Re: self-explanations and self-alerts

Well, first of all, why would you alert if you don't have a non-
standard agreement?

Second, your partner's only explanation should be "no agreement."  So
why would you have to leave?

However, back to the main topic of the thread.........

Under the Laws, you are entitled to know your opponent's AGREEMENTS.
You are not entitled to know what is in their hand, so technically
that information is gratuitous.  However, damage must arise from the
misinformation.  So if you know what the opponent holds, it's hard to
imagine damage resulting.  In effect, you would have to argue that the
opponent psyched and told you about it, and that you'd have done
better if he hadn't told you!

I personally think self-alerting is a zillion times better.  The main
reasons are two.  First, as just noted, damage from MI become much
more rare.  Second, the partner of the misbidder never has UI, and
thus can field his partner's bids as his judgment best dictates.
This, to me, is much more reasonable than finding you will pretty much
always get the worst of it.





On Apr 20, 7:27=A0pm, Bob <rfr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> If it helps answer my question (about if you like self-explaining your
> bids), a change to face to face bridge might be asking partner to
> leave the table and for bidder to explain his/her bid when partner is
> uncertain about the meaning.
>
> For example, my hastily-assigned partner opens 2D. I alert and explain
> that I don't know what it means. I leave and let my partner explain
> the bid to the opps. It's not the same as online, but I am thinking it
> would be good.