[1eyedjack]

mike777, on Jul 14 2005, 01:08 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Jul 14 2005, 12:56 PM, said:

coyot, on Jul 14 2005, 05:27 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 13 2005, 06:11 PM, said:

The laws provide for disclosure of much more.  They require disclosure explict agreements, implicit agreements and partnership experience.

That's exactly the point.

If you sit down to an indy in BBO and open 2♦ with 6 weak diamonds, you ARE using implicit agreement! You're expecting your partner to understand that bid (why else use it)!

You could be making the bid more in the HOPE of his interpreting it than in the EXPECTATION. An expectation should be disclosed. I am less convinced that a hope requires disclosure, where the hope is without foundation.

Great now I am at a table where my opp's are making hope bids without any foundation. I ask my opp what bid means and they tell me ask their partner. Why are telling me that with no foundation? Do they make bids and answer my questions with no foundation also? How can one even play bridge with no foundation?

I am sorry but I just did not understand this post. Even so, let me elaborate.

The point is that worldwide there are in common usage a variety of uses for the 2D opener. Even those with a natural "flavour" vary dramatically in their strength limitations.

Given that environment, it is arguably stupid ever to open 2D without having an express agreement (which would of course then require disclosure - no question). A hand suitable for a "strong" 2D will rarely give rise to disaster by opening 1D. A hand suitable for a "weak" 2D opener will rarely give rise to a disaster by passing. The cost of the loss of the preemption would be difficult to evaluate, as you can never be certain how your opponents would have handled it.

Nevertheless, suppose you are in a universe where 2D only has 2 possible meanings: Weak or Strong (but in either case natural), with roughly equal popularity. And suppose, however unwisely, you choose to open 2D opposite a partner with whom you have had no discussion nor prior experience either as partner or opposition. Should you then be obliged to tell your opponents which choice YOU have made in opening it, knowing that your partner is in the dark, and in that sense you have nothing more than a hope that he guesses right, and you have no particular foundation for expecting that he will fulfil that hope? I would say not.

[dogsbreath]

hi
there is over-expectation from some players as to what info they should get.
If i have an arrangement (implicit or not) that a 2D opening is 6-10 hcp with 6+ diamonds then i should alert eg: "6+ Diamonds 6-10 HCP, may contain a 2nd suit"
However, i do NOT alert differently on the hands where i do have a 2nd suit, nor tell the opp which 2nd suit is held. (because my p does not have this info, the opps are not entitled to know either).

Rgds Dog

[coyot]

1eyedjack, on Jul 14 2005, 12:56 PM, said:

You could be making the bid more in the HOPE of his interpreting it than in the EXPECTATION. An expectation should be disclosed. I am less convinced that a hope requires disclosure, where the hope is without foundation.

I don't think this is a valid point. You could then open 2♦ as multi, hoping your partner will get it.
Your hope for this opening bid HAS some foundation. When choosing the bid, you assume something (in this case, you're assuming that your partner will treat it in it's most natural meaning, weak diamonds, because you're playing on an american server with majority of players playing 2♦ natural - and you HOPE that your partner will make the same assumption when seeing your bid.
Therefore your disclosure should be "natural (or natural weak)", not "no agreement" - because when you say "no agreement", you may lead opponents into believing that the bid was made according to your profile or your partner's profile...

I know it is not fair to your partner, but the current alerting system protects the opponents and I guess it is better than if it were protecting you and your partner.

[1eyedjack]

coyot, on Jul 14 2005, 04:01 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Jul 14 2005, 12:56 PM, said:

You could be making the bid more in the HOPE of his interpreting it than in the EXPECTATION.  An expectation should be disclosed.  I am less convinced that a hope requires disclosure, where the hope is without foundation.

I don't think this is a valid point. You could then open 2♦ as multi, hoping your partner will get it.

Indeed you could. And where is the harm in that (from an ethics viewpoint rather than from a strategy viewpoint)? There is in that case a very high probability that your partner will NOT "get it". Why should the opponents be granted any more lattitude than partner?

coyot, on Jul 14 2005, 04:01 PM, said:

Your hope for this opening bid HAS some foundation. When choosing the bid, you assume something (in this case, you're assuming that your partner will treat it in it's most natural meaning, weak diamonds, because you're playing on an american server with majority of players playing 2♦ natural - and you HOPE that your partner will make the same assumption when seeing your bid.

