[blml] A lawbook wish: Clarify "convention"

[Alain Gottcheiner]

At 19:04 19/09/2007 -0500, you wrote:

>So the auction 1C - P - 1S would be ACBL-artificial if 1S shows
>three-plus spades.  If there is nothing else unusual about the meaning
>of 1S, then it would seem to be simultaneously artificial and not
>conventional.  Wow!  Or maybe it is conventional in ACBL land, despite
>the definition in the law book.  Does anyone know or have a guess?

I'll have a guess. "conventional vs non-conventional" is one qualification, 
described in TFLB.
"artificial vs natural" is based on local customs and addresses another 
quality of the bid.
There is nothing to disallow a priori that some call be both artificial and 
non-conventional.
A forcing two-bid is a possible example.

There seems to have been a shift in meaning, making "artificial" a subset 
of "conventional" in many minds.

This is similar to the fact that "ultraliberal" is now taken as a 
superlative form of "capitalist", forgetting that "liberal vs societal" and 
"capitalist vs redistributionist" are (or at least can be) independent 
options ("independent" being taken in its geometrical sense).

Best regards


    Alain
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070920/40787ed2/attachment.htm