Talk:Byzantine Blackwood convention

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Contract bridge, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Contract bridge on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Contract bridgeWikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridgeTemplate:WikiProject Contract bridgeContract bridge articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WPCB banner

John plaut, I added the banner above. Artithicles with the banner do show up on some automatically-generated lists, and in some automatically-generated categories (see the Assessment section of WP:WPCB). But it does not help track new articles automatically, as far as I know. --P64 (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article and its title

Which so-called Blackwood conventions should be covered separately rather than as sections of Blackwood convention? Alternatively, which sections of the latter article should also be expanded as "main articles"? Do you know when this convention was invented? very early? does that make a difference?

The two-word name Byzantine Blackwood would be a good article title without the word "convention" (but it isn't worth changing). On the other hand, Cappelletti is likely to be renamed Cappelletti convention sometime. For more information see Category:Bridge conventions. --P64 (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also the draft policy at Convention articles in the WikiProject Contract bridge Manual of Style. Newwhist (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article etc

I agree that "convention" is redundant in the title of this article. I've never heard anyone call the convention anything other than "Byzo" (usually), "Byzantine", or (rarely) "Byzantine Blackwood". Also, and then again ... yet: I can't remember the last time I met anyone who played Byzo. Unless it was me and my then partner, 30 years ago?

I submit that the article should be merged into the main Blackwood article as a sub-section. It's a variant of EB's idea, in no way an independent one like some of the other 4NT conventions. Neato, but most likely obsolete.

Narky Blert (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that to bridge players, it is redundant. Not so sure if so for novice or non players. I do not have a personal preference on this except that I agree with the general writing style that "less is more". Looking at the contract bridge index, it seems that the majority of bidding conventions have "convention" in their article titles. In some cases, it is essential in differentiating the bridge article from another meaning of the term "convention", e.g. Copenhagen convention.

This discussion should be advanced at the appropriate project MOS page

Newwhist (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]