[mgoetze]

I'm trying to understand this definition better:

Quote

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:

• 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
  
• By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass.
  
• By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength.
  
• By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit
  
• 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

In Polish Club, a 1♣ opening has several possible meanings, two of which are (a) 18+ points with 5+ hearts or (b) 18+ points with 5+ spades, e.g. it shows "length in one specified suit or length in another". The German Bridge Federation has specified "strong club or strong diamond system" in such a manner that Polish Club does not qualify. Is Polish Club therefore a HUM?

[gwnn]

Quote

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

To me, this is quite clear: it refers to bids which have exactly two meanings:

• length in suit X or
  
• length in suit Y

Your interpretation makes no sense to me, a polish club does not fit the above definition at all, because it does not show either length in hearts or length in spades. A polish 1♣ opener promises either length in hearts, or length in spades, or neither.

[paulg]

Polish Club is not a HUM but is a (WBF) category Red system.

The 1♣ opener does not specify length in any particular suit. It does include options that eventually show length in a suit, but this is not the same as guaranteeing length in one specified suit or another with the opening bid.

[mgoetze]

gwnn, on 2011-August-18, 06:23, said:

To me, this is quite clear: it refers to bids which have exactly two meanings:

• length in suit X or
  
• length in suit Y

Your interpretation makes no sense to me, a polish club does not fit the above definition at all, because it does not show either length in hearts or length in spades. A polish 1♣ opener promises either length in hearts, or length in spades, or neither.

OK, so the following bid would not qualify for a HUM: 1♣ showing any of (a) 9-12, 5+ spades; (b) 9-12, 5+ hearts; © 36-37 HCP balanced. Is that right?

[gwnn]

I'm not interested in these sorts of contorted arguments, sorry. Good luck.

[paulg]

One of Scotland's international pairs plays a home-grown system based on a Polish-style multi-way 1♣ opener combined with a 1♦ opener that promised 11-16 points with either 5+ clubs or 5+ diamonds. Technically this system is a HUM because the 1♦ opener meets the 'length in one suit or another' criteria and it is not within a strong club system.

However, when we asked the WBF and EBL Systems Committees about this, they said that it was similar to Carrot Club and it was not regarded as a HUM.

So even when you are playing a HUM, if it is similar to well-known methods it is certainly worth asking the authorities for clarification.

[Zelandakh]

I suspect you are misreading the regulations mgoetze. Polish Club is legal because it comes under the heading of "natural or balanced or strong" - no other suit is specified. Your system would be HUM because it is "hearts or spades or strong + balanced". However, if you changed it to "9-12, 5+ hearts or 18+ any" then it should be legal, even though your 18+ hands might be based on spades/clubs/diamonds.

[mgoetze]

Zelandakh, on 2011-August-18, 06:49, said:

I suspect you are misreading the regulations mgoetze. Polish Club is legal because it comes under the heading of "natural or balanced or strong" - no other suit is specified.

OK, how about this: I have played Polish Club with a 2♦ opening as "weak 2 in hearts or any strong hand with primary diamonds". Thus my 1♣ opening was "natural or weak balanced or strong balanced or strong spades or strong hearts or strong clubs". Was I playing a HUM?

[Zelandakh]

mgoetze, on 2011-August-18, 06:59, said:

OK, how about this: I have played Polish Club with a 2♦ opening as "weak 2 in hearts or any strong hand with primary diamonds". Thus my 1♣ opening was "natural or weak balanced or strong balanced or strong spades or strong hearts or strong clubs". Was I playing a HUM?

No, not as I understand the regulations.

[mgoetze]

Zelandakh, on 2011-August-18, 07:35, said:

No, not as I understand the regulations.

What I'd like to know is what leads to this understanding of the regulations. I'd be especially happy if you could show a connection to the actual text of the regulation.

[Zelandakh]

Look at the definition of a Red system:-
Red Artificial:
this category includes all artificial systems that do not fall under the definition of Highly Unusual Methods (HUM) systems [see definition below], other than Strong Club / Strong Diamond systems (see 'Blue').

