[helene_t]

barmar, on Sep 17 2009, 04:19 PM, said:

Isn't the real intent of this rule to describe "forcing pass" systems in a more generic way? Or is that addressed elsewhere in the regulation?

The intent is indeed to describe strong-pass systems.

You can play Lorenzo (pass=8-11, with 0-7 you have to preempt, even on a 4-card), although that isn't allowed under EBU regulations (level 4).

[barmar]

helene_t, on Sep 17 2009, 11:50 AM, said:

barmar, on Sep 17 2009, 04:19 PM, said:

Isn't the real intent of this rule to describe "forcing pass" systems in a more generic way?  Or is that addressed elsewhere in the regulation?

The intent is indeed to describe strong-pass systems.

You can play Lorenzo (pass=8-11, with 0-7 you have to preempt, even on a 4-card), although that isn't allowed under EBU regulations (level 4).

The way you describe it:

0-7 = preempt
8-11 = Pass
12+ = bid at the 1 level
(I'm ignoring strong openings, which are probably irrelevant)

This doesn't fit the description of pass being stronger than a 1-level opening, it's just stronger than a preempt.

[Cascade]

Blue Uriah, on Sep 17 2009, 11:04 PM, said:

Cascade, on Sep 17 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

Say Not Vulnerable 3rd seat I would PASS systemically with ♠ KJx ♥ Kxx ♦ QJx ♣ Jxxx but would open systemically 1♥ with ♠ xx ♥ AKQxx ♦ xxx ♣ xxx.  The existence of a hand that I would open with 9 HCP and one that I would PASS with 11 HCP.

Doesn't this mean that, according to your system, you deem the first hand to be weaker than the second hand? It may have more HCP but you don't think it's good enough for a third seat opening, whereas you do think the second hand is.

I think the word 'may' in the regulations is intended to stop systems such as 1♣ showing either 0-2 or 16+, with Pass showing 3-9 or whatever. Here, the opening bid "may" be weaker than pass. It's not true that it "must" be weaker than pass and it's also not true that it "is usually" weaker than pass.

1. No that is not what I think. The term "weak" is defined in the WBF regulations as "high card strength below that of an average hand". I would have thought that therefore the term "weaker" with simply a suffix added was being used in this defined sense.

2. I understand how an opening 0-2 or 16+ may be weaker than PASS but that case is clear. However that system is a HUM because there is an opening that maybe made with values a king or more below average strength.

I was more wondering what sort of system complies with openings 8+ HCP and yet has a bid that maybe weaker than PASS. There is actually an upper constraint on the PASS too as the regulations elsewhere classify a strong PASS - at least the values generally accepted for an opening bid of one - as HUM.

[campboy]

helene_t, on Sep 17 2009, 04:50 PM, said:

You can play Lorenzo (pass=8-11, with 0-7 you have to preempt, even on a 4-card), although that isn't allowed under EBU regulations (level 4).

I think this falls foul of #1, so is a HUM.

[Cascade]

campboy, on Sep 18 2009, 07:04 AM, said:

helene_t, on Sep 17 2009, 04:50 PM, said:

You can play Lorenzo (pass=8-11, with 0-7 you have to preempt, even on a 4-card), although that isn't allowed under EBU regulations (level 4).

I think this falls foul of #1, so is a HUM.

I would not have thought that 8-11 was "values generally accepted for an opening bid of one".

Here is the complete HUM regulation.

2.2 HUM Systems

For the purpose of this Policy, a Highly Unusual Method (HUM) means any System that ex­hib­its one or more of the following features, as a matter of partnership agreement:

1. A Pass in the opening position shows at least the values generally accepted for an opening bid of one, even if there are alternative weak possibilities

2. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass.

3. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength.

4. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit

5. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length in one specified suit or length in another.

EXCEPTION: one of a minor in a strong club or strong diamond system

[awm]

I agree with Trinidad's definition. The idea is that given two hands with the same distribution, if we would pass the stronger one and open (one-level) on the weaker one, then it's HUM.

For example, suppose we play that a 1NT opening is either 8-9 hcp or 15-16 hcp, balanced. Hands with 12-14 hcp balanced open one of a suit. Hands with 10-11 hcp balanced PASS. Otherwise our openings are fairly standard.

This does not fit any of the other HUM definitions -- pass doesn't show the values commonly accepted for a bid of one, 8 hcp hands are not a king or more below average strength, and all our openings are natural.

Yet it is the case that there are hands we would open 1NT (balanced 8-count) but replace a small card with a king in the same suit and the hand becomes a pass. So this would be a HUM.

When two hands have wildly different distribution, it's really a matter of judgment which is the "weaker one" and you can find many cases in very standard systems where a hand with one distribution opens and an (arguably) stronger hand with a different distribution passes. I don't think this should be considered HUM. I don't think Cascade's system is HUM.

[bluejak]

helene_t, on Sep 17 2009, 04:50 PM, said:

You can play Lorenzo (pass=8-11, with 0-7 you have to preempt, even on a 4-card), although that isn't allowed under EBU regulations (level 4).

To compensate you can play my 1♠ opening at Level 4, and that is indeed a HUM!

[jallerton]

EBU Orange Book said:

11 C 10 Minimum opening bid strength in third and fourth seat
The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is 8 HCP.

11 C 17 Other permitted agreements
Stevenson 1♠
This shows a hand with Clubs or Diamonds the longest suit.

So is it permitted at EBU Level 4 for a partnership to agree to open 1♠ in 3rd position on all of the following hands?

♠Q32 ♥Q32 ♦Q32 ♣Q432
♠Q32 ♥Q32 ♦Q432 ♣Q32
♠Q ♥Q432 ♦Q5432 ♣Q32
♠Q5432 ♥Q ♦Q ♣Q65432
♠none ♥QJ432 ♦QJ ♣Q65432
♠QJ432 ♥none ♦Q65432 ♣QJ

If so, it this permitted because Opener is deemed to be bidding constructively, or because a pre-emptive opening bid which can have 0,1,2,3,4 or 5 cards in any of the 4 suits is deemed to be easy to defend against?

By contrast, as I understand it, a partnership is not permitted to agree to open a natural 1♠ on:

♠A1098765 ♥K109876 ♦ none ♣ none