[blml] agreements

[Alain Gottcheiner]

At 17:24 11/10/2006 +0100, Robin Barker wrote:

>If West assumes that standard conventions are "on" and East
>assumes everything is natural unless explicitly agreed, then
>they have no agreement.  If they have had a discussion
>"of course we play all the standard Belgian expert stuff"
>then they have an agreement (one which East did not
>understand or has forgotten).

This answer is very interesting. It raises some important points :

1. "I don't understand that agreement" doesn't necessarily mean "we've no 
agreement". Something TDs and ACs keep forgetting.

2. How does one ascertain the pair had an agreement of "standard on unless 
agreed" ?

3. If a pair says "for everything undiscussed, we follow the Kalamazoo Club 
system", and the players have different ideas of said system, do they have 
an agreement ? In particular, may a book on that system be used by the 
TD/AC to determine the agreements ?
Similarly, if a pair agrees to use John Doe's system, may John's testimony 
be used to determine the pair's assumed agreements ?

Best regards,

    Alain