Buddy up or die - two nonavalanche deaths in Tahoe

my bad, that is correct regarding the articles. The were solo.

I had thought Edgesport was also referring to an experience of being ditched. I was thinking this was in the context of the backcountry.

Still not clear, but in the context of resort skiing I can understand the frustration after you've decided to ski a run especially since some resorts get tracked out fast. Unless there is some real obvious danger I consider myself ditched and carry on solo for the day. They might be able to justify their actions, but will never have an excuse for not following directions.

Was never intended as in-bounds discussion.  The reports listed were illustrative of the dangers of either not having a buddy or not having a buddy who can be trusted.  Koda's suggestion "Partner etiquette could be an interesting topic" would be a better titled and more appropriate forum.

I lawn darted once up in BC and luckily someone was above me, saw me, and extracted me quickly. I could have just as easily been the last one down and partners would have had a hard time getting to me but at least there is a chance... we can't remove risk but we can mitigate it.

Was never intended as in-bounds discussion.

My bad...just assumed by the topic title and case references to justify the point that it was geared to lift operations.
Either way it is real hard to have a ski run where there is not some distance between skiers without just making three turns and stopping.
Even then, I know I have struggled for minutes just to retrieve an uphill ski or pole in deeper powder.

Was never intended as in-bounds discussion.  ...

That's what I thought. In the context of the backcountry, there is no excuse for not communicating. To reinforce Edgesports comment, the task is to identify the risks and mitigate them to a level your comfortable with. I'm pretty open minded about spreading out etc. but if someone takes off on their own agenda that compromises the whole point of a partner... that includes uphill on the skin track. I agree skiing in proximity of your partner is hard enough, but leaving your partner unannounced is not mitigating but adding to the risk.

I consider poor partner etiquette a 'weak layer' and would be a good community discussion.... especially since TAY is a good resource for finding new touring partners. What do we look for and need in a partner, and what are the expectations of proper partner etiquette?

Sad news.

In lift operations. If your partner is behind you most times it is faster to swing around the lift again to the location last seen rather than wallow in knee or waist deep snow back uphill to some arbitrary point to find them.  I have never timed it, but to travel 100 yards in deep snow on a 35 degree slope uphill without skins can take well over 1/2 hour.

When the tree wells are really hungry, one approach is to never let anything close to 100 yards get between you and the skier you are following, and to keep a steady stream of noise going from the rear so the buddy in front knows you are there and close, and if the noise stops they should stop NOW, not after the next few turns down the rest of that cool line below. Even that can leave an awful lot of wallowing to be done to get back up to where your uphill buddy may be, but hopefully less than the time it would take to do another full lap. And in the meantime you may see other skiers coming down from above and can recruit them to help. And you won't risk being confused about exactly where you were both skiing.

I"m a big fan of the "tail buddy keeps whooping and saying 'I'm still with you..." and so forth" system. It also lets the lead skier just keep flowing downhill w/o having to look back or stop when not needed.

Good points Jim.
I have often keyed off the noise of OH>>Sh*T!! and stopped right away. Usually that means business has closed for a moment. Literally Whooping It Up has it's advantages in the deep.
Trees are a trickier situation, since one at a time can mean not seeing the person possibly fall in the hole.

Indeed. If you are sticking super close,as in w/in a few turns vertically, even if passing on separate sides of some of the trees, you have a half-decent shot at sussing out where you buddy disappeared when the whooping stops. All the more reason to use the "shouts from behind" tactic, IMO. Which we only do in treed situations where we are buddying up instead of doing the "watch single skiers from safe zones" routine (or gang banging e.g. in super consolidated spring/summer snow on open slopes). And I'll admit that we don't always stick that close in the trees (w/in a few turns or so) either - that's for the days when the tree wells are really hungry - after a big dump or dumps, and when you can get the walls of wells to collapse from a ways out from the apparent edge. On average days I'm more worried about someone hitting a tree or otherwise hurting themself, and one way or another there does not seem to be quite the same premium on ultra-fast response as there is when tree well suffocation is a worry.