[mich-b]

A pair around here plays a system which is essentially natural 2/1 , but by agreement , with a balanced hand outside the 1NT range, with exactly 7 cards in the minors (4-3 or 5-2) they open in the short minor.
So with 4243 they open 1♣, with 3325 they open 1♦, with 3442 they open 1♦ etc...

In the WBF regulations I found:
**********************************************
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.
************************************************

It seems to me that this pair's system falls under (4) and (5) in the above regulations, and should be classified as HUM (which means it will be disallowed it most events here and in most EBL and WBF events). Yet , this pair tells me that a European International TD approved their system as non-HUM. Was he wrong?

And , if the pair open the short minor only with 4-3 , but the longer with 5-2, I think this will make their system non-HUM. Am I right?

[helene_t]

It is certainly not a 4) HUM since a minor suit opening could show anything from 2 to 13 cards in that suit. It would be a 4) HUM if it could be a singleton or 3+ but never a doubleton.

5) is difficult to interpret since literally any natural system with a 2+ 1♣ opening would be a 5) HUM in that you either have 3+ clubs or 3+ in some other suit. Obviously that is not what is meant. What is meant is that you can't play a 1♥ opening as 5+ hearts or 5+ spades. You can play 1♣ as 4+ clubs or 4+ spades, though, as some Dutch club players do, playing 5443. Why that is allowed I don't know. Maybe because "length" here should read 5+. Maybe because as long as it shows 2+ in the opening suit it is a semi-natural bid. Maybe just because there is an implicit exception for all systems that are popular among ordinary club players?

My opinion would be that this is ok since it is no more confusing than phony club. But WBF really needs to clarify what this 5) criterion means:
- Spell out what "length" and "shortness" means.
- Spell out what "another" means. Is is a specific other suit, or just any other suit?
- Provide some examples of agreements that are close to the borderline, state if they are (dis)allowed, and why.

[mich-b]

This is also from the WBF regulations:

************************************************
Length three cards or more
Shortage two cards or less
************************************************

The link to the regulations is:
http://www.worldbrid...tems/policy.asp

And, I could not find in those regulations, anything that allows a 1-minor opening (in non strong ♣/♦ system) to show 2+ cards without the system being considered HUM. Though I would not think they actually meant a natural 5542 system to be classified as HUM.

[gwnn]

there was a minor flamewar about this a while ago

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=27070

[paulg]

I would judge that the system is not a HUM, but it is close.

If the system were described as:

1♣ is either natural or a balanced hand with longer diamonds
1♦ is either natural or a balanced hand with longer clubs

then I would rule it is a HUM. However, the fact that the 1♣ opener can have longer diamonds only when holding 7 minor cards, but it could be a balanced hand with longer clubs when you only have 6, suggests to me that it would be treated as

1♣ is either natural or a balanced hand
1♦ is either natural or a balanced hand

but subject to full disclosure.

Asking the EBL or WBF is the best policy. I've found that asking Anna Gudge for assistance can also speed up EBL decisions.

Paul

[bluejak]

Suppose you play modern 5-card majors, whereby 1♣ shows 2+, 1♦ shows 4+. Why is that not HUM? presumably because

Quote

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

is held not to apply. But it is not clear why, since 1♣ shows length in clubs, or diamonds, or hearts, or spades.

But whatever the basis for that, the same applies to the system in the OP, so if the standard approach is not HUM, the approach in the OP is not HUM.

[paulg]

bluejak, on Mar 9 2010, 02:29 PM, said:

Suppose you play modern 5-card majors, whereby 1♣ shows 2+, 1♦ shows 4+.  Why is that not HUM?  presumably because

Quote

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

is held not to apply. But it is not clear why, since 1♣ shows length in clubs, or diamonds, or hearts, or spades.

As does a natural 1NT.

[mycroft]

short summary of flamewar:

Example: Suspensor. 1S shows 2 or fewer, or 6 or more, spades, but not 3 to 5.

The WBF wanted to restrict that, so they wrote the "shortness or length" regulation. Yes, you can read it as "can't be a continuous range that includes both 'shortness' and 'length'", but that's infeasible given what "everybody" plays. So, they must have meant the above instead.

[barmar]

bluejak, on Mar 9 2010, 09:29 AM, said:

Suppose you play modern 5-card majors, whereby 1♣ shows 2+, 1♦ shows 4+. Why is that not HUM? presumably because

Quote

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

is held not to apply. But it is not clear why, since 1♣ shows length in clubs, or diamonds, or hearts, or spades.

But whatever the basis for that, the same applies to the system in the OP, so if the standard approach is not HUM, the approach in the OP is not HUM.

I assume "length in one specified suit or length in another" is meant to be interpreted as "length in one specified suit or length in another specified suit". Since the other suit in your example is not specified, it doesn't match that case.

[mich-b]

barmar, on Mar 10 2010, 01:48 AM, said:

bluejak, on Mar 9 2010, 09:29 AM, said:

Suppose you play modern 5-card majors, whereby 1♣ shows 2+, 1♦ shows 4+.  Why is that not HUM?  presumably because

Quote

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

is held not to apply. But it is not clear why, since 1♣ shows length in clubs, or diamonds, or hearts, or spades.

But whatever the basis for that, the same applies to the system in the OP, so if the standard approach is not HUM, the approach in the OP is not HUM.

I assume "length in one specified suit or length in another" is meant to be interpreted as "length in one specified suit or length in another specified suit". Since the other suit in your example is not specified, it doesn't match that case.

Yes, however in the OP system , 1♣ shows either length in ♣ (3+) or length in ♦ (5+).

