[Cthulhu D]

the hog, on 2013-November-19, 18:01, said:

No, you are wrong. According to a strict interpretation of the rules, it is a HUM.

I don't think that 1+ promises length or shortness - the intention is clearly to prohibit wonder bids or similar which, to my understanding were defined as 0-1 (maybe 2) or 5+ or similar. Length or shortness (to accept my view you have to agree that a three card holding is neither length or shortness, if you disagree you reach your conculsion)

However that doesn't matter really - the larger issue is that it is totally preposterous that the bid is treated as anything other than an artifical bid.

[fromageGB]

Don't agree.

Length is defined as 3+. Shortage is 2 or fewer. The relevant HUM definition is "shows either length or shortage". So it seems clear that a 1+ or a 2+ is a HUM. However, the quoted WBF notice makes this an exception, being designated natural (if non-forcing), and this seems right to me. If your methods apply length or strength constraints to certain bids in any natural system, then it is inevitable that other bids are affected. It does not make then unnatural, or artificial. For a bid to be artificial, there has to be more to its definition than "the definitions of other bids prevent me from opening anything else".

My own definitions of length and shortage are not those of the WBF, but I agree with the "natural" concept. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be alerted or announced.

[awm]

There may be a difference between what a bid "shows" and what a bid "might contain." For example, a natural 1♠ opening "shows" four or more spades. It "might contain" length or shortage in hearts, or really any number of hearts at all, but it would be nonsensical to claim that it "shows" length or shortage in hearts.

So the argument is that a bid like a matchpoint precision 1♦ "shows" an opening hand with no five-card major. It certainly "might contain" length or shortage in diamonds, but the bid is not really about diamonds at all and the claim that it somehow "shows" length or shortage in diamonds is equally valid with the claim that it "shows" length or shortage in clubs (in other words, not really).

The particular case under dispute is minor suit openings which "show" either the minor bid or a balanced hand. Again there is an argument that they "might contain" only two clubs, but they do not under any sense "show" a doubleton club. The WBF has ruled that these bids are not HUM (which I agree with) and that they are to be considered natural (which I find much more dubious).

Maybe another good example would be a 1♥ opening which "shows" four or more spades. Certainly this "might contain" length or shortage in hearts, but the bid is not about hearts so this is fine.

[mycroft]

I seem to be invisible. Probably because it's in people's best interests to read ambiguous regulations in ways they find either convenient or ludicrous. Note, I'm not saying that ridiculing ambiguous regulations so that lawmakers actually *fix them* to be unambiguous isn't a bad thing.

[Cthulhu D]

You're obviously right - though does the WBF ever publish anything about why they do stuff? The banned and restricted list in Magic: The Gathering is accompanied by regular news items on their website from the guy who makes the decisions that outline why things are being banned. Additionally the the list is regularly reviewed and cards are unbanned as possible to minimise the length of the banned list.

This is an effective process - has the WBF ever done something similar?

[rhm]

mycroft, on 2013-November-19, 17:19, said:

Also, anybody who uses the "AS AN EXCEPTION TO BSC, we will allow:" line to say "I don't see why if Multi is allowed, that X..." either hasn't read the regulation or is wilfully ignoring what's going on, or why it's an exception (or is pushing the argument because they want the exception removed for the Multi. I haven't found anybody doing it, but I have had people who didn't realize that that's the most likely result of trying to expand the exception). Having said that, I do believe that Wilkosz 2♦ is inherently more difficult to defend than even a mini-only Multi - For one thing, I'm going to pass with short diamonds and a potential major misfit as well as with long ones.

I am not sure what you are claiming here but I find your statement confusing.
At the table it is difficult to defend multi (mini-multi being probably more effective), because it is a preempt with no anchor suit shown by the opener, which opponents can exploit as a cuebid with strong hands. This is precisely the definition of Brown sticker.
As responder to a 2♦ opening when RHO passes, I see no good reason why I should bid on when broke and a misfit in one or both majors.
If white, I might initially pass even with some sort of fit if outgunned. Likewise as a responder I might pass a DBL of 2♦ when holding just 4 cards in diamonds. (Opener passes with three cards)
And by the way if I do have a misfit for one or both majors playing either multi or Wilkosz how likely is it that I am short in diamonds? I do not see the difference.
Both conventions are different, but both guarantee at least 5 cards in one major.
The tactic of passing 2♦ mini-multi much more readily and not disclosing our major, I learned from Woolsey. The opponents never know whether I am passing with the intention of playing 2♦ doubled or not.

Note, I am not in favour or disfavour of multi. I am just highlighting the inconsistency and contradictory behaviour of the rule-makers, who try to justify their decisions by splitting hairs.

Rainer Herrmann

[helene_t]

fromageGB, on 2013-November-20, 10:33, said:

Length is defined as 3+. Shortage is 2 or fewer.

In that case any opening in any system shows either length or shortness in any suit and would be a HUM. This might follow from literal interpretation of the HUM definition but it can't be the spirit of the law.

I always thought that what they had in mind was an opening bid that denies a doubleton, or denies a 3-card suit, or denies 2-3.

I am sure other interpretations are possible. Maybe it is implicit that the opening also has to be "artificial", whatever that means, i.e. a 1♠ opening that shows 5+ spades and also denies a doubleton hearts would not be a HUM? What do I know. It would really have been great if the people who wrote the definition had made it clear. From my work as a volunteer on some (not bridge related) legal committees I know that rules are sometimes made deliberately obscure in order to avoid settling a dispute within the committee.

