[blml] convention

[Wayne Burrows]

On 23/12/06, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:
> At 03:22 AM 12/22/06, Herman wrote:
>
> >Eric Landau wrote:
> > > At 05:07 AM 12/21/06, Herman wrote:
> > >
> > >> This leaves us with the first place where conventionality is an issue:
> > >> insufficient bids. If the insufficient bid is conventional, or if the
> > >> next higher bid in the same strain is conventional, then the call
> > >> cannot be changed without penalty. Here, we do need some definition of
> > >> conventionality. Maybe the WBFLC would do best in deleting the word
> > >> conventional in this Law and replace it with a direct condition. Such
> > >> as: if the bid does not show willingness to play in the strain
> > >> mentioned, ...
> > >> This may well alter the precise application of this Law, but has the
> > >> benefit of removing a contentious definition from the lawbook.
> > >
> > > I agree with Herman that it would be beneficial to rewrite L27B1(a)
> > > without reference to "conventional[ity]".  But, IMO, it would be
> > better
> > > to make it broader, not narrower, by allowing the substitution without
> > > penalty if the insufficient bid and the lowest sufficient bid in the
> > > same denomination carry essentially the same meaning, regardless of
> > > whether that meaning is or is not conventional.
> > >
> > > But the real problem with any such formulation, whether it be what we
> > > have, Herman's suggestion, or mine, is that an insufficient bid
> > cannot,
> > > by itself, have any "meaning" at all -- for a partnership to assign a
> > > specific meaning to an insufficient bid would manifest prima facie an
> > > intention to violate L72B2.  At best, it can only have the meaning it
> > > would have had had the auction gone as the insufficient bidder
> > imagines
> > > it had.  For those who disparage laws that require "mind reading", the
> > > laws on insufficient bids are as egregious as any in TFLB.
> > >
> > > And even an infallible mind reader will wind up stimied by the totally
> > > muddled and confused, who have been known to blurt out a bid without
> > > any clear idea, real or imagined, of what the auction to that point
> > > was.  I doubt that there's an experienced TD anywhere who hasn't
> > heard,
> > > "I don't know what I was thinking; it just came out."
> >
> >So the solution is: don't look at the insufficient bid at all. Don't
> >make the "meaning of the insufficienct bid" a factor in deciding on
> >the possibility of penalty-free change. Of course the additional
> >meanings given to it are UI to partner.
> >Come to think of it, if the insufficient bid is UI, then why not
> >simply always allow a change to the next higher bid. This solves
> >problems like:
> >1NT-(3C)-2H oops, I did not see 3C. Without 3C, 2H is transfer to
> >spades. With 3C, 3H is transfer to spades. Acceptable!
> >Maybe a thought?
>
> A good thought, IMO, that could be the basis for a workable approach.
>
> If the IB isn't accepted, allow the correction, regardless of what it,
> or the IB, "means", with the only explicit "penalty" being the
> restrictions on partner's subsequent calls imposed by virtue of the
> fact that the IB itself is UI.  Let the IB'er worry about what the
> corrected bid means; if it means something significantly different from
> what he intended, which is the problematic case, the fact that his
> partner will be under UI restrictions will be sufficient to discourage
> him from making it in the first place, invoking the full panoply of
> penalties imposed for any other choice.
>
> If the IB is accepted, the issue of what the IB'er thought the auction
> was, and therefore what he intended the IB to mean, becomes solely a
> problem for his partner (but not the Law) to try to cope with.  The
> risk of getting it wrong would be, by itself, a sufficient implicit
> "penalty" for the IB.  We will, of course, find ourselves having to
> cope with the UI that will surely arise when the IB'er improperly
> blurts it out ("Oh, I thought he bid..."), but that's just everyday UI
> of the usual sort.
>
> This way, the only "mind reading" we would have to do would be of the
> same nature as for any other UI adjudication.  At least that kind of
> "mind reading" is familiar; we're used to doing it, and know how to cope.
>
> The result would be to greatly simplify the laws governing IBs, which
> can only be a good thing.
>

No no no no no ...

Someone will just make the agreement that ...

1NT (2S) 2D = transfer and ...

1NT (2S) 3D = natural

and we will not know until we collect sufficient evidence that they
have an agreement.  And that could take a long time when relevant
cases only come up every other tournament or so.

Wayne