[blml] convention

[Tim West-Meads]

Sven wrote:
> > 
> > Can you just confirm that in your interpretation a 2H opening bid 
> > which
> > promises "two of the top three honours" (ie would not be opened with
> > AJxxxx) is conventional, as is an agreement that the minimum suit
> > quality requirement for a vulnerable 2H bid of KJTxxx (A76543 would 
> > not suffice) is also conventional?
 
> If the 2H opening bid could be made based solely upon the high card
> strength, i.e. for instance with AK and nothing more, then certainly 
> it would be conventional. 

Actually if the 2H bid promised "At least the HKQ, may have additional 
length/honours." it certainly WOULDN'T be conventional (Unusual, and 
probably useless, but not conventional).

> But the 2H opening bid primarily shows a
> six card suit with a certain strength. Showing the strength as such
> is not the (primary) feature of that bid.

When I agree to play sound weak 2s (promising at least two of the top 3 
honours) the honours are as integral to the bid as the agreed length, 
but you are missing the point.  If I play 2H as showing "at least 5H, an 
outside 4 card minor" then the "outside four card minor" is a meaning 
"other than" the allowable ones and 2H is conventional.
If you insist that *specific* agreements as to the nature of high card 
strength requirements are "other than HCS" you must apply the rule 
consistently.  Thus they are "other than" regardless of whether length 
is promised.  I, OTOH, treat such agreements as a *subset* of HCS - and 
thus permit any arrangements (except denials, obviously) as to honour 
holdings in the bid suit without ruling a bid conventional.

> If the meaning of the 5H bid had been "showing strength" I do not 
> quite understand why the same bid should not have been made with KJ in 
> Hearts? 

In exactly the same way that if I promise "two of top 3" I won't open on 
AJxxxx but will open on KQxxxx.  The precise strength of the former 
doesn't meet the agreed requirements of the partnership.

Tim