As you are saying, you are making a combination of assumptions and hopes. The question that you have to ask yourself is: do the opponents have available to them the same information from which to make those assumptions? All that the rules seek to achieve is a level playing field on the matter of disclosure of agreements, while at the same time allowing players to capitalise on their skill derived from their knowledge of bridge. That you are playing in an environment in which a particular interpretation of the bid is predominant is arguably a matter of public knowledge, ie general bridge skill. The opponents are (or should be) no less aware of the environment in which you are playing than are you and your partner. I think that if you had fast typing skills and no shortage of time in which to make the disclosure, then you probably could list the prevailing popular methods in your own country and that of your partner (to your knowledge), and that would be the fairest disclosure most in keeping with both the spirit and letter of the law. And of course if you are incapable of complying with that for practical reasons, it is advisable to err on the side of caution and disclose more rather than less, but only because your reputation is more valuable than the result on the hand, not because it is intrinsically fairer on the hand in question. Damage to your reputation may be unjust, but no less real for that.

[asdfg2k]

Hey, Vicki! My first post.

Apparently, there are a lot of folks who are going to think my opinion wrong. Well, they are just plain...... ok, I'll stop there.

There have been a few posts here which have hinted at the correct resolution, but nobody has come right out and said it: Whoever you talked to (the person you referred to as "yellow") was 180 degrees wrong. Period. Not even close.

Anybody agreeing with that person is dead wrong, too. Dead wrong.

It really is quite simple. If the individual making the bid believes that there is a specific meaning for the bid and that the specific meaning for the bid is part of the system that they have agreed to play with their partner, either explicitly or implicitly, then they MUST tell you what that meaning is. Period. End of discussion. Strong memo to follow.

To have any other interpretation is ludicrous.

In your case, it appears that the individual was relying on the fact that there was no specific discussion about system and therefore is not required to explain anything about any bid. This is just not true.

The individual you asked was playing SOME system, whether that system was assumed to be sayc or polish club or something else. But it was something.

Just because he didn't explicitly agree to that system with his partner before making the bid doesn't mean that he doesn't think there is some system that he and his partner are playing.

What should have happened is that the yellow person should have explained to your opponent that you are entitled to the theoretical meaning of the bid in the system that he thinks he is playing with his partner. Perchance the response would have been "weak". Maybe it would have been "strong". Maybe even "multi". (Although "multi" in and of itself isn't a proper answer.)

But for it to appropriately be "no agreement" he is saying something akin to this: "The system I believe we are playing leaves this bid as undefined. I'm expecting my partner to have the same question as you have."

Does anybody really believe that this was the case?

So, my first post and I'm taking the unidentified yellow to task. And completely disagreeing with anybody in this thread who thinks that the indicated yellow person did the right thing, including at least one other yellow.

Such is life.

George

[luke warm]

i agree with vicki and mike, and i know the law speaks of p'ship agreements or understanding.. however, if i make a bid i meant it to convey some information to my partner... i'll always alert (in a pickup game) 2d, h, or s as 'weak'... if partner takes it as strong, well that's too bad

i think there's nothing wrong with bending over backwards to be as ethical as possible.. it would never enter my mind to answer as her opp did.. right or wrong (legally speaking) i'd have said what i intended the bid to mean

btw, the yellow wasn't wrong... he/she was correct *from within the framework of the laws*... i just think that, except for more serious bridge (where a pair has at least discussed the more important things), it doesn't hurt to be as forthcoming as possible

[asdfg2k]

luke,

That is just it.

You are making excuses for somebody doing the wrong thing.

I am *not* saying that what was done to Vicki was correct within the framework of the laws. I am specifically saying the opposite. The framework of the laws are absolutely precise (when interpreted by intelligent life <g, d & r>) and they make it clear that Vicki's opp had the DUTY to tell her what the bid meant in the system that he thought he was playing.

I give no quarter to anyone or anybody who thinks that the laws make it remotely possible that the response given to Vicki was proper.

It was not.

And we need to stomp out such behaviour whenever and wherever we find it.

George

ps I heard your attitude about bending over backwards in favor of full disclosure and of course that is laudable. But it isn't part of the original question posed by Vicki, so it gets mentioned only in this postscript.

George

[pork rind]

george is 100% right. in a pickup game it simply does not matter what the rules are. it is simple, common and univeral courtesy to explain. if you dont want to explain then dont play. i think it is extraordinary that anyone can either condone or tolerate rudeness just because "that is the rules"

[1eyedjack]

The law is plain and simple: No agreement requires no disclosure. Agreement requires full disclosure. Agreement need not be expressed in order to exist. If the yellow had limited his ruling to those three sentences he could not be faulted, unless he were also required to give a ruling of fact on whether or not an agreement existed.

