[pran]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-23, 10:20, said:

If the reason that it is, perhaps, illegal to give the opponents information about future bids were that partner would be reminded of his own system, then the situation would change when screens are in use. I have not noticed any proponents of the above position mentioning that this is the case.

Anyway, what the opponents are entitled to trumps UI considerations. Were this not the case, there would be no explanations at all.

In any case I shall continue to give my opponents any information they ask for. Even if they are not, strictly speaking, "entitled" to some of it, I would prefer to be more helpful than less.

Fine, but be aware that you are scating on very thin ice if your partner from your explanation of possible future calls "could have been reminded of your agreements so that a misbid or misunderstanding was avoided". ("Of course I knew this" is on its own a self-serving, not necessarily convincing argument.)

This danger is not present so long as you limit your explanations to prior calls, nor is it present when screens are in use if queries and answers are made (quietly) in writing. But remember that the laws are (still) written for face to face bridge without screens. Correct procedures with screens are a matter of regulations, not of law.

[barmar]

If partner forgot that their system allows him to bid 2♣ with a hand that would pass any response, isn't it too late for such a reminder to do him any good?

[pran]

barmar, on 2012-April-23, 22:56, said:

If partner forgot that their system allows him to bid 2♣ with a hand that would pass any response, isn't it too late for such a reminder to do him any good?

Say that West has opened 1NT and an explanation is requested by North at his turn to call.

If East now includes descriptions of his own various possible response calls it can be a wakeup to West: "Don't forget that when eventually I bid 2♣ it can be with the intention to pass your next call".

If instead West is now requested to complete East's description of the 1NT opening bid with descriptions of the possible response calls by East it can be a wakeup to East: "Don't forget your possibility to bid 2♣ with the intention to pass my response whatever it will be".

In either case these are most valuable reminders.

Similar situations will exist whenever explanation(s) is(are) requested (or given) for possible future call(s).

[bluejak]

gnasher, on 2012-April-22, 03:16, said:

Is a discussion of the rationale for a law on-topic in this forum? I'd like to explain to Sven why I disagree with this argument, but I'm not sure if it's allowed.

In my view, yes. If you are suggesting changing it, then it is the wrong forum, but I cannot see anything wrong with explaining the way the Law is currently.