Re: self-explanations and self-alerts

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:43:42 -0700 (PDT), Bob <rfrick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>Look peoples. The way they do it online is fundamentally different
>from how it is (in theory) done face to face.
>
>1. The laws for face-to-face bridge really try to protect the mistaken
>bid -- the opps have no right to that information. Online, they
>routinely hear about the mistaken bid.
>
>2. If your partner for whatever reason makes a bid with a meaning you
>don't understand, online the opps get to find out that meaning. In
>other words, the opps know the meaning of partner's bid, even if you
>don't.
>
>3.  Put another way, in the online system, the partner****p in a sense
>has an obligation to agree on the meaning of their bids. If they do
>not, they are the "offending side". If they can recover, fine. But the
>opps should not be punished by players not knowing the meaning of all
>of their bids.
>
>We can argue about whether it is legal for online to do this. We can
>argue about how this could be achieved in a club and whether or not
>that is legal. I would love to do that.
>
>But I really am curious if people who play online (and who also play
>face-to-face) like the online system better than the face-to-face
>system. If no one likes it, there is little point in trying to expand
>it to face-to-face bridge.
>
>In other words, you are hijacking my thread. I may be the world's
>greatest thread hijacker, so I am sympathetic, but for this once I
>would like an answer to the original question. Start a new thread and
>I will be happy to join you. Or we can discuss it at David's IBLF
>(forums.bridgetalk.com).

You are just wrong, Bob.  But you are not alone.  Many in the online
community (at least at BBO) share your misguided understanding.
However, if you were to bother to actually read the site rules, you
might find that you are wrong and stop making silly in public.

Bottom line is that the same rule applies in online as it does in F2F.
The opps are entitled to know what the bid means in the context of
your bidding system.  Nothing more, nothing less.  They are not
entitled to know what is in your hand, should you decide to make a bid
that is inconsistent with your bidding system.  Nor are they entitled
to know what is in your hand (or what the bid means) if there is no
agreement in the context of your bidding system.

This subject, though, is a touchy one.  Many (idiots) assume that self
alerting means self describing.  Nothing could be further from the
truth.  However, self-alerting does mean making an explanation
available if one believes that the context of their bidding system
means that partner is provided with specific information by the bid.
This is the point of main confusion and will probably never be
resolved.  Some will insist, as you have, that a full description must
be given even if there is no understanding as to the meaning of the
bid.  Others will insist, at the far end of the spectrum, that one
never has to explain a bid that hasn't been directly discussed.

Neither position is correct, of course, but that doesn't stop the
unfriendliness which develops when one who believes in the first meets
up with one who believes in the second.  Or, when one who actually
understands, meets up with either!

The second is usually best described by the auction 1nt-(p)-2h.  The
opps have agreed to SAYC so the meaning of the bid, within the context
of the bidding system, is "transfer".  However, there are those who
would offer an explanation of "no agreement" because they haven't
discussed that individual bid.  Clearly incorrect.

BTW, I love self-alerting.  And I love it a lot when it is done
correctly.