Whilst the law may be plain, the facts of an individual case often are not. We are advised by the OP that the yellow agreed with oppo's statement "he did not have to tell me anything since they did not have a partnership agreement". That agreement with the opponent goes beyond a mere statement of the law ... it accepts as a statement of fact that there was no partnership agreement. That judgement may possibly be faulted, but I do not see how it is possible for anyone participating in this thread to draw any conclusion on that matter.

Unfortunately, what we have here are facts presented by a single aggrieved party, without any opportunity for rebuttal by other interested parties.

In one respect certainly the OP is correct and his opponent is wrong: The opponent's invitation to ask his partner, while providing a solution with superficial elegance, is inappropriate. If there is an agreement then both players are party to it and each, on request, has a duty to disclose it, which duty does not absolve the other partner of his independent duty. On BBO the initial and primary duty rests with the bidder to explain, via self-alerts if appropriate. The only reason that such a rule does not apply in F2F bridge is because of the risk of UI, which risk does not arise in private chat online. Indeed when playing with screens in F2F bridge some of the bids are self-explained when a request is submitted.

Some here suggest that an expression of "no agreement" constitutes rudeness that should not be tolerated, and that suggestion should be challenged. The player may genuinely think that the rule applies to a particular case. He may be wrong, but if his opinion is genuine, and the law certainly allows for that possibility, then there is absolutely nothing rude in his attempting to rely upon it.

The only way to conclude, on the facts given, that the opponent was wrong to stick to "no agreement" is if you take the view that it is not possible for there to be "no agreement" in this situation. I would certainly agree that it is less likely to be an appropriate explanation than after a more complex bidding sequence, but I would be hesitant to go as far as saying it is impossible.

A recent poster has suggested that it must have been impossible for there to be no agreement on this matter because they must be playing some basic system, and at the very least there will be a definition of the bid within the basic system. Well, that may be the case, and here I think the yellow MAY have erred. By extending his ruling beyond a statement of law, to an interpretation of facts and applying the law to those facts, the yellow has assumed a responsibility to identify the facts. Simply to accept without any cross examination an opponent's statement that they have no agreement is perhaps a dereliction of duty. He might, for example, have gone on to ask if they were playing any basic system, the answer to which would help to support or refute the stand taken by the opponent. If the answer to more searching questions is that this was the first hand that they have ever played together, whether as a partnership or as opponents, without any CC, without any discussion, then the "no agreement" explanation may well have been correct, and certainly would not have been rude.

[coyot]

1eyedjack, on Jul 14 2005, 06:09 PM, said:

coyot, on Jul 14 2005, 04:01 PM, said:

Your hope for this opening bid HAS some foundation. When choosing the bid, you assume something (in this case, you're assuming that your partner will treat it in it's most natural meaning, weak diamonds, because you're playing on an american server with majority of players playing 2♦ natural - and you HOPE that your partner will make the same assumption when seeing your bid.

As you are saying, you are making a combination of assumptions and hopes. The question that you have to ask yourself is: do the opponents have available to them the same information from which to make those assumptions? All that the rules seek to achieve is a level playing field on the matter of disclosure of agreements, while at the same time allowing players to capitalise on their skill derived from their knowledge of bridge. That you are playing in an environment in which a particular interpretation of the bid is predominant is arguably a matter of public knowledge, ie general bridge skill. The opponents are (or should be) no less aware of the environment in which you are playing than are you and your partner. I think that if you had fast typing skills and no shortage of time in which to make the disclosure, then you probably could list the prevailing popular methods in your own country and that of your partner (to your knowledge), and that would be the fairest disclosure most in keeping with both the spirit and letter of the law. And of course if you are incapable of complying with that for practical reasons, it is advisable to err on the side of caution and disclose more rather than less, but only because your reputation is more valuable than the result on the hand, not because it is intrinsically fairer on the hand in question. Damage to your reputation may be unjust, but no less real for that.

Pardon me, but a matter of public knowledge in certain part of Earth does NOT equal general bridge skill. What for you is a matter of public knowledge might be different to anyone who spends most of his time in a different "public".

There is no need to disclose popular methods in any country. If you are from a country where most people play Wilkosz and your partner is from US, when you bid 2♦, you HAVE made a decision about implicit agreement. You might decide to stick to US customs or BBO customs (which happen to be the same).

