[blml] agreements

[Tim West-Meads]

Alain wrote:

> 6C was bid, not by the guy who bid 3C, but by his partner, who, with 
> xx / xxx minors, believed in the "clubs" agreement.

OK, I still confuzzled but I'm blaming you for giving this start to the 
auction!

> The bidding began : (N) 1C  (W) 3C.
> 1C = 3+ cards.

I thought you had put W instead of E but I now think you put N instead 
of S.  This edges me towards the opinion that West had no reason to 
consider there was any ambiguity in meaning for the 6C bid.

There are a number of people with whom I occasionally play duplicate 
under the meta-agreement that "anything not explicitly discussed is SJW 
standard".  I'm aware that these players don't necessarily know every 
nuance of SJW standard but I don't know in which areas their lack of 
knowledge might lie.  The consensus view of SJW standard isn't 
documented anywhere but a phone call to the club about any given 
sequence will get an authoritative answer (albeit that answer will 
occasionally be "no standard meaning").

Assuming there is a similar consensus as to "Belgian standard" and that 
this pair have a similar agreement then I'm ruling mistaken bid rather 
than MI.  However, if the pair have a meta-agreement of "Everything 
undiscussed is natural" I'd rule MI not MB.

Tim