Re: great idea -- explain own bids

In article
<f66bfba6-2a12-4c08-b25d-6d0e57254fc8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Bob  <rfrick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
....
>I think the laws make the most sense if you assume that the partners
>have agreed on the meanings of their bids, and that they either do not
>use a bid if they have not agreed on the meaning, or the bid is
>natural. Unfortunately, this does not fit modern reality. The example
>I have been belaboring is agreeing on a convention. But another
>example is if when you have to guess if partner is playing a
>convention, e.g. 2C (strong and artifical) - X - ? . You have a bust,
>and a common convention for your and your partner's skill level is
>that a XX shows a bust, but the default it to play natural if the
>situation is ambiguous. What do you do with a bust if you have no
>agreement?

(What I am about to say is not directly tied to the paragraph above)

2D is the classic example here.  I could sit down in any bridge club in
North America, with a random partner, and open 2D sans any discussion,
and it would be taken as "weak 2" (Yes, I know Flannery is common as
well, but that would not be the default assumption).

Now, a poster from Europe (either the UK or the continent) might come
along and say:

2D is the classic example here.  I could sit down in any bridge club in
Europe, with a random partner, and open 2D sans any discussion, and it
would be taken as "Multi" (Yes, I know Benji is common as well, but that
would not be the default assumption).

No problems so far.  Situational awareness is allowed.

However, when you sit down to a bridge club on planet Earth (i.e., online)
these assumptions fall apart.