In any case, you SHOULD in this case tell opponents what is the meaning of your bid.

It is slightly complicated by the fact that 2♦ in that case was a natural bid...

But imagine this particular situation:
Your profile says nothing, partner's profile says he plays 2♦ multi. You made no agreement. Now, if you open 2♦ with a 6card in major, you could according to your logic tell your opponents "no agreement" when you made purely artificial bid .

Anyway, I think that for the sake of avoiding those problems, we need Indys to have a prescribed system...

[asdfg2k]

pork rind,

While I appreciate the support, I completely disagree with you. Again, you are stating that it is possible that the opp of Vicki did something which is supported by the rules. It was not. Not even close. This is NOT a matter of someone acknowledging that the rules say one thing and that the "not rude" thing to do is to offer more than what is required. This matter is clearly something that REQUIRED self disclosure (once Vicki made her inquiry) and was not in any way associated with "that is the rules."

Also, I completely disagree with you when you state that it is rude to, effectively, hide behind the rules. *IF* it is proven that the actions of Vicki's op were consistent with the rules (an assertion I find laughable), then for Vicki's op to do what he did could NOT be considered rude. Period. Following the rules is NEVER rude.

Further, I have never made any suggestion that the behaviour of Vicki's opp was rude. It wasn't. He was, theoretically, anyway, doing what he believed to be proper under the rules. As such, he may have been wrong (in fact, he was dead wrong). But he wasn't rude. Nowhere was there any suggestion that he was rude and I don't want to condone the implication that "hiding behind the rules" is EVER rude, in and of itself.

So, I'll apologize to you, like I did to luke, in advance, for jumping all over you when it appears that your intent was to offer support for my position. In fact, you have disagreed with everything I've said. But just like Vicki's opp, probably not intentionally.

George

[asdfg2k]

1eyedjack, on Jul 15 2005, 12:51 AM, said:

The law is plain and simple: No agreement requires no disclosure. Agreement requires full disclosure. Agreement need not be expressed in order to exist. If the yellow had limited his ruling to those three sentences he could not be faulted, unless he were also required to give a ruling of fact on whether or not an agreement existed.

OK, we'll take them one at a time.

I disagree that the yellow could not be faulted. It was clear that Vicki wanted an explanation. At that point, the yellow should have done two things:

1) explain the rules to Vicki's opp. That is consistent with your three statements.

2) ascertain that the rules required or did not require disclosure.

In this case, the "facts" necessary to determine whether disclosure is required are painfully simple. It would take micro-seconds to superimpose the facts upon the rules and state: "You must explain your bid."

George

[helene_t]

I agree with Jimmy. When in doubt, I'd rather give too much information away than too little.

It's possible that one of the opps is from a country in which weak twos are non-standard. It's possible that they will think you have some implicit agreement with partner (not unreasonable: why would you preempt if partner is likely to interpret it as a strong opening? Then a "pass" would be better).

If all four players have empty profiles and haven't announed anything, then probbly p is just as likely to misunderstand your calls as are the opps. But even then, explain that it's weak with diamonds. Just for the sake of the good atmosphere.

[asdfg2k]

1eyedjack, on Jul 15 2005, 12:51 AM, said:

Whilst the law may be plain, the facts of an individual case often are not. We are advised by the OP that the yellow agreed with oppo's statement "he did not have to tell me anything since they did not have a partnership agreement". That agreement with the opponent goes beyond a mere statement of the law ... it accepts as a statement of fact that there was no partnership agreement. That judgement may possibly be faulted, but I do not see how it is possible for anyone participating in this thread to draw any conclusion on that matter.

This is, indeed, the crux of the matter.

I submit that it is impossible to sit down to play bridge without ANY basic underlying system. I will stipulate to the following facts, just to make it clear: two people meet for the very first time, both individuals having absolutely no information on their profiles, each having a country flag that is foreign to the other such that they can not type anything into the computer that the other would understand. In this context, however, there is still the presumption by each that many bids have specific meanings, some more meaningful than others. An opening bid of 2d simply can not be one of those bids which has no specific meaning. To allow such an interpretation flies in the face of a reasonable interpretation of the rules.

Now, would an opening bid of 4nt fall into the same category? No, it wouldn't. And I would have very little difficulty with somebody who decided to open 4nt and who also answered an inquiry by an opp with "No agreement." Essentially, the opener has put his/her partner in a position of guessing. If the partner guesses correctly, they will no doubt win the board, if the partner guesses incorrectly they probably won't.

