[barmar]

Isn't that the definition of "artificial bid"?

The Bridge World's definition of "convention" is: "an understanding between partners that would not ordinarily be understood by the opponents in the absence of an explanation."

I think the reason for ACBL's definition is that previous versions of the Laws said that regulating authorities were only permitted to regulate use of conventions, but not natural bids. So they defined "convention" in the Alert Procedures and Convention Chart to be what they were permitted to regulate.

The Laws have since been revised to use the phrase "special partnership understanding", but ACBL still has the old wording in their regulations. But that doesn't make their use the common use of the term.

[GreenMan]

1NT showing points and a balanced shape is not artificial by any measure I can think of, unless you consider that the concept of "notrump" is itself artifice. That way lies madness.

[barmar]

 GreenMan, on 2014-January-17, 12:26, said:

1NT showing points and a balanced shape is not artificial by any measure I can think of, unless you consider that the concept of "notrump" is itself artifice. That way lies madness.

When did I say that it was artificial? What I said is that ACBL's definition of "convention" is actually the definition of "artificial bid". Not all conventions are artificial bids, and ACBL is wrong in conflating the two concepts.

[GreenMan]

 barmar, on 2014-January-17, 15:33, said:

When did I say that it was artificial? What I said is that ACBL's definition of "convention" is actually the definition of "artificial bid". Not all conventions are artificial bids, and ACBL is wrong in conflating the two concepts.

Sorry, I misread you. But now that I'm caught up, I disagree: The words "not necessarily" allow for, e.g., bids that show the suit named but also something else about the hand, such as a DONT overcall showing the suit named and another one. I'd think an artificial bid is one that either denies length or strength in the named suit (or balanced strength in the case of NT), such as a splinter or Western Q, or says nothing about it at all.

[Vampyr]

About 20 years ago there was a discussion on BLML about the definition of a convention. After months of debate and the contributions of quite a few good ideas, a perfect definition was never found.

But defining every bid as a convention is not a solution. At the very least, bids which are natural and non-forcing and don't carry a message about some other suit (a NT bid may carry a message about an unbid suit) are not conventional. Also passes which show weakness or nothing more to say, and penalty doubles and redoubles, are not conventional.

Beyond these basic categories, YMMV.

[fromageGB]

I think a convention is a rose.

[aguahombre]

 fromageGB, on 2014-January-18, 08:06, said:

I think a convention is a rose.

It was, until this thread arose.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2014-January-17, 19:05, said:

About 20 years ago there was a discussion on BLML about the definition of a convention. After months of debate and the contributions of quite a few good ideas, a perfect definition was never found.

This is probably one of the reasons they removed the word from the 2007 Laws. "partnership agreement" and "partnership understanding". The strength of 1NT opening is something members of a partnership are expected to agree on; whether you call it a "convention" is immaterial.

There seems to be something distinctive about some agreements, or classes of agreements, that warrants giving names to them. What other word do we have to refer to these other than "convention"? Blackwood is a convention, which encompasses a series of artificial bids. And I would maintain that "Strong NT", 'Weak NT", and "Mini NT" are conventions, referring to a set of NT opening ranges, and by implication the ranges of other bids, and the likely shapes implied by other bidding sequences.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2014-January-19, 14:13, said:

And I would maintain that "Strong NT", 'Weak NT", and "Mini NT" are conventions, referring to a set of NT opening ranges, and by implication the ranges of other bids, and the likely shapes implied by other bidding sequences.

Every bid indicates range and a shape different from all other bids. If it pleases you to call them all conventions, by all means do so. But don't be surprised if misunderstandings arise due to other people's use of the more popular meaning of the word.

[Cthulhu D]

I think Australia has more system variation, and 'standard Australian' is much more ill defined. Unlike Vampyr even when I play pretty good players, I regularly have all the following systems described to me as 'standard' and all of the systems people play with 5 card majors haven even more hilariously been described as 'standard american'

5 card majors, strong NT, 3 weak twos.

5 card majors, strong NT, 2D = Multi, 2H & 2S = M+m 2NT = C + D (repeatedly referred to as 'standard american' and 'SAYC' despite the fact that I think a big chunk of that is banned in many US tournaments)

5 card majors, weak NT, various random 2 level openings

4 card majors, weak no trumps with benjaminized twos or an artificial 2C and 3 weak twos or with a multi or with other random stuff

People shouldn't call things names that range from unhelpful to blatantly misleading, so I try and avoid using any system names when saying what I play.

[blackshoe]

The dictionary definition of "convention" is "agreement as to meaning". Since the language of bridge is a constructed language, rather than a natural one, all calls are technically conventions. Unfortunately, that's not very helpful in distinguishing between certain groups of calls. So we tried a "bridge" definition of "convention" - which, again unfortunately, boils down to "I can't really define it, but I know one when I see one". Also not helpful, so now we're trying something else. Maybe someday we'll come up with a satisfactory solution, maybe not. Personally, I'm not holding my breath.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2014-January-19, 15:36, said:

Every bid indicates range and a shape different from all other bids. If it pleases you to call them all conventions, by all means do so. But don't be surprised if misunderstandings arise due to other people's use of the more popular meaning of the word.

OK, then what do you call agreements about natural bids that are worthy of being named? 5-card Majors, Weak NT, Inverted Minors, for instance?

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2014-January-21, 02:14, said:

OK, then what do you call agreements about natural bids that are worthy of being named? 5-card Majors, Weak NT, Inverted Minors, for instance?

See post 58. Although "agreements" or "methods" would work too.