[blml] convention

[Wayne Burrows]

On 20/12/06, Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no> wrote:
> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads
> .............
> > I know!  The bidding goes 1S-(1H).. "I'm sorry I thought he opened 1C"
> > and I, as TD, pick up the CC and say "Oh dear - I see you have agreed
> > that your vulnerable overcalls always show at least two honours in the
> > bid suit.  I'm afraid specific agreements about showing high-card
> > strength make the 1H bid conventional and your partner is barred
> > throughout - L27b."  Now I *know* that the pair is going to decide I'm
> > completely off my trolley - how on earth, they will say, can having an
> > agreement about suit quality make the bid conventional?".
>
> You are indeed off the trolley to use your own words. The overcall has
> already met the condition "willingness to play in that denomination", and
> the additional agreement on the suit quality does not make this call a
> convention. (Read the definitions again!)
>

Sven you cannot already meet the condition.  The condition requires
you to examine all requirements of the bid and see if any of those is
outside the three exceptions if so then the bid is conventional.

That is willingness to play is not enough you need no other meaning
outside those explicitly written in the definition.

If it was as you say then 2H = H+minor etc would be not conventional
since they show willingness to play in hearts.

> >
> > Sven meanwhile maintains that showing specific strength (e.g at least an
> > ace) is a meaning "other than" but showing specific length (ie 5+ rather
> > than 3+) is not - there is no consistency in that interpretation.
>
> And that is not what I maintain. The 5H bid does _not_ show "at least" an
> Ace; it shows exactly the Ace and does not care at all about the strength of
> the Heart suit.

So a 5H that shows at least the Ace would be ok?  That is what showing
the Ace means if you think about it.

>
> > Neither does it make sense to me when he talks of KJx having "equivalent
> > strength" to an Ace.  In the context of declaring 3N the latter holding
> > is, IMO, slightly stronger than stiff Ace while in the
> > context of trying to make a grand slam it is significantly weaker.
>
> Sure it is, and that is precisely why the 4NT bid asks for Ace(s) and not
> for strength. Even holding KQJT in hearts does not qualify for a 5H response
> to that 4NT bid so there cannot in any way be argued that the 5H bid "shows
> strength", it shows the Ace and nothing but the Ace - period.

In the same way Stayman does not ask for length it asks for a 4-card
major therefore you would argue that 2H/S rebids are conventional.
>
Wayne