[blml] convention

[Wayne Burrows]

On 20/12/06, Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no> wrote:
> This posting was received directly from Wayne. I assume the reason for it
> not so far having reached blml is that Wayne sent it with html formatting
> rather than as plain text. Everybody should be aware that html formatted
> messages to blml will be held until a moderator has approved it.
>

Thanks Sven.  My mail is automatically using Rich Text and I am not
sure why.  I don't recall changing a setting.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wayne Burrows [mailto:wjburrows at gmail.com]
> Sent: 19. desember 2006 01:58
> To: Sven Pran; blml
> Subject: Re: [blml] convention
>
>
> On 19/12/06, Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no> wrote:
> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau
> .........
> 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;
>
> My comment: And Ace is a special sort of strength and explicitly showing an
> Ace cannot be considered showing strength as such.
>
> If the agreement were that the 5H bid shows strength it should have been
> made also with for instance KQ(x) or KJ(x) in Hearts. When this is not the
> case then that bid does not show strength, it shows a particular card; and
> that is an entirely different matter.

The above two paragraphs are Sven's.

I cannot see why you do not also use the analogous argument that
five-card majors don't show length - if they showed length they would
show three or more cards - 'five card majors don't show length they
show particular length'.

>
> 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?
>
> My comment: I cannot read the law makers' minds but I can immediately figure
> out one typical situation answering your major question:
>
> In a competitive auction a player bids opponent's suit to show sufficient
> strength in this suit so that they can play in NT if his partner covers the
> other unbid suits. (IMO this bid _is_ conventional!)

Ok.

> 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.
>
> My comment: Definitely not. A bid that by agreements must show a suit of
> length greater than the minimum specified for the bid to be a member of a
> certain class of bids is still a member of that class. (The situation would
> have been different had the class specified an exact length rather than a
> minimum length.)

So in your opinion a response to Stayman showing exactly four
hearts/spades ; a weak two showing exactly six-cards; a weak three
showing exactly seven cards are all conventions.  Is this correct?

> Compare this with a bid that by agreements shows a particular card. The fact
> that such bids cannot be made without holding the card in question even when
> the hand holds alternative cards with similar strength in the suit excludes
> such bids as members of the class of bids "showing strength".
>
> Such bids are instead members of the class of bids that show "particular
> cards".

We can easily make own classes that bids but that is irrelevant.  The
question we need to answer is does the bid have a meaning that does
not show high-card strength in the suit bid.  Please show us all a
hand that has the hA but does not have high-card strength in hearts?
I am curious.

Wayne