[blml] A lawbook wish: Clarify "convention"

[Eric Landau]

On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:47 PM, Steve Willner wrote:

>> 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.

I do think that "other than" is supposed to mean "in addition to".   
But the phrase qualifies "meaning"; ISTM that "meaning" was meant to  
refer to explicit "meanings" within the the definition of the  
convention, not to the additional "meanings" that may be "negatively  
inferred" by means of "bridge logic".

Of course, distinguishing between an "explicit meaning" and a  
"negative inference" may be a non-trivial exercise with some  
conventions.  But I think it's what the Law asks us to do here.

>
>> 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.

TFLB does not define "natural"; neither, AFAIK. has any other  
authority of record.  The ACBL does use "natural" as a synonym for  
"not conventional" and so do virtually all of its members.  I would  
imagine many non-ACBLers do the same.

The historical distinction between "not conventional" and "natural"  
goes back to an old proposal by Edgar Kaplan,  who suggested that the  
law recognize three types of calls: "conventions", "natural calls",  
which suggested play but contained no additional information by  
agreement, and "treatments", which included calls which gave specific  
information about strength or were forcing.  This never became law  
however; its only residue in TFLB is the second sentence of the  
definition of "convention", which tells us that (most of) what Kaplan  
called "treatments" are not conventions.

As far as the Law is concerned, only the difference between  
"conventional" and "not conventional" matters; if "natural" were  
indeed to be defined as some third thing it would make no difference  
to TFLB, and should make no difference to us.  IMO BLML would be well- 
served to accept the ACBL's usage.

Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net