[blml] convention

[Wayne Burrows]

On 19/12/06, Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no> wrote:
>
> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau
> .........
> > I don't think "the primary nature of the call" can be well-defined or
> > gets us anywhere.  We can solve the dilemma far more simply just by
> > recognizing that a conditional qualification to a statement carries a
> > meaning that is "in addition to" the statement itself.  4S over 1S
> > carries the meaning, "I am willing to play in 4S, period", and is
> > non-conventional.  2S over 2D carries the meaning, "I am willing to
> > play in 2S only if that is your suit", which is a different message,
> > and, by virtue of the added meaning (i.e. the qualification), a
> > conventional one.
>
> Somehow you have made my point precisely in (at least) two different
> posts.
> I have tried to show the ridiculous results from reading only a part of
> the
> "conventional" definition. If we are satisfied with the "willingness to
> play" clause in this definition then 2S over multi 2D would be not
> conventional, which that bid indeed is.
>
> We have a similar situation with the 5H bid under discussion: It may be
> argued that it "shows strength", but the fact is that it conveys another
> meaning as well: The possession of a particular and identified card. And
> this additional meaning is not covered by any of the three fundamental
> meanings, at least one of which is required for each meaning that is
> conveyed by a call for that call to be classified as not conventional.
>
> Grattan formulated this very well in one of his posts.


The difference is this:

The other meaning you ascribe to 5H is that it shows an ace and an ace is a
subset of high-card strength;

The 2S bid showing willingness to play in spades has another meaning
invitational or better in hearts (or something similar).

Sven I have two questions:

1.  What is a bid in common use that shows high-card strength in a
denomination but does not show length or willingness to play in the
denomination?  In other words what were the law makers intending to be
covered by the 'high card strength' clause?

2. Do you agree by your logic that five-card majors are conventional since
they have another meaning additional to showing length - that length must be
five or more cards.

Wayne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061219/147d8f74/attachment.htm