[blml] A lawbook wish: Clarify "convention"

[Steve Willner]

> From: "Jerry Fusselman" <jfusselman at gmail.com>
>   I hope the new lawbook clarifies the definition of
> convention.  Currently, it is, "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."

How long have you been on BLML, Jerry?  I ask because this topic has 
come up numerous times since 1997.  Actually, the topic is older than 
that, but prior to 1997 the definition was different.  (No one 
understood that one either!)

> Is "in addition to" a special case of "other than" or not?  I.e., does
> the meaning of a call have to be 100% other than to qualify as "other
> than?" 

Despite all the prior discussion, this is new!  Or at least I don't 
recall seeing it before.

I think the general consensus is that "other than" is supposed to mean 
"in addition to," but that has the unfortunate consequence that literal 
application of the definition makes many seemingly-natural bids into 
conventions.  (In particular, almost all opening bids in real bidding 
systems become conventions because of the negative inferences in failing 
to open something else.)  The WBFLC addressed that problem by saying, in 
effect, "We didn't mean it," but that just makes interpretation even 
more subjective.

The definition might make more sense if interpreted in Jerry's first 
sense: non-conventions must have at least one of the three allowed 
meanings.  I personally don't think the wording lends itself to that 
interpretation, and I don't recall anyone suggesting it, but it wouldn't 
be the most radical interpretation ever devised. :-)  The problem then 
would be many things that "ought" to be conventions would not be.  (For 
example, 2H showing both majors does show length in hearts, but I think 
most people "want" it to be a convention because of the additional 
meaning of length in spades.)

My _guess_ is that the convention definition will be deleted altogether 
from the next FLB, but I have no inside information.  The LC has 
surprised us before and may do so again.  We should know very soon.

> Secondarily, can SO's add other categories of conventional?  I am
> thinking here of the ACBL's definition in their GCC (General
> Convention Chart):  "An opening suit bid or response is considered
> natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in
> a major it shows four or more cards in that suit."

"Natural" isn't the antonym of "conventional," though the ACBL uses it 
that way.  Regardless of logic, their pronouncement is the practical 
rule in the ACBL.