[helene_t]

I would think that a 1♦ opening showing 5+ diamonds, 5+ hearts or 5+ spades would be a HUM.

I would think that 1♣ opening showing 4+ clubs or 4+ spades would not be a HUM. Nor would a 1♣ opening showing 3+ clubs or 3+ spades. At least as long as the system is "fairly natural", whatever I mean by this.

IOW I don't think it is important whether "another" means "a specified other" or "a non-specified other" or "another, whether specified or not".

I think what is important is the length specified (5+? 4+ 3+) and/or what negative inference can be made. And whether it specifies some length (2+? 1+?) in the opening suit.

Just a random guess. Obviously nobody knows what the definition means.

[bluejak]

mich-b, on Mar 10 2010, 08:46 AM, said:

barmar, on Mar 10 2010, 01:48 AM, said:

bluejak, on Mar 9 2010, 09:29 AM, said:

Suppose you play modern 5-card majors, whereby 1♣ shows 2+, 1♦ shows 4+.  Why is that not HUM?  presumably because

Quote

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

is held not to apply. But it is not clear why, since 1♣ shows length in clubs, or diamonds, or hearts, or spades.

But whatever the basis for that, the same applies to the system in the OP, so if the standard approach is not HUM, the approach in the OP is not HUM.

I assume "length in one specified suit or length in another" is meant to be interpreted as "length in one specified suit or length in another specified suit". Since the other suit in your example is not specified, it doesn't match that case.

Yes, however in the OP system , 1♣ shows either length in ♣ (3+) or length in ♦ (5+).

Surely it shows length in clubs or diamonds or hearts or spades?

If you open 1♣ on a most balanced hands some of them will be 4+ in a major, surely?

Perhaps a different way of looking at it is that you are wrong when you say it shows 5+ ♦. I would agree it was HUM if it did, but the OP says it can be 5 ♦s 'in a balanced hand'.

I really do not see the difference between opening 1♣ with all balanced hands which do not have four ♦s and all balanced hands with a different rule.

[FrancesHinden]

helene_t, on Mar 9 2010, 10:15 AM, said:

Maybe just because there is an implicit exception for all systems that are popular among ordinary club players?

Seems to me to be the reason

[dburn]

helene_t, on Mar 9 2010, 05:15 AM, said:

It is certainly not a 4) HUM since a minor suit opening could show anything from 2 to 13 cards in that suit. It would be a 4) HUM if it could be a singleton or 3+ but never a doubleton.

5) is difficult to interpret since literally any natural system with a 2+ 1♣ opening would be a 5) HUM in that you either have 3+ clubs or 3+ in some other suit. Obviously that is not what is meant. What is meant is that you can't play a 1♥ opening as 5+ hearts or 5+ spades. You can play 1♣ as 4+ clubs or 4+ spades, though, as some Dutch club players do, playing 5443. Why that is allowed I don't know. Maybe because "length" here should read 5+. Maybe because as long as it shows 2+ in the opening suit it is a semi-natural bid. Maybe just because there is an implicit exception for all systems that are popular among ordinary club players?

My opinion would be that this is ok since it is no more confusing than phony club. But WBF really needs to clarify what this 5) criterion means:
- Spell out what "length" and "shortness" means.
- Spell out what "another" means. Is is a specific other suit, or just any other suit?
- Provide some examples of agreements that are close to the borderline, state if they are (dis)allowed, and why.

This regulation is beyond all reason - for example, if your partnership agreed not to open any balanced hand below a 13-count, you would in the real world be exercising your judgement, but in the WBF world be playing a HUM by point [1] of the regulation. That point is self-contradictory in any event: if an opening pass may be "any 0-3 or any 13+", then it does not show at least the values for an opening one-bid, so would not be a HUM under the very regulation that tries to classify it as one.

Moreover, an opening bid of 1♣ that shows 2+ clubs most certainly is a "4 HUM", since it shows either long clubs (which the WBF defines as 3+ clubs) or short clubs (which the WBF defines as 2- clubs). Max Bavin once explained to me why the regulation does not actually mean this; I have forgotten what he said, but perhaps it made sense at the time (or perhaps there is some WBFLC minute to the effect that the Committee did not intend what the Committee had actually written).

The trouble is, of course, that it is very difficult to put into words what is actually intended without creating some obvious absurdities.

You could probably deal with point [1] by saying that "your system is a HUM if your partnership agrees that a pass can be based on the intention to initiate a constructive auction, even if the pass can also be based on weaker hands".

Point [2] is probably all right as it stands (at least, in its intent), and so is point [3].

Point [4] could perhaps be addressed thus: "any opening bid at the one level that can be based either on a balanced hand or on 4+ cards in the suit bid is not considered part of a HUM; otherwise your system is a HUM if your partnership agrees that an opening bid of one of a suit leaves doubt as to whether you wish to suggest that the suit be trump or whether you wish to suggest that the suit not be trump". That would at any rate handle Suspensor, and it would probably allow people still to play canapé.

Point [5] could perhaps be similarly addressed: subject to the preamble to point [4], "your system is a HUM if your partnership agrees that an opening bid of one of a suit leaves doubt as to whether you wish to suggest that the suit be trump, or whether you wish to suggest that some other specified suit be trump".

That is the best I can do after thinking about this for an hour. I do not propose to think about it any longer, but probably there are still vast gaps in what I have suggested. I confess that my heart isn't really in it - I think that people should be allowed to bid what they like, and if other people moan about how hard it is to defend against people bidding what they like, they should take up chess. But if there's one thing I really hate, it's rules that don't mean what they say.