[mycroft]

I agree, and that is in fact relevant. But having partner of the relayer singsong "relay" every time doesn't do anything - and don't tell me that's not what happens :-). Certainly we don't get "relay. If he broke the relay at this point, ..." every time, even from the extremely ethical.

I think even in that auction, or say:

1♣-1♥
1♠-2♦
2♠-2NT
3♦...

(All calls Alerted, Precision with asking bids) that people are going to say "1♠ implies a spade fit and asks about controls; NT would have been natural, another suit would imply no spade fit and ask for fit and strength in that suit", and so on - usually just the first bit (at least when I played it; others won't comment about the implication of the fit/initial setting of the suit either because they don't, or they don't think to explain it).

The same recourse applies to both explanations: ask about the relay break. I assume that partner of relayer will explain at that point, in the same way we explain in response to "What if she didn't bid 2♦" in the Keri auction.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2015-April-24, 10:39, said:

I agree, and that is in fact relevant. But having partner of the relayer singsong "relay" every time doesn't do anything - and don't tell me that's not what happens :-). Certainly we don't get "relay. If he broke the relay at this point, ..." every time, even from the extremely ethical.

I'm not saying that the relayer should explain what kinds of hands he would have at each step.

What I meant is that the opponents have the opportunity to try to figure out what kind of hands you might have, based on hearing the explanations of each individual response to the relays. If you only summarize all the information at the end, rather than explaining each response in order, they don't have any information on which to base such inferences.