[blml] agreements

[Nigel]

[Alain Gottcheiner]
 > 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" ?

[nige1]
IMO, in the EBU, if you've no agreement about a call but you think
it's conventional (eg asking for a stopper) or unusual (eg natural
bid of opponent's suit) then you should you say "undiscussed but I
I am happy to explain its *probable* meaning."

[A] If you have no agreement but an opponent takes up your offer
to speculate then partner doesn't have to correct a wrong guess
by you; and opponents get redress only from a director who has
been converted by Bobby Wolf's "convention disruption" crusade.

[B] If, however, *you do have an agreement* but have wrongly
explained it and your side declares the final contract, then
partner must correct your misinformation before defenders
make an opening lead.

IMO, in Alain's case, provided that West truthfully explains 6C
as "no agreement but likely to be a void", then N-S can expect
no redress. However "void" unqualified would attract an adverse
ruling

IMO, a simpler, better but crueler law would be "If you don't
know then you must guess. If you guess wrong it's *misinformation*. 
Under this rule defenders would get redress unless East's 6C was
a deliberate psyche.