Re: self-explanations and self-alerts

"Bob" <rfrick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:28efb9e6-8009-415b-b18e-cbe4c4e2721f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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).

Self-alert and self-explanation works online because UI is completely 
avoided when the explanation is given privately.  It won't work F2F where 
the UI would be insurmountable.  Even online, it sometimes does not work 
when a player decides to bid antisystemic but is required to explain what 
the systemic bid is.  Some folks think there is something fishy going on 
when the hand does not match the explanation; but there is nothing wrong
in 
that, provided that the explanation is the correct explanation of 
PARTNER****P AGREEMENT.

Also, you are incorrect about disclosure rules online.  Even online,
nobody 
is to tell what they hold in their hand.  If there is no agreement, there
is 
no agreement.  In some cir***stances, more is required - for example: We 
have agreed to play SAYC, that means that 1M-2NT is a gameforcing raise, 
even when that bid is not specifically discussed.

I think your objective here is to start a movement to change the
disclosure 
laws (at least I get that impression, correct me if I am wrong).  Efforts
to 
expand self-alert/self-explanation to F2F would be illegal under current 
laws.

Cheers,
Raija