In any case, any interpretation that cannot possibly have been the intention is not interesting. This is not to say that a definition that would make phony club a HUM can't have been the intention. Maybe it is implicit that any system that is played in our grandparents' kitchen is not a HUM, no matter what the law says.

[fromageGB]

helene_t, on 2013-November-22, 06:41, said:

In that case any opening in any system shows either length or shortness in any suit and would be a HUM. This might follow from literal interpretation of the HUM definition but it can't be the spirit of the law.

Sure, but I think you are interpreting "shows either length or shortage" as meaning "shows something that falls in one of these categories" whereas I interpret it as "may be long, or may be short, and responder does not know which. It could be either". A normal opening, say a standard spade, shows length. It does not show shortage. So it does not show length or shortage in my interpretation.

[Zelandakh]

fromageGB, on 2013-November-22, 06:53, said:

So it does not show length or shortage in my interpretation.

The point is that it shows length in spades but it shows length or shortage in the other 3 suits. Similarly, if you play a submarine opening of 1♥ as 5+ spades, this also shows length or shortage in hearts (and both minors). This would also make every strong club system a HUM.

[fromageGB]

Zelandakh, on 2013-November-22, 07:08, said:

The point is that it shows length in spades but it shows length or shortage in the other 3 suits. Similarly, if you play a submarine opening of 1♥ as 5+ spades, this also shows length or shortage in hearts (and both minors). This would also make every strong club system a HUM.

I was abbreviating the policy definition in my original post. In full, it is
"By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit"
The bid of 1♠ specifies the suit, and if it means "5+" the definition is not "either length or shortage in that suit".

Edit : I also did not give the WBF rider :
EXCEPTION: one of a minor in a strong club or strong diamond system

[helene_t]

so maybe a HUM is "an opening, other than a minor suit opening in a strong diamond or club system, which does not have an anchor (3+) suit" ?

Quite possible. That would make Polish Club a HUM, though .... unless the idea is that Polish Club counts as a "strong club system" for this purpose.

[mycroft]

rhm, on 2013-November-22, 06:26, said:

I am not sure what you are claiming here but I find your statement confusing.
At the table it is difficult to defend multi (mini-multi being probably more effective), because it is a preempt with no anchor suit shown by the opener, which opponents can exploit as a cuebid with strong hands. This is precisely the definition of Brown sticker.
[discussion about when to pass it elided]
Note, I am not in favour or disfavour of multi. I am just highlighting the inconsistency and contradictory behaviour of the rule-makers, who try to justify their decisions by splitting hairs.

I am not the rulemakers. But the rulemakers have stated that "AS AN EXCEPTION TO BSC, [Multi is allowed]" and it has been repeated in several places that the only reason for that exception is its history.

Not because of its difficulty (I put my comment about the fact that, because the 2♦ opener frequently has diamonds, it is safer to pass it on a "guess that's partner's second suit" than it is to pass it when there's no guarantee of a second suit, simply as a "in addition"), but because it had been played, at the highest and lowest level, regularly since 1950. Wilkosz is not, neither is (put your BSC of choice here), and trying to use the "Multi exception" to argue that this "sort of, kind of, not too much worse than, Multi" should therefore be allowed will have one of only two results - bad (from the POV of the weird bidders) - they deny it (with or without laughter) - and worse - they remove the exception for Multi.

It is because all of this information is public to the point of "you really should know it if you are anywhere near being able to make these suggestions" that I make the "wilfully ignoring" comment.

[rhm]

helene_t, on 2013-November-22, 08:07, said:

so maybe a HUM is "an opening, other than a minor suit opening in a strong diamond or club system, which does not have an anchor (3+) suit" ?

Quite possible. That would make Polish Club a HUM, though .... unless the idea is that Polish Club counts as a "strong club system" for this purpose.

As far as I know HUM applies only to weak openings promising less than an average hand.
Otherwise a strong 2♣ would be HUM.

Rainer Herrmann

[jfnrl]

[quote][/quoteAs far as I know HUM applies only to weak openings promising less than an average hand.
Otherwise a strong 2♣ would be HUM.
]
I'll write this post in the offici

[jfnrl]

sorry,
I 'll write this post in the official language of WBF, it's to say "poor english".
HUM policy concernes only pass and one level opening : 2C may be a BSC but not a HUM. If 2C promises 13HCP or more, it is not a BSC.
A one level opening (1X) with a 3 cards anchor suit is not a HUM if it promises 8 HCP or more and if pass is never stronger than pass.
Take a hand that you opens 1X and keep the shape (x spades, y hearts, z diamonds...) a

[jfnrl]

sorry again,
... and transform your small cards in honors. If by this operation, your hand becomes a hand to be passed, it's a HUM.
I do not know if this is true for a one of a minor in a strong club or strong diamond system (i.e. as an example : if 1C shows 15HCP+, are you allowed to confer to 1K the meaning of less than 8HCP ?).
It is not clear if, the WBF Systems Policy para 2.2, the exception concerns all the para or only point e), but I suspect last interpretation to be correct (previous system HUM).

[helene_t]

rhm, on 2013-November-23, 15:01, said:

As far as I know HUM applies only to weak openings promising less than an average hand.
Otherwise a strong 2♣ would be HUM.

The HUM definition applies only to 1-level openings.