[paulg]

EarlPurple, on Aug 25 2008, 09:19 PM, said:

Technically according to the letter of WBF the 1♣ opening bid that promises an undisclosed 4-card major is a HUM but I'm not really sure they meant to include M.A.F which is so popular in the Netherlands. By the way I got it wrong when I said it was permitted in Norway. It is the Netherlands where this system is allowed at general level. At least it was back in 1998.

Would NBB really permit a HUM?

Is it an oversight by WBF to define this bid as a HUM.

By the way, Walddk's example uses pass as a special bid showing something so of course that comes under the normal blanket definition of a HUM.

Well you seem to have explained well why an NBO may permit HUMs - they are so popular that it is not highly unusual in their domain. For the same reason the Multi 2♦ is permitted (through a specific exception) in the 'world domain'.

HUMs are not equal when it comes to deciding whether they are easy or difficult to play against (which is what an NBO would consider). But they are all HUMs.

Paul

[jdonn]

You are in denial. It doesn't matter if it's popular in some circle or even some country, it doesn't matter if other systems have a nondescript opening bid that is allowed, and there was definitely no oversight in the definition of HUM. You originally couldn't believe this "fairly natural" method wasn't allowed, but then when told it wasn't at all natural said that "non-natural shouldn't mean HUM". I'll say it again, you are simply in denial. Your method is highly unusual. Sorry but get over it and learn to live with it.

[Trinidad]

EarlPurple, on Aug 25 2008, 04:19 PM, said:

Technically according to the letter of WBF the 1♣ opening bid that promises an undisclosed 4-card major is a HUM but I'm not really sure they meant to include M.A.F which is so popular in the Netherlands. By the way I got it wrong when I said it was permitted in Norway. It is the Netherlands where this system is allowed at general level. At least it was back in 1998.

Would NBB really permit a HUM?

Your system is definitely not allowed in NBB (Dutch Bridge League) competitions. However, the Dutch Bridge League allows bridge clubs to have their own systems policy. Therefore, I guess it may be possible to find a bridge club in The Netherlands where you can play your system.

Quote

Is it an oversight by WBF to define this bid as a HUM.

By the way, Walddk's example uses pass as a special bid showing something so of course that comes under the normal blanket definition of a HUM.

Obviously, Säffle Spader is a HUM. It is equally obvious that your system is a HUM.

In fact, the Säffle Spader system was developed because it was a major improvement over standard systems in constructive bidding. Säffle Spader gains because it is a more efficient system. It may well confuse unfamiliar opponents, but the gain comes primarily from the increased constructive efficiency and not from increased confusion. On top of that, it may be good to point out that the Swedish Säffle Spader players do everything possible to avoid confused opponents (because that is not the way they want to win).

On the other hand, your system comes with minimal improvement (at best) and a maximum of confusion. Seen in this light, your system is 'much HUMmer' than the Säffle Spader system. On top of that, it clearly fits the formal definition of a HUM.

Admittedly, WBF is not always 100% accurate or clear in their regulations. But believe me, categorizing your system as a HUM was not an oversight. I cannot imagine that anybody in the WBF would intend to categorize your system as 'not a HUM'.

Rik

[Walddk]

Excellent post, Rik!

[helene_t]

Trinidad, on Aug 26 2008, 10:31 AM, said:

Your system is definitely not allowed in NBB (Dutch Bridge League) competitions. However, the Dutch Bridge League allows bridge clubs to have their own systems policy. Therefore, I guess it may be possible to find a bridge club in The Netherlands where you can play your system.

Actually there are very few Dutch bridge clubs that explicitly state to deviate from NBB rules. (Exception: quite a few clubs allow a passed-out board to be reshufled in the first round).

Maybe more to the point, many clubs don't have TDs that are able to read the cryptic HUM definitions. And some players describe there agreements in such confusing terms that it would be difficult to say if they were HUM anyway.

I don't know if there is a significant difference between MAF and your system in this respect, nor do I know what would happen if someone complained to a qualified TD about your system (or about MAF). But as said, I think that if NBB considered MAF to be HUM we would have heard about it.

Obviously your 1♣ opening does promise length in either hearts or spades, so it seems very clear, from the HUM definition, that it is a HUM. The problem is, any system in which 1♣ promises 4+ clubs and/or 4+ spades would be a HUM as well, so clearly the definition is not to be taken literally. How it is to be interpreted I have no idea.

