[blml] agreements

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Dear blmlists,

I've heard of a case in the Belgian T4 Championships, which raises a 
general question.

Screens were in use.
The bidding began : (N) 1C  (W) 3C.
1C = 3+ cards.

In this part of the world, and at this level of play (bracket B), nearly 
everyone plays 3C asks for a stopper (promising solid diamonds) ; however, 
East was a diehard naturalist, and understood this as a natural, 
intermediate jump (it must be said that this pair plays 1C-2C as natural).

Later in the bidding, East, still in the fog, made a conclusive 6C bid, 
taken by partner as void-showing. He explained it as such and bid 7D. South 
declined to lead a club, and a 28-IMP swing ensued (the contract at the 
other table was a mundane diamond partial).

The ruling -on which the Jury is still out- must consider the following 
question : are standard conventions considered "on" as a default ? In which 
case West's explanations were faultless and East a lucky devil. Or should 
West have explained better, like "I guess he, too, plays this as 
stopper-showing" ?

What are your feelings ?

Best regards

   Alain