[blml] agreements

[Robert Geller]

I don't think this is a laws question.  Rather the answer depends on
the alerting regulations set up by the particular sponsoring organization.  
-Bob

Alain Gottcheiner writes:
>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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>blml mailing list
>blml at amsterdamned.org
>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml