[blml] convention

[Wayne Burrows]

On 16/12/06, Nigel <Guthrie at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> [John Probst]
> > 4N P 5H.  4N is direct Ace ask, not Black
> > Is 5H a conventional call? "...length or values...". The HA is values.
> >
> [nige1]
>
> IMO, if this is not a convention then the WBFLC definition of convention
> is flawed and needs to be clarified. To most players this 5H bid is
> *conventional* because its has meaning isn't obvious unless you've
> agreed it.
>

Yes you have agreed it.  But this is just the same as agreeing 1H (2C)
2D is natural and forcing or natural and not forcing.  Neither of
these are conventions IMHO according the law book definition but
either requires a special partnership agreement.

In the context that 4NT will be based on a hand with a strong long
suit a bid showing where your values are seems to me to be 'natural'.
A special agreement that this shows specifically an ace is no
different than a special agreement that is shows some other sort of
high-card values with respect to defining the bid as conventional or
non-conventional.

There are many many situations where I have special agreements with my
partner.  I find that that sort of approach to the game helps.  Some
of these are convention according to the law book definition some are
non-convention all are special agreements that might not be shared by
other players.  There are some situations analogous to the 4NT where
we make a cue-bid showing a control (high-card) without explicitly
agreeing a suit.  While these are non-conventional IMHO there are
certainly alternative and completely different non-conventional
agreements that a partnership could have.  This may make some
agreements even though non-conventional alertable but it doesn't make
them conventional.

Wayne