[FrancesHinden]

Quite of lot of countries permit methods which the WBF think are HUMs.
For example, I believe your system is legal in England, which allows

Quote

A 1D opening may be played to have any meaning, forcing or not, as long as this does not include unbalanced hands with 5+ Hearts or 5+ Spades (unless there is a minor suit of equal length or longer).

....

1♣ openings - basic
These may be played to have any meaning, forcing or not, as long as this does not include unbalanced hands with 5+ Hearts or 5+ Spades (unless there is a minor suit of equal length or longer).

[mycroft]

Cascade, on Aug 25 2008, 10:49 PM, said:

mycroft, on Aug 26 2008, 06:56 AM, said:

A continuum that happens to both be in length and shortage doesn't count.

Last I checked the subset of integers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 did not make a continuum.

My dictionary says that a continuum requires that between any two elements of such a set there is a third.

you're clearly not an Electrical Engineer, then.

I've spent the last X years of my life in the discrete world; terminology is redefined as appropriate. I hope my point was clear, anyway.

[EarlPurple]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 26 2008, 10:38 AM, said:

Quite of lot of countries permit methods which the WBF think are HUMs.
For example, I believe your system is legal in England, which allows

Quote

A 1D opening may be played to have any meaning, forcing or not, as long as this does not include unbalanced hands with 5+ Hearts or 5+ Spades (unless there is a minor suit of equal length or longer).

....

1♣ openings - basic
These may be played to have any meaning, forcing or not, as long as this does not include unbalanced hands with 5+ Hearts or 5+ Spades (unless there is a minor suit of equal length or longer).

I believe I looked at the EBU licensing agreements when I designed it and it came up as permitted, which is why I was surprised that it qualifies as a HUM by WBF standards.

I thought the purpose of WBF standards was to cover most bidding systems that are popular around the world, which is why Polish Club systems are permitted because they are popular in Poland. If MAF is very popular in the Netherlands then it should similarly come up as an exception.

Is there, by the way, a way of requesting to a WBF committee that a method should be categorised as not being HUM?

As for jdonn, I said the system is "natural" because generally it is, i.e. you bid when you have a normal-range opening hand and you open 1 of a major when you have 5 of them and 1NT with a balanced hand. So many systems have different "non-natural" meanings to 1♣ and 1♦ openings that I would not have considered my own variation any more non-natural than those.

Yes, the method is fairly unusual because it is not generally taught to beginners or intermediate learners, but why should that mean it is forbidden to play?

I don't know why you consider the system comes with a minimum of improvement and maximum of confusion. What is so confusing about 1♣ showing a 4-card major and 1♦ denying?

As for the benefit, it is obvious when you think of it that you find most major-suit fits. If the opening bid is 1♣, responder has a chance if allowed to respond 1♦ which shows a 4-card major somewhere and you can then find out if it's the same one. If responder has a 5-card major they bid it immediately and opener knows it is a 5-card suit and has no problems raising with 3. Over a 1♦ opening it is rare that responder would bother to show a 4-card major.

Yes, it is true you can't find every major fit. When the opening bid is 1NT (16-18 in the system the way I play it, 15-17 in MAF) and responder doesn't have the values to go to 2NT obviously you may miss a 4-4 major if responder passes. It is also not totally clear how the fit is always found after an opening major bid, particularly 1♥ where responder might have 4 or 5 spades for a 1♠ response.

I know that standard systems have nmf/checkback etc to find fits but finding out at the 1-level that the 1♠ response promises 5 can be very useful in continuing the auction, both with and without intervention.

The system is much simpler than MAF in that it doesn't go into a sequence of relays and transfers, although there is a generic pattern than a 2♣ response is artificial with game-invite values and 2♦ with game-forcing values (both of these are definitely permitted).

[NickRW]

EarlPurple, on Aug 24 2008, 04:29 PM, said:

A 1♣ opening bid that shows opening-bid strength (of limited range) and promises a 4-card major. (In our system it shows generally 13-17 but not balanced 16-17)

According to WBF 2.2.5 it might qualify thus:

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

But in reality it seems rather strange to qualify this bid as a HUM.

I kind of agree, even sympathise, with your feeling on the subject (given the latitude with which some other systems seem to be treated), but the letter of the WBF regs are plain enough - you're specifying length in spades or length in hearts - which is HUM.

Nick

[EarlPurple]

I agree.

But the spirit of the WBF rules is to give the opponents a chance to prepare a defence to the method.

