[blml] agreements

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner
> Sent: 11. oktober 2006 16:58
> To: blml at rtflb.org
> Subject: [blml] agreements
> 
> 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 ?

My immediate feelings are that East/West is unable to show evidence of their
agreements and thus the Director shall presume mistaken explanation rather
than mistaken bid (Law 75D2 footnote)

Sven