But all rules have to be interpreted with some sort of rationality. And to acquiesce to an individual who believes that an opening 2D is the same sort of "gee, let's have everybody at the table guess as to what my opening bid really means" bid is not, IMO anyway, rational.

George

[asdfg2k]

1eyedjack, on Jul 15 2005, 12:51 AM, said:

Unfortunately, what we have here are facts presented by a single aggrieved party, without any opportunity for rebuttal by other interested parties.

In one respect certainly the OP is correct and his opponent is wrong: The opponent's invitation to ask his partner, while providing a solution with superficial elegance, is inappropriate. If there is an agreement then both players are party to it and each, on request, has a duty to disclose it, which duty does not absolve the other partner of his independent duty. On BBO the initial and primary duty rests with the bidder to explain, via self-alerts if appropriate. The only reason that such a rule does not apply in F2F bridge is because of the risk of UI, which risk does not arise in private chat online. Indeed when playing with screens in F2F bridge some of the bids are self-explained when a request is submitted.

Some here suggest that an expression of "no agreement" constitutes rudeness that should not be tolerated, and that suggestion should be challenged. The player may genuinely think that the rule applies to a particular case. He may be wrong, but if his opinion is genuine, and the law certainly allows for that possibility, then there is absolutely nothing rude in his attempting to rely upon it.

The only way to conclude, on the facts given, that the opponent was wrong to stick to "no agreement" is if you take the view that it is not possible for there to be "no agreement" in this situation. I would certainly agree that it is less likely to be an appropriate explanation than after a more complex bidding sequence, but I would be hesitant to go as far as saying it is impossible.

WIth respect to the first paragraph, we must assume the facts in evidence and nothing more. They are sufficient to reach a conclusion.

The rationale presented in the rest of the above I agree with. I apply the rationale differently than you do and reach a 100% confidence level that there was, indeed, an agreement, either explicit or implicit and therefore reach a solid conclusion where you seem unwilling to do so.

No matter, as the basic underlying logic is the same.

The yellow could very easily have asked the partner of the opp for an explanation, just to ensure that there was, indeed, a basic underlying system in place. But even if the response was that they hadn't discussed anything, I have zero doubt that an explanation was required.

And after getting that information, the yellow would have been in a better position to clarify for Vicki's opp exactly why he was required to explain his own bid.

Either:

1) they had a specific agreement, verified by the partner of the opp, and the yellow could have made it clear that the opp's failure to answer the question was based on a misconception brought to BBO by somebody probably more familiar with f2f rules. That is, a gentle education.

2) they had no specific agreement, not even a basic underlying system, and that in such a case, it is appropriate to self-disclose when an inquiry is made with respect to a 2D opening bid. Looking back in the thread, MickyB got the disclosure right: "we haven't discussed anything so we are probably playing SAYC, in which a 2♦ opener is weak", while mycroft got the disclosure wrong: "we've agreed 2/1. That's the extent of our agreements". The latter explanation is insufficient because *IF* the version of 2/1 being played has a presumed meaning for 2D [which a rational person would expect it to have], it presumes that Vicki is aware of that meaning. A person who asks a question is not required to have an understanding of the system being played by an opp. That is why a disclosure that says: "Michaels" is technically incorrect, while "5/5+ Majors, undefined HCP" is more in keeping with the disclosure requirements.

But this does get back to the crux of the matter and perhaps requires a subtle understanding of what it means to have an agreement. I resubmit that an agreement exists with respect to opening bids in a system up through 3S. To assume otherwise is just not rational.

George

[the hog]

Quote HeleneT

"I agree with Jimmy. When in doubt, I'd rather give too much information away than too little."

Why? Why are opponents entitled to more information than partner. I think you all have the cart before the horse. Plaing with a regular partner, this is of course a different story, but with an unknown pd in an undiscussed partnership, I think the response was perfectly acceptable.

[asdfg2k]

The_Hog, on Jul 15 2005, 08:38 AM, said:

Quote HeleneT

"I agree with Jimmy. When in doubt, I'd rather give too much information away than too little."

Why? Why are opponents entitled to more information than partner. I think you all have the cart before the horse. Plaing with a regular partner, this is of course a different story, but with an unknown pd in an undiscussed partnership, I think the response was perfectly acceptable.