As any opponent should already be prepared to hear a "phoney" 1♣ or 1♦ bid as part of a strong diamond/club system (whichever this isn't) they should easily be able to play the same defence against this bid, whatever they choose that to be. Most likely natural overcalls including 2 of the same bid and they may have methods to show two-suiters but they'd use the same ones.

When the rule says shows length in one of two suits, was it really intended to cover 4 card suits or was the real intention to mean longer suits and this sort-of got caught on the way?

Who would one approach that makes WBF regulations to request that such a bid be granted a lower-level licence because of the simplicity of preparing a defence to it?

[Cascade]

NickRW, on Aug 27 2008, 09:05 AM, said:

EarlPurple, on Aug 24 2008, 04:29 PM, said:

A 1♣ opening bid that shows opening-bid strength (of limited range) and promises a 4-card major. (In our system it shows generally 13-17 but not balanced 16-17)

According to WBF 2.2.5 it might qualify thus:

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

But in reality it seems rather strange to qualify this bid as a HUM.

I kind of agree, even sympathise, with your feeling on the subject (given the latitude with which some other systems seem to be treated), but the letter of the WBF regs are plain enough - you're specifying length in spades or length in hearts - which is HUM.

Nick

This is hard to swallow when another system that opens 1♣ to show the same length exactly four cards in spades or hearts or clubs (or diamonds) or unbalanced with clubs is not subject to the same criteria.

[Walddk]

EarlPurple, on Aug 27 2008, 12:12 AM, said:

Who would one approach that makes WBF regulations to request that such a bid be granted a lower-level licence because of the simplicity of preparing a defence to it?

I suggest John Wignall of New Zealand, chairman of the Systems Committee, by e-mail through the WBF secretariat at

Carolwbf1(at)aol.com
(Carol von Linstow)

I don't have John's e-mail address on hand, but this should work.

Roland

[peachy]

EarlPurple, on Aug 24 2008, 12:04 PM, said:

Note that the system is similar to this one:

http://web.inter.nl.....A.F/index0.htm

There is also a system whereby the 4 card major is shown by opening 1♦ http://www.bridgeclu...ude/Diamond.htm

These methods all qualify as HUM even though they are straightforward and fairly natural?

Clearly you knew yourself that system is _NOT_ "fairly natural". Why else would you post it in "Non-Natural System Discussion"? WBF regs appear clear to me and define this as HUM, but good luck in your efforts to change the regs.

[jdonn]

peachy, on Aug 26 2008, 07:51 PM, said:

EarlPurple, on Aug 24 2008, 12:04 PM, said:

Note that the system is similar to this one:

http://web.inter.nl.....A.F/index0.htm

There is also a system whereby the 4 card major is shown by opening 1♦ http://www.bridgeclu...ude/Diamond.htm

These methods all qualify as HUM even though they are straightforward and fairly natural?

Clearly you knew yourself that system is _NOT_ "fairly natural". Why else would you post it in "Non-Natural System Discussion"? WBF regs appear clear to me and define this as HUM, but good luck in your efforts to change the regs.

He thinks because the rest of the system is "fairly natural" he has carte blanche to not have to worry about what this bid means. Anyway I agree, anyone who wants to try to change the world, more power to them.

[helene_t]

EarlPurple, on Aug 26 2008, 09:14 PM, said:

If MAF is very popular in the Netherlands then it should similarly come up as an exception.

OK, maybe I should have used a softer phrasing. It is not very popular, nothing like Polish Club in Poland. But you will encounter MAF-like systems once in a while at minor tournaments.

BTW there is also a pair at our club here in Lancaster that plays a MAF-like system.

[hrothgar]

Couple quick comments here:

1. I really hope that the WBF doesn't go off and carve out any kind of special exception for this opening. I strongly prefer systems in which you have a fairly simple set of rules that are applied consistently rather than a 1001 special cases.

I would hope that the WBF had learned its lessons a year or so back after all the idiocy involving BSC overcalls of artificial 1♣/1♦ openings. (I seem to recall that Wignall stuck his foot in it that time arround)

2. As I've said several times before, I think that life would be a lot easier if the convention regulations were based on the set of hands shown by a given bid rather than the vocabulary used to describe said bids. I suspect that this type of system would be a bit more difficult to define and put into place. However, I also think that it wold be much more robust and unamiguous.

