[sasioc]

nige1, on 2014-September-08, 21:36, said:

It might be fairer were the rule that South should explain to opponents why he called the way he did, at the end of the play, or even better, at the end of the auction.

I agree that in this case it might put have the opponents at ease if the TD had said why he had found that there was no issue, e.g. "it was a mis-pull", but the idea of explaining why you have bid the way you have at the end of a hand or auction seems very odd to me. The latter sounds a great deal like being required to tell oppo what is in your hand before they lead and the former will almost certainly be construed as gloating if the explainer has done something accidental or offbeat that gained.

[RMB1]

Assuming South intended 3♠ as artificial (and that an artificial 3♠ is alertable), South should have corrected the failure to alert 3♠ at the end of the auction.

[nige1]

sasioc, on 2014-September-13, 17:10, said:

I agree that in this case it might put have the opponents at ease if the TD had said why he had found that there was no issue, e.g. "it was a mis-pull", but the idea of explaining why you have bid the way you have at the end of a hand or auction seems very odd to me. The latter sounds a great deal like being required to tell oppo what is in your hand before they lead and the former will almost certainly be construed as gloating if the explainer has done something accidental or offbeat that gained.

That seems reasonable as far as it goes e.g. I agree that you don't have to tell opponents the contents of your hand. Among the reasons for you to make a systemically meaningless call are:

• Mispull. Fair enough
• System-forget -- e.g. you thought the call had a systemic meaning but now realise it doesn't. That's OK too.
• Random call e.g. a deliberately meaningless call designed to confuse everybody, including partner. Again OK -- provided that random-calls are legal under whatever regulations are in force.
• Improvisation e.g. You are in virgin territory. You know you have no agreement about this call. You make the call, anyway, expecting partner to work it out from general knowledge and analogy with related sequences. At worst, in an experienced partnership, you hope that partner will know many meanings that are systemically impossible -- those meanings would conflict with partnership experience and philosophy. So, even if partner is confused, seff-inflicted damage is unlikely to result. When an opponent asks your partner, it turns out that partner is completely at a loss. Apparently, any positive or negative inferences from your undiscussed call escape your partner. IMO, if your side declares, then you are legally obliged (or certainly should be obliged) to explain these at the end of the auction.