[blml] convention

[Mike Amos]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim West-Meads" <twm at cix.co.uk>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] convention


> Wayne wrote:
>>
>> Ton I am struggling to reconcile your position ...
>> previous you said
>>
>> "That sounds like a poor conclusion"
>>
>> I thought that was in response to Mike's statement:
>
> Wayne, Ton was saying that Sven's inability to understand the definition
> did not justify (of itself) the conclusion that the definition itself
> was flawed.  Ie it was a reference to the statement "(at the very least
> this demonstrates what poor definition this is)".
>
> Tim
>
>
Grattan

As to the case above, the key element, the primary
message of 5H is that the suit is controlled and for me that message
is fundamentally different from the message 'shows high card strength'.

Ton

But in the case as presented 5H showed the ace of hearts and not a void.
That I consider a meaning about high card strength.
If somebody disagrees may I know with what argument?

Well well well

A discussion about whether 5H is a "grobbelysmack" would be about as useful.

It seems to me that unless words can be defined clearly they cannot usefully 
be written into Laws and Regulations.  What I think is, that we need to look 
at those laws (and maybe regulations) where we use the term "convention" and 
see if we can use some other term that we can define or agree upon.
Eg in Law 40 D we might replace coventions with agreements


Mike Amos
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml