[DrDirt]

Are there any guidelines for responding to a query by Op about your bid? What to do if Op is apparently dissatisfied with your explanation and just doesn't bid on his turn? My example is that I opened 1♦ p 1♥ me 2♦ lots of bids by us ending with p in 6NT. Op asked then about my 1♦bid (before his bid). I responded: "I bid convenient minors, so 3+ ♦. When I rebid ♦, now 5+ ♦." If he had asked then about 2♦, I would have stated minimum opener 13 and 5+♦. But he did not, sat there for a few minutes and then left the table.

[KingCovert]

Quote

Well, all you can do is explain your agreement, not your intentions, and if you've properly and fully explained your agreement... well... your opponent just has to live with it. If you feel you've performed your responsibilities, and your opponent is still being difficult, call the director to resolve the situation.

Now, that's what I would have said if they were asking questions prior to leading, but, you're still in a live auction. So, first of all, you don't explain your own bids in a live auction. Your partner should be explaining what you've agreed that your bids should show. Obviously, there is always lee-way for discretion. As I recently read someone quote on these forums:

Quote

A bridge system constitutes an agreement between partners, not an undertaking to the opponents.

Basically, you explain what your bids should show, as you've agreed, but you don't guarantee that your agreements perfectly reflect your actual holding on this hand. Not that this necessarily applies in this situation.

I can't really imagine why the player left the table. If you've properly explained your agreements in a situation, and fulfilled your responsibilities, your opponent has no recourse unless you've committed some sort of infraction. Of course, you should welcome questions, but at some point, they've got to move along or you're going to call the director to make them do so.

[steve2005]

 KingCovert, on 2019-November-28, 12:42, said:

So, first of all, you don't explain your own bids in a live auction. Your partner should be explaining what you've agreed that your bids should show.

On BBO you explain your own bid and they can ask during the auction.

[KingCovert]

 steve2005, on 2019-November-28, 15:45, said:

On BBO you explain your own bid and they can ask during the auction.

I'm a moron. I thought that this was a live table situation. Ignore me.

[helene_t]

As KingCovert explains, you have to tell them what your agreements are about your 2♦ rebid. Don't explain what you actually hold (even if it deviates from your agreements).

There's a grey area related to "general bridge knowledge". You don't need to teach the opponents general bidding theory. It sounds like there's nothing partnership specific about the definition of your 2♦ rebid so "no special agreements" might suffice, but if opps are from a culture in which hands with 4♦5♣ open 1♦, and hands with 5♦4♣ therefore rebid 2♦ to distinguish, opps have the right to know that you don't play that style so that 2♦ essentially shows six diamonds and no second suit. In general, better err on the side of disclosing too much than too little.

It's also a bit difficult how to disclose if you don't really have agreements about a particular call but nevertheless have some qualified guess as what partner will expect. In that situation, people might:
- say "no agreement". This is not really true so it's not good.
- say "I am not sure". This is effectively the same as above.
- say "I don't know but I assume that it shows blahblah". In real life bridge this is not good because you give partner UI about how you take a call (while not really helping opps much), so if you opt for this it's better to instruct partner to leave the table. Also, it may be difficult for opps to know how they defend against (say) a 2♣ bid which is "probably Michaels but might be natural". "No agreement" is maybe less likely to confuse opps. Online, though, it is probably the best solution as opps can assume that your hand is consistent with what you think the bid should show.
- say what you think it is, without expressing doubt. I like this for real life bridge because opps can defend based on a non-murky explanation, and if it turns out to be wrong they can always ask the TD for adjustment.

As for how to disclose, I don't think there are clear guidelines, as it will depend on the nature of your agreements and the way opps ask the question (and how experienced they are), but here are some ideas:
- Answer their specific questions clearly, even if you think that other details about you agreements would be much more relevant to them
- If the whole story would be too complicated, you may omit details about possible hand types that are infrequent and strong. For example, a multi 2♦ opening could be explained as "weak with one long major OR certain strong hands". Of course if opps ask about the specific strong hand types you disclose that also
- Protect opps against worng assumptions they might have made. For example, if they ask "is it forcing?" about your 1NT response, and you have some unusual agreements about the 1NT bid beyond merely "forcing", you have to mention this, or at least indicate that there is more to it than just "forcing".
- Try to explain what a bit shows, rather than convention names or what it asks for. For example, 2NT is not "Lebensohl" and not "asks partner to bid 3♣". It is "weak with one long minor OR certain strong hands" (or whatever the agreement is).

[dave1hall]

 DrDirt, on 2019-November-28, 12:09, said:

Are there any guidelines for responding to a query by Op about your bid? What to do if Op is apparently dissatisfied with your explanation and just doesn't bid on his turn? My example is that I opened 1♦ p 1♥ me 2♦ lots of bids by us ending with p in 6NT. Op asked then about my 1♦bid (before his bid). I responded: "I bid convenient minors, so 3+ ♦. When I rebid ♦, now 5+ ♦." If he had asked then about 2♦, I would have stated minimum opener 13 and 5+♦. But he did not, sat there for a few minutes and then left the table.

The common bid of 1minor - 2minor often receives an explanation of "natural". Opps do no want you to know it is forcing. The other is jump bids. Again the explanation is natural or support. Opponents do not want you to know if it is weak or strong. Can call a director, but it takes too long to explain the problem, & the director simply says play on & ask for adjustment later.
when a director comes to the table, they frequently ask "what is the problem"? Even if the director call box has the explanation "will not answer request to explain bid". If director does not even read the reason for the call, then more explanations simply take too long. So we play on & opps get an advantage by avoiding complete answers.