bluejak, on 2011-December-03, 03:15, said:
I sometimes wonder whether you actually ever play this game, pran.
Of course a person who makes a call will usually do so with a belief partner will understand it, but only usually, and your suggestions that it proves an understanding are beyond belief. Of course it does not. He might have got the understanding wrong: there might be no understanding whatever: he might be deliberately misleading.
No, I am not splitting hairs: your statement that the cards prove an agreement is just absolutely and completely wrong.
I do wonder why you so often include personalities (sometimes directly insulting) instead of concentrating on the matter.
A player's cards held are evidence as much as anything else: They
prove what the player had in view when selecting his call.
Why isn't that evidence on his (assumed) agreements?
Of course this evidence must be weighted with other available evidence, but one thing is sure: I shall never give much weight to any self-serving statement like "no agreement" when a player has selected a call that turns out to be fortunate. To me such statements are "evidence" of an attempt to hide a CPU.
(If he considers his call to be part of "general bridge knowledge" then opponent's question obviously reveals that it is not GBK to him, in which case the only polite attitude is to explain this "knowledge")