[blml] convention

[Robert Geller]

If the opponents are allowed to use a convention (strong 1C)
we should be allowed to use any convention of our choosing against it.
If they can't cope with the "random 1S" let them play go back to a 
playing a natural system!

This is a matter of equity though, not law.   The laws as they now stand would
seem to treat defenses to conventions as conventions themselves and
allow regulation of countermeasures by the SO.

-Bob  

Sven Pran writes:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Robert Geller [mailto:geller at nifty.com]
>> Sent: 22. desember 2006 03:41
>> To: Sven Pran
>> Cc: blml
>> Subject: Re: [blml] convention
>> 
>> 
>> >The point is that the bid does not indicate willingness to play in the
>> named
>> >denomination, nor does it show length or strength in that denomination,
>> so
>> >it is conventional all right.
>> I agree it could legitimately have been barred in CofC issued before the
>> event started.
>> 
>> But before the event commenced,
>> >> the regulations explicitly allowed "any defense" versus
>> >> strong artificial openings.
>> So, while the SO would have been within their rights to forbid
>> "the random 1S" in regulations issued before the event started,
>> can they legitimately change the CofC after the event is underway
>> (save correction of obvious typographical errors)?
>> 
>> -Bob
>
>Normally no.
>
>But I should grant them that possibility if they for whatever reason found
>it necessary with this late regulation in order to avoid ridiculous
>situations which could destroy the enjoyment of the game for most
>participants. (This is not to be taken as a statement in favour or against
>said regulation!)
>
>I believe (frankly I am not sure) that we have (or at least have had) a
>similar regulation in Norway classifying such bids as Brown Stickers.
>
>Sven
>
>

-----------------------------------------------------
Robert (Bob) Geller,     Tokyo, Japan        geller at nifty.com