Re: great idea -- explain own bids

gazelle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Kenny McCormack) schreef in
news:funecf$8dg$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

> In article <2440632.89AXu9R5GS@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> BBO expert  <nym@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>Peter Smulders wrote:
>>
>>> I propose we let Kent decide on that :-) I know someone who - in
>>> online bridge - alerted his 1C opening (could be short) when he had
>>> only 2 clubs, but did not alert when he had 3 or more. Is this what
>>> you mean by point 1? 
>>
>>This comes down to describing your hand rather than your agreements, but
>>since partner is unaware of it, if it's alerted properly (I've seen
>>people "alert" by using table chat) where's the harm?
> 
> The "harm" (*) is that it becomes the norm and is expected, and if you
> don't do it, people get pissed off (and, if they are the host, you find
> yourself looking for a new table).
> 


I was not advocating the alerting method described, nor did I say it would
do any harm. Also I believe most table hosts act in a responsible way. 

I gave this example just to show that Kent's statement that a self-alert
"always corresponds to the alerter's hand" should be taken with a grain of
salt, even in the absence of a psyche. I suppose what he meant was: the
alert always corresponds the alerter's ideas. Then the rest of his post
makes sense: 
<quote>
 That's enough!  If partner has a different idea of what the bid means,
 whatever strange pathways their misunderstanding leads them into  is
 punishment enough, no need for directors to be summoned, go into their
 directorial dance, and make a judgement.  In fact that would be a giant
 step toward not needing directors at all! 
</quote>