[barmar]

shaky44, on 2020-September-30, 04:34, said:

I've always assumed that when I am explaining my own bid online, that I am explaining what the bid means, not what my partner thinks it means. Is that incorrect?

Ideally they should be the same thing. If you don't agree, then it's not really an "agreement", and you shouldn't explain it as such.

Of course, it's always possible to be mistaken about whether you actually have an agreement. But if you know that you don't have an agreement, you shouldn't explain it as if you do. Unfortunately, many players don't understand these subtleties, and will not believe a "no agreement" explanation.

Where things become tricky is when it comes to implicit agreements.

[mycroft]

Like "I've never played with BarMar before, but we're North American and play in Flight A, so I can bid 4H over 1NT and assume he knows it's spades?" How about "I don't know what variation of new minor we're playing, but he's not passing 1♦-1♥; 1NT-2♣? Or "we agreed basic 2/1. We have no agreement about 1NT-5NT, but that doesn't mean I can't bid it and expect him to not pass." Now, if our opponents are also North American and play in Flight A, then "no agreement, making flight A assumptions" would be full disclosure. If I was playing random Polish or Russian or Chinese pair, not so much.

As I have frequently said, I think "no agreement" is, pickups on BBO excepted, _prima facie_ incomplete information (and even with Pickups on BBO, I wouldn't use that, I'd say "you've seen our entire system discussion" or "we're playing his profile" or "he subbed in for my partner last round; no idea"). It's always "no agreement but". And I don't think it's fair that I say "no agreement" in the 2/1 auction I'm having with my friend and never partner L, knowing that we play Western (i.e. "shape rules, nothing shows extras") 2/1, and that we probably play most of what B taught T and I play with T, because he taught T and L at the same time.

Others may have a different opinion.

[barmar]

Bridge Winners had a poll last month about when "No agreement" can be considered adequate disclosure.

http://bridgewinners...nt-explanation/

There wasn't a concensus.

[glen]

barmar, on 2020-October-08, 09:37, said:

There wasn't a concensus.

There was no agreement

[mycroft]

I think Frances, as forwarded by Bill, right up at the top of that discussion, expresses my opinions perfectly.

Except possibly the kind of snarky reaction I have (which Frances would never do, I'm sure!</innocent>) that the pro-"no agreement" brigade are the same as the ones that wish to push everything they can into "General Bridge Knowledge" and who use the phrase "It's Just Bridge" a lot. And they do all of those things because they truly believe that "knowing more about the game of bridge should be an advantage, one I see no reason to give up."

[Zelandakh]

I would hope there is agreement to the idea of making sure that the opponents have access to the same information as the pair doing the explaining.