[blml] convention

[Nigel]

[Richard Willey]
> 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.
>
>   
[nige1]
I agree. We all seem to disagree about the practical meaning of basic terms.

A long time ago, I tried to define *natural* *artificial* and 
*conventional* in a Bridge article.  I felt that conventional calls are 
those with an agreed meaning that was not immediately obvious.  I 
defined *natural* as the opposite of *artificial*

I started by defining a "natural" call as call that seriously advances 
the suggestion that the last contract or denomination become the final 
contract or denomination. Thus, if you are bidding suits, it would be 
natural to mention your suits in order of diminishing length. (

I feel that this to be on the right lines but I soon realised that most 
players regard as natural any methods to which they are accustomed. So 
that, in America, the SAYC Canape 1C openers are redefined "natural". 
Local regulations adapt their definition of "natural" to their 
interpretation of local tastes of local experts. So the "Natural"  
category grew to encompass each new fad: Cue bids, Trial bids, Fit jumps 
and so on. The motivation may to be to save experts from having to alert 
or to divulge their cunning practices.
> [richard willey]
> 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.
>
>   
[nige1]
I'm afraid you're right, Richard :)

[A] The current disclosure system depends on local alert regulations. 
Alert regulations *implicitly* define a set of calls, from which you 
alert departures. This is an ad hoc collection of mostly "natural bids". 
Law-makers seem reluctant to admit that this defines a local *standard 
system* of a kind :)  Of course, nobody would want to play it (:

[B] IMO it would be better to define a *playable* simple system from 
which to alert departures. Arguably this would be less of a burden on 
your memory because the standard system would be a coherent whole -- 
that you could even use yourself in a pinch (for example with a pick-up 
partner).

[C] Even better if the *standard system* were global,. Then players 
wouldn't have to learn different alert regulations for each SO. The 
playing field would be more level. International Standard system 
competitions -- even individual competitions -- would be facilitated. 
Bridge might even become a popular spectator sport (again).

[D] Best would be to *announce* [rather than *alert*] departures from a 
*standard system* . Opponents would also have the option to switch off 
all your announcements. This would accelerate the game and almost 
eliminate one of the main sources of  unauthorised information.

If you disagree with all this, you are in good company. No law-maker and 
few BLMLers will publicly endorse this approach . Fortunately, events 
on-line are rapidly overtaking legislation and ordinary players are 
voting with their feet -- I mean keyboards.

-- SAYC is rapidly assuming the role of "Standard system". I became 
aware of this when my Bridge class asked me to teach them it rather than 
my current Acol.

-- On BBO, the system can automatically announce the agreement 
pertaining to a call to opponents only -- a brilliant innovation. .