[blml] convention

[Grattan Endicott]

from Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
*****************************
"Never laugh at live dragons."
                     'The Hobbit'
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Willner" <willner at cfa.harvard.edu>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 3:37 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] convention


>
> > From: "Wayne Burrows" <wjburrows at gmail.com>
> (and Eric Landau agrees)
> > The definition does not say that general strength does not make a bid
> > conventional.  If the bid doesn't show willingness to play in the
> > denomination, if it doesn't show high-card strength in the
> > denomination and if it doesn't show length in the denomination then it
> > is a convention.
>
> I think that probably was the original intent, but it's not what the
> words actually say.
^^^^
+=+ No. The original intention was that if a call conveys a positive
message not within these areas it is a convention. If it is the case that
it also carries a message that does fall within these areas this does not
nullify its status as a convention. My notes on the discussions are quite
clear on this point.
       Concerning 5H my opinion is that it does show high card strength
but in parallel it conveys a second message about control of the suit.
This is not a willingness to play in the suit, nor is it length in the suit;
we
are left to consider whether this message is subsumed within 'high card
strength' - and in my opinion this second message is not about 'strength'.
Therefore, leaving to one side what may be desirable, I regard the bid
as technically conventional.
                                                     ~ Grattan ~   +=+