[blml] convention

[Eric Landau]

At 10:23 PM 12/15/06, Nigel wrote:

>IMO, if this is not a convention then the WBFLC definition of convention
>is flawed and needs to be clarified. To most players this 5H bid is
>*conventional* because its has meaning isn't obvious unless you've
>agreed it.
>
>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.
>
>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.

That may be true in everyday English, but the lexicon of bridge is a 
jargon of its own, in which Nigel's assertions are nonsense; statements 
like "conventional bids... include... many natural bids" or  phrases 
like "natural bid with a conventional meaning" are patently 
self-contradictory.

Bids can be "conventional" or "natural", and bids can be "alertable" or 
"not alertable", but these are strictly orthogonal; one has nothing to 
do with the other.  "The most obvious meaning of a call" may well be a 
conventional one, and some "less obvious" meaning may be completely 
natural.  Conflating those dimensions can only hamper intelligent 
discussion.


Eric Landau                     ehaa at starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607