[blml] convention

[Wayne Burrows]

On 17/12/06, Laszlo Hegedus <hegelaci at cs.elte.hu> wrote:
> Wayne Burrows wrote:
>
> >
> >An interesting argument Eric.
> >
> >We can apply the same reasoning to "length" or "willingness to play".
> >
> >"I have specifically the ace" is a subset of "I have high-card strength".
> >
> >"I have a five-card major" is a subset of "I have length"
> >
> >"My longest suit is spades and I am willing to play there"  is a
> >subset of "I am willing to play in spades".
> >
> >Are five-card majors conventional?
> >
> >I think "high card strength" includes cue-bids that show a high-card
> >(specific or not) in the suit bid.  A response to a specific ace-ask
> >is just a species of cue-bid.
> >
> >Wayne
> >
> >
> >
> 1H-2D
> 2N-3H
> 3S-4C...
>
> Playing 2/1, 3H assigns hearts as trumpsuit. 3S and 4C are both cuebids
> (first or second roud). Do you mean that
> 3S is not conventional (surely Ace or King of spades);
> 4C is conventional (maybe shortness)?
>

That is exactly what the definition says:

3S shows high-card strength in spades therefore is not conventional
4C could be a shortage so does not show high-cards strength therefore
is conventional (nor does it offer to play or show length).

Grattan has hinted that the definition is supposed to mean something
else but he has not explained exactly what that something is.  Others
to have dismissed this as flawed logic but have not as far as I have
seen produced an arguement except one that requires you to accept that
an ace is not "high-card strength" - presumably they would extend that
logic to cue-bids that show an ace or a king.

Wayne