[FrancesHinden]

aguahombre, on 2012-November-22, 14:40, said:

What I don't understand is posters who want to decide for the opponents whether they would be interested in an explanation. We don't know why they didn't actively ask for one. Maybe they expect that if there was a convention involved we will indicate that was the case. Maybe they really won't be able to make use of disclosure.

An offer to explain is not forcing anything on anyone; they don't have to accept the offer. Describing disclosure as an imposition on the opponents is really saying it is an imposition on us.

I voted "something else" because for me it depends on the opponents.

There is a very experienced (nationally and internationally) English player that I play against sometimes, most often with screens. I always offer him my (very detailed) convention card and he always refuses to look at it. Playing with screens, of course bids get alerted above 3NT as well as below. If he doesn't want to ask about an alerted bid, as far as I am concerned that is very definitely his lookout.

In general:

- against very weak opponents (who might be scared of asking anything) I point out the really vital things (that partner's 1H response showed spades, for example) but stay away from high-level subtleties that won't affect their defence (that our keycard responses are 1430 rather than 3041 for example)

- against many opponents I will point out that our auction might not mean what they think it does and ask if they want to know more

- against most very experienced opponents I think it's caveat emptor. Where we play something really weird that's not alertable I might say something, but only if the 'obvious' meaning would also make sense.