[blml] convention

[Wayne Burrows]

On 16/12/06, Roger Pewick <axman22 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wayne Burrows" <wjburrows at gmail.com>
> To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 1:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [blml] convention
>
>
> > On 16/12/06, Mike Amos <sarahamos at onetel.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>
> >> To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
> >> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 3:47 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [blml] convention
> >>
> >>
> >> >> On Behalf Of John Probst
> >> >> 4N P 5H.  4N is direct Ace ask, not Black
> >> >>
> >> >> Is 5H a conventional call? "...length or values...". The HA is values.
> >> >
> >> > Yes:
> >> >
> >> > Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning
> >> > other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the
> >> > last
> >> > denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or
> >> > more)
> >> > there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a
> >> > call a
> >> > convention.
> >> >
> >> > The 5H bid conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in Hearts.
> >> >
> >> But Sven that doesnt make it a convention
> >>
> >>
> >> There are three clauses in the definition
> >>
> >> willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last
> >> denomination
> >> named)
> >>
> >> or high-card strength
> >>
> >> or length (three cards or more) there
> >>
> >> IMHO 5H shows high card strength and so is NOT a convention
> >>
> >> (at the very least this demonstrates what poor definition this is)
> >>
> >
> > Why is it poor?
> >
> > It clearly gives three conditions one of which must be met to make the
> > bid non-conventional.
> >
> > Wayne
>
> There is a serious problem where the LC defines convention.  It lies in the
> fact that all communication, bridge and otherwise, is by convention and
> therefore to define the word inherently differently for the acts that are
> similar taxes one's ability to keep straight where one is.  Far better to
> leave convention alone and define 'regulatable convention'.  Whether or not
> it is a good thing is open to debate.
>
> However, providing a definition does not mean that it will be a satisfactory
> one let alone a good one.  The case in point is that  TFLB definition of
> convention is nonsense:
>
>
> Consider where the definition is revised to:
>
> Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning
> other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last
> denomination named).  However, an agreement as to overall strength does not
> make a call a
> convention.
>
> Languagewise this makes sense.  Not that it is a satisfactory definition-
> being less than needed- for bridge.  And thus it is nonsense.
>
> What about.
>
> Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys high-card
> strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to
> overall strength does not make a call a convention.
>
>
> Languagewise this makes sense [well, sort of].  However, I suspect that the
> powers do not want to say such a thing.  For that alone it is not a
> satisfactory definition.  But it too is less than is needed-for bridge.  And
> thus it too is nonsense.
>
> And what about putting them together.
>
> Convention: 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning
> other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last
> denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more)
> there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a
> convention.
>
> Languagewise this does not make sense.

The lawbook definition makes sense to me what are you seeing that I am not?

Wayne