Hey, Hog, ever hear about UI? It is very specifically information that the opps are entitled to but that partner must ignore.

Do you now understand why, in certain circumstances, the opps are definitely entitled to more information than partner has? Full disclosure requires you to explain your bids, to the extent they are indicative of specific holdings.

Note that this is a bit off-topic from the original op's issue.

George

[ochinko]

asdfg2k, on Jul 15 2005, 04:44 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 15 2005, 08:38 AM, said:

Quote HeleneT

"I agree with Jimmy. When in doubt, I'd rather give too much information away than too little."

Why? Why are opponents entitled to more information than partner. I think you all have the cart before the horse. Plaing with a regular partner, this is of course a different story, but with an unknown pd in an undiscussed partnership, I think the response was perfectly acceptable.

Hey, Hog, ever hear about UI? It is very specifically information that the opps are entitled to but that partner must ignore.

Do you now understand why, in certain circumstances, the opps are definitely entitled to more information than partner has? Full disclosure requires you to explain your bids, to the extent they are indicative of specific holdings.

Note that this is a bit off-topic from the original op's issue.

George

Most often I act like helene_t, but I do agree with The_Hog. I make a bid with a not regular partner, a bid that I only _hope_ he'll understand. Assume it's a bid that we didn't agree upon. There is a bit of guessing from all parts. Why should it be easier for opponents, why should they be left without the burden of guessing?

I wish I had the courage of explaining with 'bridge', or 'common sense' in cases when I think it's nothing more. But there's the risk of thinking of you as an unethical player, so I end up giving opps more information that partner has regarding the meaning of my bids.

I'm all for full disclosure of explicit and implicit agreements, but you've all been witnesses of an absurdities when it's taken too far. I've seen more than once 'misclick' given as an explanation. Should someone warns the opponents that he made a misclick when his partner can't know that?

Petko

[hrothgar]

asdfg2k, on Jul 15 2005, 12:00 PM, said:

I submit that it is impossible to sit down to play bridge without ANY basic underlying system.

Then you've never played in a BBO indy...
The earlier comment regarding "Hope" is very apt.

I played approximately 35 boards in 4 tournaments yesterday. Three of these were Indy's. I recall ONE occasion in which my partner suggested a bidding system. (For what its worth, my profile say that I'm willing to play MOSCITO, Blue Club, and Polish Club), so, lord knows what my partner's thought that I was playing.

I'd like to show some of the choice bids that a variety of players chose to inflict on their partners. (I'm going to ignore the minors cases like showing Aces after the auction 2N - 4N)

1. Partner opens 1♣ in second seat.
Holding

♠ 876
♥ AKQ943
♦ Q
♣ QJ3

you chose the obvious 3♥ jump shift

2. Holding

♠ T73
♥ AKQ7
♦ A96
♣ 654

you decide to open 1♣ and then rebid 2♥ over partner's 1♠ advance.

3. You get dealt the oh so lovely

♠ T543
♥ QJ3
♦ J87
♣ J62

The auction starts

(1S) -1N - (X) - and you pass - fine and dandy.
Partner redoubles and youi pass again...

4. You hold

♠ 842
♥ QT72
♦ JT54
♣ AK

RHO opens 1♥ and you decide to double for takeout

I have plenty more example... Strong 2♣ openings on

♠ A84
♥ AJT96
♦ Void
♣ AKT94

or

♠ AK64
♥ A
♦ 75
♣ KQT62

[asdfg2k]

ochinko, on Jul 15 2005, 09:37 AM, said:

There is a bit of guessing from all parts. Why should it be easier for opponents, why should they be left without the burden of guessing?

....

I'm all for full disclosure of explicit and implicit agreements, but you've all been witnesses of an absurdities when it's taken too far. I've seen more than once 'misclick' given as an explanation. Should someone warns the opponents that he made a misclick when his partner can't know that?

Why? Because the laws of bridge require it, that is why. There simply is no good argument for anything less than full disclosure when an opp asks you about your bid. What you have to disclose is the systemic agreement that the bid represents. The bids which fall into the category of "no prior discussion" are precious few. Certainly, none of the opening bids through 3S get that sort of dispensation. Remember, we are discussing an opening bid of 2D here.

If you bid 3S, accidentally, and intended 2S, and if 3S is a spinter while 2S is a long suit, then when the opps ask you for an explanation you say, quite simply: "Splinter". You disclose the bid that you made and what it means. If somebody later wants to accuse you of psyching, wear the badge proudly!

George