[blml] convention

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows
> > ...........
> >
> > Strength is measured in HCP, not in the existence of a particular honour
> > card.
> >
> 
> And this is decreed where?

Not in the laws, but since Culbertson days the strength of a hand has always
been a measurement where the combination of all high cards has been
expressed as a measurement of that hand. Currently the official" (if
anything can be called official in this matter) strength scale is based on
the scale Ace counts 4, King 3, Queen 2 and Jack 1.  
 
........
> > > A conventional pass is defined elsewhere.
> >
> > Where (in the laws)?
> 
> Yes see Law 30C "A pass is a convention if, by special agreement, it
> promises more than a specified amount of strength, or if it
> artificially promises or denies values other than in the last suit
> named"

Yes, you got me there.

> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > It does indeed! See the last clause in the definition of a Convention:
> >  However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a
> > convention.
> 
> IMO that is a wrong reading of this part of the definition.

That is where we disagree, but on the other side I believe I have got you
exactly where I wanted.

In my opinion all my examples are indeed "Conventional" although according
to your reading of the definitions (I believe) the consequence would be that
they are not.

Now back to the 5H bid we were discussing. The argument for this bid to be
not conventional was I believe that it showed "high card strength" in
Hearts.

My argument is that the bid does not only show strength, it shows a very
special strength, and that this difference is sufficient for the bid to be
considered a conventional bid.

I do not think we can get any further, but let me remind you (and others)
that the term "conventional" calls in bridge goes back to the days of
Culbertson and was originally reserved for calls that were not "according to
Culbertson" but even including some of Culbertson's conventions like the
takeout double over an opening bid.

And still the apparent intention with classifying certain calls as
conventional is the need for a distinction between "natural" calls and "not
natural" calls", a distinction that is impossible to establish universally
simply because what is "natural" in one environment may be highly unusual in
another. 

Thanks for the discussion

Sven