[blml] ACBL LC Detroit minutes

[Robert Frick]

There seems to be a defect in the laws. They assume that when an  
explanation of a bid is wrong, there was either a misexplanation of the  
partnership agreement or a failure to follow the partnership agreement.

There is a very common third possibility, that one player thought a bid  
had one meaning and the other player thought it had a different meaning.  
This is fairly common in partnerships that do not play together often. For  
example, the auction was 2C (strong, artificial) - X - XX. One player  
decided that the XX was strong; the other decided that it was weak.

The laws do not say, ethically, what the players should do. Procedurally,  
"misexplanation" will be assumed (even though it is not true).

So I have come to the conclusion that the opps have a right to know what  
conventions I use when I bid, whether or not my partner does. Unless I  
know I have made a mistake, I always explain (at my first opportunity)  
what I meant my bid to mean. This protects me, but I believe it is also  
the right thing to do.

This seems to be CONTRARY to the normal philosophy concerning disclosure.  
I believe the normal understanding is that the opponents have a right to  
know everything my partner understands, or everything my partner should  
understand, or our conventions, but nothing else. I believe, in contrast,  
they have a right to know what I meant when I made my bid (unless I simply  
made a mistake).

I think it RELATES to this discussion. Suppose I open 1H, my pd bids a  
forcing 1NT, and I am looking at 4-5-2-2 distribution. According to  
partnership agreement/understanding, my 2C will show 3 clubs. I know my  
partner will understand it that way. I bid 2C with only two. This is not a  
psyche. It is not a misbid. It is me doing the best to describe my hand  
using our system. In essence, my partner and I now have two different  
meanings for this bid. If my partner explains it as showing 3 or more  
clubs, then I feel a duty to explain to the opponents what my bid really  
means.

(Of course, in line with my other post, I otherwise should have to explain  
all of the other bids at my disposal and what they meant; similarly, if I  
have thought through our conventions/agreements to decide which misbid is  
the safest, the opponents have a right to that information also. And that  
is not practical.)

Bob