that everyone has the same understanding of what various bids mean, and that what might be standard in some locations might not be standard in other locations. What might be obvious to you might not be to someone else. Do we really want to frustrate if not anger, and possibly intimidate people over issues such as explanations of bids (especially when there isn't a CC on the table next to the person)? LISTEN to the affect of the person who initially posted this thread.

[1eyedjack]

Double !, on Jul 18 2005, 04:07 PM, said:

Do we really want to frustrate if not anger, and possibly intimidate people over issues such as explanations of bids (especially when there isn't a CC on the table next to the person)?

Absolutely not. Not if the purpose of your action is to frustrate, anger or intimidate.

On the other hand, if their frustration, anger, or intimidation is born not of your action but through a misunderstanding of their rights under the laws, should you yield to their misunderstanding or should you adhere to your own rights and perhaps educate them that their anger or whatever is misdirected?

If this argument were valid psychic bids would be banned, as they also have the effect on some players of generating frustration, anger and intimidation. Perhaps you think they should be.

The reason that an explanation of "no agreement" causes frustration, anger and intimidation is because there is a suspicion in those on the receiving end of that explanation that it is untruthful. A similar reason is the cause of that same common reaction to psychic bids: a suspicion that it is less of a surprise to the partner of the psychic bidder than to the opponents.

If players really appreciated that in law the explanation of "no agreement", provided that it is truthful, ( a ) is lawful and ( b ) is fair, then an unwarrantied feeling of frustration, anger etc would not result.

Of course there is scope for the possibility that the explanation is untruthful. More so, perhaps, than an explanation volunteered, which is perhaps why the suspicion is so prevalent. And yet it is also possible that the explanation is truthful and I believe that the truthful player should be protected, as is his right under the law.

In my experience those who answer "no agreement" are, in general, not intending to frustrate, anger or intimidate. But that has to be a personal experience. I cannot answer for the unintended consequence of that act on others.

[LH2650]

hrothgar, on Jul 18 2005, 08:46 AM, said:

I prefer Bobby Wolff's definition

Fascinating. You attack the concept of Active Ethics as created by the ACBL, and then refuse to accept their definition of it.

I have reviewed your link to Lille, and think that you have misrepresented Mr. Wolfe's position. Three times, he makes his central point in various forms (I'll help) - that there was a failure to alert.

Mr. Stevenson does not respond to this. THAT would have been an interesting discussion.

[1eyedjack]

Clarification of my thoughts on annoyance avoidance:
--------------------------------------------------------------
I think that there are many players who believe that "no agreement" cannot be an adequate response on BBO solely because
( 1 ) We self-alert and self-explain on BBO, combined with
( 2 ) The explainer always knows what he intended to mean by his bid.
I believe that some of the posters in this thread have expressed this view.

Those individuals will inevitably be annoyed and frustrated by a "no agreement" explanation, however they judge the truth of the statement. That annoyance is understandable but unjustified, based on a false understanding of the laws, as reinforced in the BBO site rules. I do not have sympathy with their annoyance and frustration. One would hope that their annoyance and frustration will dissipate when their understanding of the law is corrected, particularly when they also appreciate that they are not damaged.

I suspect that the original poster falls into this category but I am willing to be advised otherwise.

Others are annoyed or frustrated because, whilst they accept the potential legality of the response, they are suspicious of the factual truth of the statement. Comments on this thread such as "No agreement is an avoidance response" typify their suspicious nature. If their suspicions are well founded then they are justified in being annoyed. But that is a big IF and in my view requires some evidence - and that more than mere statistical evidence of the behaviour of the population.

Comments on active ethics
-------------------------------
I am no authority on publications of active ethics, but my understanding of the concept is that it does not impose higher ethical standards than those that are already imposed by the laws and proprieties otherwise already prescribed. The concept is a marketing exercise aimed at raising the ethical standards of those who habitually fall short of the prescribed standards, to meet those prescribed standards. As such the discussion is not relevant to this thread. We are concerned here with identifying what action is required in order to meet the prescribed laws and ethics of the game. Once we agree on the action that is compliant with those regulations, acting in accordance with that conclusion will be actively ethical.

Furthermore, someone has quoted that "active ethics" is an ACBL baby. I do not know whether that is the case but if so it has no place in this discussion, except in relation to the behaviour of players in ACBL sanctioned tourneys run on BBO.

[Brandal]

luke warm, on Jul 18 2005, 05:56 AM, said:

Quote

as long as I know what my bid means, I will explain to opps.

so will i, but that isn't what i've been talking about... imo

Would it be completely,utterly "stupid" to just agree on
"the heck with f2f laws,let's just all agree to selfexplain
what our bids mean,regardless of agreements?"

That way at least it would be fair to all?

Or is that as impossible to those who go by the law as
it is for me to type "no agreement"?

[luke warm]

Brandal, on Jul 19 2005, 05:46 AM, said:

Would it be completely,utterly "stupid" to just agree on
"the heck with f2f laws,let's just all agree to selfexplain
what our bids mean,regardless of agreements?"

there can be any rules the rulemakers decide on... the point is, one can't be blamed retroactively for making a ruling based in law... the yellow in the original post, the one i 'made an excuse for', seemed to be judging the legality of the situation.. hard to blame him/her for that

[Brandal]

luke warm, on Jul 19 2005, 05:55 AM, said:

Brandal, on Jul 19 2005, 05:46 AM, said:

Would it be completely,utterly "stupid" to just agree on
"the heck with f2f laws,let's just all agree to selfexplain
what our bids mean,regardless of agreements?"

there can be any rules the rulemakers decide on... the point is, one can't be blamed retroactively for making a ruling based in law... the yellow in the original post, the one i 'made an excuse for', seemed to be judging the legality of the situation.. hard to blame him/her for that

I never blamed the yellow,and I know I'm not responding to
the case in question,it was just an idea...

[hrothgar]

Brandal, on Jul 19 2005, 01:46 PM, said:

Would it be completely,utterly "stupid" to just agree on
"the heck with f2f laws,let's just all agree to selfexplain
what our bids mean,regardless of agreements?"

That way at least it would be fair to all?

I have no "issue" with players who feel some moral obligation to provide additional disclosure above and beyond what is required but the Laws. [Other pairs in the tournament might, however, this is another story]

However, I do have a concern that novices may come to regard that "law abiding" players are cheating in some way. We already have issues with players who beleive that making a psyche is equivalent to cheating or lying or what. I'd prefer not to see the same issue develop propagate surround disclosure.