Re: great idea -- explain own bids

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:28:46 -0700, "raija d" <mustikka@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>(Snipped discussion)
>
>blackshoe wrote, absolutely correctly:
>
>The ACBL does not prohibit saying "we agreed to play Cappelletti, but
>have had no further discussion" if that is the case. And if that *is*
>the case, then that statement is full disclosure, and anything less is
>not.
>
>Here is what I want to add:
>
>While anything less is not full disclosure, anything more is MI when
nothing 
>further was discussed.
>
>My pickup partner's version of the convention could be different than
mine. 
>However, if the opponent took up bridge *yesterday* and honestly does not

>know Capp and asks what the bid means in Capp, then I think it is a
kindness 
>to explain "In Cappelletti, I believe 2D shows the majors", for example.

In a nutshell, this is hogwash.

If you have agreed to play Capp or Brozel or any other convention,
then you have an agreement.  It is perfectly possible that your
understanding of what that agreement is may be different from what
your partner's understanding of what that agreement is.

But you can't hide behind the fact that your spoken words didn't
include the nuances you believe to be the case when asked what you are
playing.  

You are required to disclose your agreements.  That means what you
think they are, to the extent you think they exist.

To hide behind the fact that some might play 54 as minimum shape for a
two suited overcall and others might require only 44 as an excuse for
not even stating that the bid is, in fact, a two suited overcall, is
beyond ridiculous.

Simply stating the convention name is not sufficient disclosure. Even
if all you have done is agree to play that convention by name, without
any further flu****ng.  You have plenty of flush, in the form of
experience and knowledge.

I can see it now, Bob Hamman and Peter Weischel (two people who I have
never seen play together) end up playing in a national event on short
notice.  They have precisely 10 seconds to discuss a system before
play begins and included in the conventions they rattled off was
Cappeletti.  Do you think even for a second that if one of them bid 2d
they would think it adequate disclosure for the other to say "Capp,
and we had no further discussion."  This fails for two reasons: 1) the
2d bid shows two very specific suits. Don't you think that it is
required to name the suits even though there was no specific
discussion of exactly what Capp meant? 2) Each of them bring a
tremendous amount of experience to the table and recognize that there
is a standard treatment.  They would expect their partner to adhere to
the standard treatment and they should therefore be willing to
disclose to their opps that part of the meaning of the bid includes
the standard treatment.