Examples would be a system where one club shows one of three types - a natural club suit, a balanced hand of a specific range, or a Strong Club opener; or a system in which the basic methods (other than the no trump range) vary according to position, vulnerability and the like; or a system that uses conventional 'weak' or 'multi-meaning' bids (with or without some weak option) in potentially contestable auctions, other than those described in the main part of the WBF Convention Booklet
--

What this shows is that the strong hands are not to be lumped in as "showing another suit". In other words, those hands that qualify for a strong club opening can be removed from the description and if you are still showing 2 or more suits then you have trouble. Hence the Red category allows you to play such either-or systems so long as the weaker hands are not multi-suited. In particular, the first example here is clearly a direct reference to Polish Club and removing the diamond-based strong hands from this does not change the nature of the system.

[mgoetze]

Zelandakh, on 2011-August-18, 08:15, said:

What this shows is that the strong hands are not to be lumped in as "showing another suit". In other words, those hands that qualify for a strong club opening can be removed from the description and if you are still showing 2 or more suits then you have trouble.

Then why is this not stated as a rule or exception, rather than expecting people to abstract this out of an example (of something else!)?

Are you saying the following would not be a HUM?

1♣: 11-15 diamonds or 16+ clubs
1♦: 11-15 hearts or 16+ diamonds
1♥: 11-15 spades or 16+ hearts
1♠: 11-15 clubs or 16+ spades

How about this?

1♣: 11-21 any distribution
1♦: 11-21 any distribution
1♥: 11-21 any distribution
1♠: 11-21 any distribution

(Yes, the latter is somewhat facetious, but you're saying moving some hand types out to other parts of the system doesn't change the bid you moved them away from at all, aren't you?)

[semeai]

mgoetze, on 2011-August-18, 08:29, said:

Then why is this not stated as a rule or exception, rather than expecting people to abstract this out of an example (of something else!)?

For better or for worse, laws are often not to be interpreted strictly literally. In a sense, what is not HUM is simply what you can convince the relevant authorities is not HUM, with the written law as a starting point. This is evident in paulg's example of the non-HUM carrot club variant.

I have no relevant expertise, but I guess your "spades or hearts or 36-37 balanced" would likely be classed as HUM since the human you have to convince would not be fooled by the 36-37 balanced description.

Surely this leaves a gray area somewhere. Please don't next ask about "spades or hearts or 24+ balanced or 24+ 4441." I wouldn't be surprised, though, if just about any bid with two weak types and other strong types with the two weak types showing length in different suits would be decided to be HUM.

Quote

Are you saying the following would not be a HUM?

1♣: 11-15 diamonds or 16+ clubs
1♦: 11-15 hearts or 16+ diamonds
1♥: 11-15 spades or 16+ hearts
1♠: 11-15 clubs or 16+ spades

This certainly violates the "one suit or another" clause for not being HUM. I don't see an exception for strong hands.

The point you're getting at about describing a bid negatively by subtracting hand types (in a previous example, just diamonds removed from the strong hands, but here three suits) instead of positively by adding them is surely one of the aspects in system regulation that is most open to interpretation. It does seem, however, to be irrelevant for your example just above as it just flatly violates one of the clauses for not being HUM.

To close, here's a short example of positive/negative description and system regulations. For the ACBL general chart, if you define your weak 2 spades opener as necessarily unbalanced, that is likely fine. If you restrict it to exactly 5 cards, that is likely fine. If you require that there's no side 4 card heart suit, that is surely fine. If you combine all three of these, however (even the first two likely create a problem) you have 5 spades and 4+ minor, and are now playing a convention that is midchart I think.

[blackshoe]

mgoetze, on 2011-August-18, 08:29, said:

Then why is this not stated as a rule or exception, rather than expecting people to abstract this out of an example (of something else!)?

This is a question that only the people who wrote the regulation can answer.

[helene_t]

mgoetze, on 2011-August-18, 07:45, said:

What I'd like to know is what leads to this understanding of the regulations. I'd be especially happy if you could show a connection to the actual text of the regulation.

Sorry, that's impossible because the text is incoherent.

As so often in legal disputes (especially in countries with British law), it has to be settled with reference to legal traditions.

For example, a natural 5542 system is HUM according to the text because 1♣ shows length (3+) in either clubs or spades. But that it irrelevant. We all know that what is relevant is that nobody has ever been ruled against for playing 5542.

[FrancesHinden]

mgoetze, on 2011-August-18, 07:45, said:

What I'd like to know is what leads to this understanding of the regulations. I'd be especially happy if you could show a connection to the actual text of the regulation.

There isn't one. The regulation is badly written and interpreted along the lines of "we know it when we see it"; if you want to play something odd in an event using WBF rules you simply have to ask in advance.

Don't blame me, I didn't write the rules.