[blml] convention

[Robert Geller]

IIRC, Edgar Kaplan invented the word "treatment" to discuss
a natural bid (like an inverted minor raise, e.g. 1D-2D,
showing 4+ diamonds, denying a four card major, and 1 round forcing)
which showed strength/length different than would be expected by
most players and which needed to be alerted.    Kaplan's idea was
that treatments needed to be disclosed but not regulated.

In the 1980s Marty Bergen and disciples started to open ridiculously
weak "weak 2s", sometimes with only 4 cards, and weak opening
systems like EHAA or Mosquito came along.   These didn't do very
well against expert players but were very effective against weaker
players.   The ACBL issued regulations barring or restricting such
tactics that were technically illegal under the laws, so it was necessary
to change the laws to sort-of legitimize such regulations.   I didn't
really follow any of this closely but there was a long series of
editorials (leading articles) in the Bridge World decrying such 
regulations.   

So the bottom line seems to be that in addition to the inherent
difficulty of defining exactly what's a convention and what's not
(this doesn't really seem to be a big problem, despite some of
the recent posts here), the definition of convention was stretched
to allow some treatments (very light openings) to be restricted.

-Bob




gesta at tiscali.co.uk さんは書きました:
>
>Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
>[also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
>*****************************************
>"Hear my words carefully.
>Some are spoken not by me,
>but by a man in my position."
>             ~ Norman McCaig.                   
>=====================================
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
>To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" <blml at rtflb.org>
>Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 7:34 PM
>Subject: Re: [blml] convention
>
>
>> 
>> Once upon a time, back in Culbertson's day, "convention" 
>> was used as a synonym for "non-standard agreement".  That 
>> became unworkable about 40 years ago, when players and 
>> lawmakers discovered that they no longer had a consensus 
>> agreement as to what was "standard" (it took the ACBL 
>> about another 10 years to realize that had happened, and to 
>> stop regulating "non-standard" agreements such as weak 
>> two-bids or limit raises as "conventions").  In today's lexicon, 
>> "conventional" and  "non-standard" are unrelated; a bid may 
>> be either, neither or  both.  
><
>WBFLC minutes:
>August 1998: " Consideration was given to the definition of 
>'convention'. The Committee held the definition in the laws to 
>be adequate. In writing the definition the intention was not to 
>deem it conventional if a natural opening bid carried an 
>inference as a matter of general bridge knowledge that the 
>hand held no longer suit than the one named."
>January 2000: " The Secretary was invited to state what 
>difficulty he had with the present definition of 'convention'. The
>Secretary pointed to the manner in which his own NBO and 
>the ACBL, and perhaps others, are regulating the use of non-
>conventional calls. For the purpose they forbid the use of any 
>conventional bid in conjunction with certain natural actions 
>that do not conform to given standards (e.g. "may not use any 
>convention with any opening bid that does not meet the 
>standards of the 'rule of 18' ", or 'may not use Stayman with 
>any opening 1NT that may have fewer than 10 points".) He 
>was also aware that in one section of its System Policy the 
>WBF regulates the use of a call that is natural according to 
>the definition in the laws. He is of the opinion, therefore, that 
>the sensible thing for the committee to do is to redefine the 
>power to regulate granted in Law 40D. As an Interim measure 
>he has suggested the adoption of a definition for 'convention' 
>that will meet the needs of these bodies, and which will also 
>clear up other matters in which the definition is problematic. The 
>suggested definition (applying in the auction) is: "any special 
>partnership understanding". Mr Martel and others agreed that 
>the current definition is flawed but felt that the suggested 
>definition may introduce other problems. It was concluded that 
>more thought needs to be given to the subject. It may be a 
>matter to be deferred until the next major revision. "  
>
>Why do I quote these?  To note the fact that the inadequate 
>nature of the wording of the definition to express the intention 
>of the law has long been recognized. But tomorrow is another 
>day.
>                                          ~ Grattan ~   +=+
>
>_______________________________________________
>blml mailing list
>blml at amsterdamned.org
>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml