Re: great idea -- explain own bids

"Bob" <rfrick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:1cd07131-e382-4500-8247-60b06087d187@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.

****

Advocated by whom??

The illegality is this:  The law requires you to explain what the 
partner****p agreement is.  If you explain something that is *not* 
partner****p agreement, then you are giving MI which is illegal.  However 
well-meant, intended to be helpful, done by forgetfulness,  guessing 
correctly what partner meant, it does not matter.  It is all the same = MI

when your explanation is not what the *partner****p agreement* is.