Re: No Agreement?
- From: "Adam Beneschan" <adam@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 7 Feb 2006 17:55:12 -0800
raija d wrote:
As said, the Laws are silent on self explanations, they only deal with
explaining partner's bids and in F2F bridge explaining one's own bid is
improper, except after the auction is over.
Well, Law 75C only applies to explaining partner's bids. However, Law
20F says "replies should normally be given by the partner of the player
who made a call"; the words "should" and "normally" seem to introduce
an element of wishy-washiness, and the rest of this Law would seem to
apply regardless of which partner is giving the explanation. I know,
this doesn't help much except to convince us that the Laws are at best
confusing on the issue.
Self-explanations aren't restricted to online bridge; they also take
place where screens are used. In America, screens are used only in
late rounds of the really big knockout events, and anyone who gets
there can be expected to have had lots of discussions about everything.
However, in other parts of the world, they use screens more often, and
so players in those events may be more likely to have undiscussed or
not-agreed-upon sequences. Do those places have regulations about
self-explanations similar to what OKB has? It might be helpful to know
how they've dealt with this issue.
-- Adam
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: No Agreement?
- From: Peter Clinch
- Re: No Agreement?
- References:
- No Agreement?
- From: John Schuler
- Re: No Agreement?
- From: raija d
- Re: No Agreement?
- From: ted
- Re: No Agreement?
- From: Peter Clinch
- Re: No Agreement?
- From: Adam Beneschan
- Re: No Agreement?
- From: raija d
- Re: No Agreement?
- From: ted
- Re: No Agreement?
- From: raija d
- No Agreement?
- Prev by Date: Re: No Agreement?
- Next by Date: Re: Mini-splinter question; J863 6 AQJ6 KJ87
- Previous by thread: Re: No Agreement?
- Next by thread: Re: No Agreement?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|