[blml] convention

[richard willey]

On 12/15/06, Nigel <Guthrie at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> IMO canape, fourth suit, cue bids, fit jumps and trial bids may all be
> *natural* in some sense. In spite of any official definition, however,
> they are all conventions.
>
> The "Conventonal" category should include any bid for which you have an
> agreed a meaning other than the most obvious meaning. IMO *natural* and
> *artificial* are the disjoint sets. Conventional bids, however, include
> all artificial bids and many natural bids.

Pray tell, what does "obvious" mean?  If a North American hears a 1S
opening, its obvious that this shows 5+ Spades.  If a Brit hears a 1S
opening, its obvious that this shows 4+ Spades.  Personally, I don't
think that basic definitions that form the foundation for the Laws
should be based on anything as subjective as what people think is
"obvious".  I see no reason why  a bidding system based on showing
longer suits first is necessarily any more obvious than one that uses
canape principles.


> It is quite plain that disclosable and alertable bids should include not
> only all  artificial bids; but also any *natural* bid with a
> *conventional meaning* or *negative inferences* that may not be obvious
> to opponents.

I'm somewhat confused.  At one point in time you were extremely vocal
that the alert system should be based on departures from a "standard"
system.  You now seem to be suggesting that the set of alertable bids
should include:

A:  All conventional bids
B.  All bids that depart from the standard system
C.  I'm sure there must be a "C" as well

Might I suggest that we just alert each and every bid that we make.
The system is very easy to remember and administer and ensures that no
one can complain that we missed an alert.  Of course, the system
doesn't convey any useful information, but at least we get to say
alert a lot.

-- 
"It's no disgrace not to be able to run a country nowadays, but it is
a disgrace to keep on trying when you know you can't"

Will Rogers