Re: self-explanations and self-alerts

Bob wrote:

> If it helps answer my question (about if you like self-explaining your
> bids), a change to face to face bridge might be asking partner to
> leave the table and for bidder to explain his/her bid when partner is
> uncertain about the meaning.
> 
> For example, my hastily-assigned partner opens 2D. I alert and explain
> that I don't know what it means. I leave and let my partner explain
> the bid to the opps. It's not the same as online, but I am thinking it
> would be good.

How do you know to alert the bid, if the meaning is undiscussed? What
if it shows a strong hand with long diamonds? That would probably not
be alertable (even allowing for jurisdictional differences).

Fundamentally, a bridge partner****p needs to share a common bidding
system. The laws require you to disclose the meaning of bids as defined
in that system. Stating the name of a convention in response to an
enquiry is not generally considered adequate explanation (unless the
convention is practically universal in implementation - such as regular
Stayman or Gerber/Blackwoord, and even then, if you play some variant,
you need to say so and explain any non-standard feature).

Note that the laws do *not* ask you to define what you think the bid
means. That is UI to your partner, and MI to the opponents.

In the online world, clearly it is technically possible (and trivially
easy) to arrange that self-explanation can be given to the opponents
without informing your partner. This is beyond the scope of "real
space" / face-to-face bridge, where it's simply not practical (at least
in duplicate sessions) for people to be leaving the table every 10
seconds while you explain the meaning of your bid to the opponents.
Obviously, if the "real space" occasion is im****tant enough (or enough
players deem it im****tant enough), it can be done (think screens at big
tournament events).

-- 
Steve Foster