Re: great idea -- explain own bids

"Bob" <rfrick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:eac9632b-d190-4b32-85c1-0e2c47620ee6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Apr 21, 1:09 am, Bob <rfr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> My idea is this. When there is partner****p uncertainty about the
> meaning of a bid, the bidder should explain the meaning of his/her bid
> to the opps (and not to partner).
>
> I think this is what happens in online bridge. I liked that. I try to
> bring it to face-to-face bridge as much as I can. For example, my
> partner opens 2D. We are a hastily formed partner****p and as far as I
> know have not agreed on the meaning of the bid.
>
> I just leave the table and let partner explain it to the opps. I
> believe they should know the meaning of my partner's bid, even if I
> don't. I don't want to gain any advantage over the opps because they
> don't know the meaning of that bid. I am almost positive they like
> this system better than hearing me say "no agreement". If my partner
> and I are on the wrong wavelength, they can watch the fun and punish
> us if it gets too comical.
>
> It doesn't come up that often, so I don't think it will look like a
> jack-in-the-box convention at the local bridge club.
>
> Fire away.

But, if you want to claim that the opps are entitled to know just our
agreements, you have to tell me what you mean by that, because I can't
figure it out unless it means just the spoken agreement.

For example, we agree to play partner's card, which says
"Cappelletti". Then LHO opens 1NT, partner bids 2C, I alert, and RHO
asks what it means. Does the answer "Cappelletti", which is complete
and verbatim, suffice? Or have we agreed to more when we utter that
word? (And what am I supposed to do when I am not at all confident I
can remember what Cappelletti is.)

Same for if we agree to play Sup****t doubles and do not discuss when
they are on.

If there is more to the agreement than a complete verbatim repeat of
it, then you have to say what the agreement is. In my experience, that
is impossible.

I prefer the term "understanding". When I agree to play negative
doubles through 3D, I have an understanding that they are not on if I
open 1NT. Of course, my partner might not have that same
understanding.

***
If you and your partner do not have the same understanding, then there is
no 
*partner****p* understanding.
***

Then, to rephrase the issue, in face to face bridge, I tell them my
understanding of the meaning of my partner's bid. But my partner might
have a different understanding. And my partner's understanding will
more accurately describe partner's hand.

I don't think the laws make any claim about which understanding the
opps are entitled to, though obviously if I am asked I can give only
my understanding.




I think the laws make a clear point:  The opponents are entitled to know
the 
*partner****p agreements*.  It sometimes happens that there is no agreement

or no partner****p understanding. It would be illegal to pass on a guess as
a 
*partner****p understanding* when there is no partner****p understanding.

I think I have used up my limit in responding to you posts and I have 
probably repeated [as have you:) ] what my views are.

Cheers,
Raija