[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 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.]
>

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.

I think the to be conventional the call needs to convey a meaning other than:

1. willingness to play ...

2. high card strength

3. length

That is a call is not a convention if it shows any one of those three
things unless it also conveys some other meaning like length in
another suit or strength in another suit or potentially offering to
play in some other suit (denomination).

For a different qualifier other than "other than" then we would need
to explicit write that:

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 *shows* high-card strength or *shows* length
(three cards or more)
there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call
a convention.


Wayne