[blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10

[Ed Reppert]

On Sep 21, 2006, at 8:38 PM, Steve Willner wrote:

>  the definition of  convention is so unclear that SO's are ill- 
> advised to use the word in
> their alerting regulations.

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines "convention", as it  
relates to bridge, thusly: "a practice in bidding or playing that  
conveys information between partners in a card game (as bridge)".  
Therefore, *every* call is a convention, and for that reason, the  
word should not, IMO, be used *anywhere* in law or regulation.

If the laws defined "convention" as a *special* agreement - i.e., one  
whose meaning is not obvious to *any* bridge player, and thus  
requiring disclosure in accordance with the laws and regulation  
pertaining to disclosure, I would have less problem with the use of  
the turn. But the laws don't do that. :-(

Actually, even that definition is dangerous. I've seen several cases  
of players who think the methods they play are "obvious" - and  
they're wrong. Hell, I had a partner once who doubled an opponent's  
opening 1S bid for penalty - and who thought "everybody knows that"  
because that's what his mother taught him. Heh.