Re: great idea -- explain own bids

Raija wrote: "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."

Everyone agrees that the opps are entitled to the explicit partner****p
agreements. (It will not benefit them, though, if my partner and I
have both forgotten those agreements.)

There is also a problem when the meaning of a bid is difficult to
extract from the partner****p agreements. As far as I know, it would be
perfectly legal to describe the Precision 1D opening as an opening
hand and then describe all of the other opening bids. The opps would
then have the task of sifting through the information to construct the
meaning of the 1D opener. I am pretty sure they would not succeed. Did
you really want to advocate for this procedure?

The question is what else they might be entitled to. I am very
uncomfortable telling the opps "Sup****t double, we haven't discussed
when they are on or off", especially when I can guess that much better
than the opps when they are on or off, and anyway I want them to know
even if I guess wrong.

I didn't advocate telling the opponents a guess about the meaning of
partner's bid. As you know, that is advocated as a technique to
protect the opponents. I can't see why you think that is illegal.

But I am suggesting instead to let partner explain the bid when you
feel any need to guess.