[blml] convention

[Roger Pewick]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wayne Burrows" <wjburrows at gmail.com>
To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] convention


> 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

For instance  what is -high-card strength or length (three cards or more)
there.?

To me it sounds as if a call that names a suit containing honor strength it 
is a convention.  As in it meets the defintion of convention.
And it sounds as if a call that names a suit containing three card length it 
is a convention.  As in it meets the defintion of convention.

It does seem that a few things might well be absent, such as agreements 
promising length in a suit not named etc...

One thing also is that the definition says that it is a call that is a 
convention.  Well that is nonsense.  A convention is an agreement (to a 
call), not a call itself [which is defined as something else.]

regards
roger pewick