[blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10

[Ed Reppert]

On Sep 22, 2006, at 6:03 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote:

> Ed wrote:
>
>> Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines "convention", as it
>
> Which is irrelevant.  The *laws* define a convention as:
> 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than
> willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last
> denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or
> more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not  
> make
> a call a convention.
> 2. Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather
> than inference.
>
> Much better than MW but still far from perfect.  A few riders (such as
> "other than" includes "in addition to") word improve it.

Steve made the point that  the laws' definition of "convention" is  
unclear. i was agreeing with him, and going a bit farther. As to  
"irrelevant", whatever the laws say, people "know" what a convention  
is - and what they "know" is IME closer to the dictionary definition  
than to the laws definition.

Personally, I think the laws definition, while it may be "better"  
than the dictionary one, sucks. Too many words, too convoluted. Try  
reading it to players who haven't heard it before, and watch their  
eyes glaze over. :-(

What's the difference between a convention, a special agreement, and  
a special understanding? What makes an agreement or understanding  
"special"? What exactly, is "general bridge knowledge"? Until the  
WBFLC drains this swamp, we are going to continue to get bit by  
alligators.