[rbforster]

Not to comment on the WBF rules, but these 1♣♦ openings would be legal at the lowest levels of the ACBL (who's known for restrictive rules on conventions). The ACBL allows 1m openings to mean anything you want as long as they promise 10+ points. As such, OP at least has a point that his bids are similarly (if not exactly) nebulous in the way of a precision 0+ 1♦ which are allowed at much lower (or all) levels.

[mycroft]

well, for precision 1D, not really - it could be 3325, even if, if it is 0 or 1, it promises at least one 4-card major. It could also be 1174. "promising at least one Major" is much *less* nebulous (and much less natural) than "denies 5M or 6C (unless diamonds longer)".

Matchpoint Precision had that in place - 1D promised a 4-card Major (they used 2m for long minors, and opened 1NT full-range, potentially "offshape", and *denying* a 4-card Major).

That doesn't mean that the argument doesn't hold, mind you.

[RichMor]

mycroft, on Aug 27 2008, 01:24 PM, said:

well, for precision 1D, not really - it could be 3325, even if, if it is 0 or 1, it promises at least one 4-card major.  It could also be 1174.  "promising at least one Major" is much *less* nebulous (and much less natural) than "denies 5M or 6C (unless diamonds longer)".

Matchpoint Precision had that in place - 1D promised a 4-card Major (they used 2m for long minors, and opened 1NT full-range, potentially "offshape", and *denying* a 4-card Major).

That doesn't mean that the argument doesn't hold, mind you.

It's been a long time, but I think I remember 'Matchpoint Precision' as using a natural 2♣ opening that denied a 4-card major and the traditional Precision 2♦ opening; 3-suited with short Diamonds.

So a 1♦ opening did not promise one or two 4-card majors.

I did play 'modified Matchpoint Precision' where 2♦ was natural with no 4-card major. Then a 1♦ opening did show one or two 4-card majors and did not promise any specific length in Diamonds.

I asked a few directors at Regionals if this was permissable under ACBL regulations and the answers I got was yes.

That was more that 10 years ago.

[EarlPurple]

hrothgar, on Aug 27 2008, 12:30 PM, said:

Couple quick comments here:

1. I really hope that the WBF doesn't go off and carve out any kind of special exception for this opening. I strongly prefer systems in which you have a fairly simple set of rules that are applied consistently rather than a 1001 special cases.

I would hope that the WBF had learned its lessons a year or so back after all the idiocy involving BSC overcalls of artificial 1♣/1♦ openings. (I seem to recall that Wignall stuck his foot in it that time arround)

2. As I've said several times before, I think that life would be a lot easier if the convention regulations were based on the set of hands shown by a given bid rather than the vocabulary used to describe said bids. I suspect that this type of system would be a bit more difficult to define and put into place. However, I also think that it wold be much more robust and unamiguous.

They may not make a special exception for this opening but may redefine the bid, eg allow the ACBL definition as a blanket or specify that "length in one of two suits" refers to 5-card or longer suits.

The set of hands shown by bids is often those with opening strength that isn't opened with one of the other bids, eg although the opening strength is generally 13-17, you wouldn't open a balanced 16-17 with it because you'd open that 1NT, and the lower limit can be a good 12 or even a very good 11, although many flat 12-counts will be passed according to the system.

A few posts ago someone mentioned "canape"-type hands like

KQxx x KQJxxxx x

Of course this hand has 11 points but is worth opening something, and the downside of a 1-level opening is that it is lacking in defensive strength that partner might expect, but the advantage of opening 1♣ on this hand means that you have now shown at least holding a 4-card major so you can happily go on bidding lots of diamonds later, eg if the bidding goes 1♥ by them, pass by partner and 4♥ by RHO, you might venture 5♦ due to partner's lack of double or 1♠ bid showing a likely lack of fit there. (Partner also had 2♠ available if he had a weak hand with lots of spades).

I don't know why you suspect the system is hard to put in place any more than any other system. The system was actually designed to be one of the simplest systems to learn.

Once you get into the mentality that a 1♣ opening doesn't show length in clubs and a 1♦ opening doesn't show length in diamonds, you obviously design some other meanings for the bids. Splitting them by showing and denying majors is one possible way.

The more "controversial" part of the system, and the part that is more restricted in the UK, are the opening bids of 2♣ and 2♦ which can both show strong or weak hands. They can also turn out to be one of the weaknesses of the system, but the strength generally lies with the bids that are opened more commonly. The 1♣ and 1♦ bids turn up a lot, the 2♣ and 2♦ bids far less frequently.