[blml] convention

[Wayne Burrows]

On 16/12/06, Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no> wrote:
> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows
> ...........
> > > > It shows high-card strength in hearts it is not conventional.
> > >
> > > No, that is precisely NOT what the 5H bid shows. A suit with KQJ is of
> > 50%
> > > greater strength than a suit with only the Ace. What the 5H bid shows is
> > > exactly the Ace of Hearts, not the high card strength in Hearts.
> > >
> >
> > Sven what you write implies that an Ace is not a high-card.
> >
> > Who cares whether there is a stronger (in terms of high-cards) suit.
> > That does not detract from the fact that showing an ace is showing
> > high-card strength.
>
> I could have agreed with you if the 5H bid showed at least 4 HCP in Hearts,
> or maybe even if it showed exactly 4 HCP in Hearts or something in that
> respect. The point is that the 5H bid does not show "strength" in Hearts, it
> shows a particular card. And that is not the same.

I don't follow your logic here at all.  Showing an ace in the suit
named is showing high-card strength in the suit named even if it is
particular strength.  There is nothing in the definition that says it
has to show general strength.  Showing an ace is a subset of all of
the agreements that would comply with the requirement to show
high-card strength.

>
> > By your reasoning the only sorts opening bids that show length in a
> > suit are like short club or diamond openings that show 3+ cards in the
> > suit bid.  Other bids like five-card majors or six-card weak twos or
> > seven-card pre-empts do not show length they show 5+ cards or 6 cards
> > or 7 cards respectively.  Even a 3+ card club might not show length by
> > your reasoning since it might exclude 9-card suits that open something
> > else.
> >
> > The definition says that if the bid shows high-card strength in the
> > suit then it is not conventional (unless there is some other meaning -
> > not willingness to play or length).  An ace is a particular sort of
> > high-card strength so showing that meets the requirement of a bid
> > showing high-card strength just as showing a five-card suit meets the
> > requirement of showing length.
>
> Can we agree that the definition of "Conventional" is flawed?

I am yet to be convinced of this.

>
> The opening call of PASS in a strong pass system is NOT conventional.

A conventional pass is defined elsewhere.

> The opening bid of 1C in a strong club system is NOT conventional.
> The opening bid of 2C (strong) in a natural system is NOT conventional.
> They all show "general strength"!
> The response 1D to an opening bid 1C in Vienna and the strength scale
> responses sometimes used to for instanced the strong 2C opening bid are NOT
> conventional. They show "general strength", namely strength within
> particular ranges.

The definition does not say that general strength does not make a bid
conventional.  If the bid doesn't show willingness to play in the
denomination, if it doesn't show high-card strength in the
denomination and if it doesn't show length in the denomination then it
is a convention.

1C strong, 2C strong and 1D (over 1C) weak are all conventional since
none of them show willingness to play or strength or length in the
named denomination.
>
> I cannot define a convention but I know it when I see it.
>

I doubt that many would accept this as a substitute for a definition.

Wayne