[avoscill]

I am trying to improve bidding strong hands by distributing them across the two level. Since they are so rare, I intend the two level opening bids to be ambiguous, that is, each having a weak option too. As I understand, this is permitted by the WBF regulations, as long as the weak option promises length in a known suit. What puzzles me is the following: What if I extend my ambiguous openings down to comprise the 1NT opening bid? The WBF Systems Policy says, in the paragraph 2.2 about HUM systems:

Quote

...a Highly Unusual Method (HUM) means any System that exhibits one or more of the following features, as a matter of partnership agreement:
...
b)By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass.
c)By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength.

In the system I'am working on, "Pass" denies, as is common, opening strength, but, since I would like the 1NT weak option to mean a weak two in clubs, "some" Passes may surely be stronger. Would this contraddict the above item (b)?

Item © is defined more clearly, and in absolute terms. Does it mean that my 1NT weak option may have a lower limit of 7 HCP (average strength minus a king)? This would suit me well.

I want to point out that, in building the bidding system, my guiding principles are rather constructive. And, as I understand, the true sense of WBF System's Policy is to avert systems which are overly destructive.

I would appreciate very much an explanation of the above cited laws of bridge concerning this question.

Thank you.

[pran]

avoscill, on 2014-February-20, 15:40, said:

I am trying to improve bidding strong hands by distributing them across the two level. Since they are so rare, I intend the two level opening bids to be ambiguous, that is, each having a weak option too. As I understand, this is permitted by the WBF regulations, as long as the weak option promises length in a known suit. What puzzles me is the following: What if I extend my ambiguous openings down to comprise the 1NT opening bid? The WBF Systems Policy says, in the paragraph 2.2 about HUM systems:



In the system I'am working on, "Pass" denies, as is common, opening strength, but, since I would like the 1NT weak option to mean a weak two in clubs, "some" Passes may surely be stronger. Would this contraddict the above item (b)?

Item © is defined more clearly, and in absolute terms. Does it mean that my 1NT weak option may have a lower limit of 7 HCP (average strength minus a king)? This would suit me well.

I want to point out that, in building the bidding system, my guiding principles are rather constructive. And, as I understand, the true sense of WBF System's Policy is to avert systems which are overly destructive.

I would appreciate very much an explanation of the above cited laws of bridge concerning this question.

Thank you.

Yes, if your agreements imply that you can have some hand with which you will pass in an opening position and some other hand(weaker in HCP) with which you would open at the one level then your system is HUM.

Item © will not help you. If you may open some hand at the one level with only 7 HCP then you are not allowed to pass in an opening position with any hand holding more than 7 HCP.

[helene_t]

I disagree. We have had this discussion before, though. Every non-walrus open some nine-counts and pass some eleven counts. Some play the minor suit openings sounder than the majors.
The test should be: is there a hand which you would pass but changing say a queen to a small card in the same suit would make you open it?

[pran]

helene_t, on 2014-February-21, 02:29, said:

I disagree. We have had this discussion before, though. Every non-walrus open some nine-counts and pass some eleven counts. Some play the minor suit openings sounder than the majors.
The test should be: is there a hand which you would pass but changing say a queen to a small card in the same suit would make you open it?

That is not what the regulation says.

But I agree that there are some "solid" 10 (or maybe even 9) HCP that justify opening at the one level while there are "lousy" 11 HCP hands that should be passed out.

Now, the OP question was if he could use the 1NT opening bid as a weak 2 in Clubs, and that agreement clearly makes his system HUM if there (by agreement) can exist any stronger hand with which he will not open.

[campboy]

What the regulation talks about is an opening 1-bid possibly being "weaker than pass". This is not the same as "weaker than some hand which would pass". What does pass show? 0-10 or so I suppose. So is a 7-count with six clubs "weaker than 0-10"? No. Not a HUM.

[helene_t]

If the director is a walrus you might get in trouble with opening 7-counts since they are a king weaker than 10-counts. Make your minimum for 1NT 8 or a good 7-count

[campboy]

Ah, yes, I hadn't bothered to check the arithmetic for 10-7 being more than 3

[paulg]

campboy, on 2014-February-21, 06:56, said:

What the regulation talks about is an opening 1-bid possibly being "weaker than pass". This is not the same as "weaker than some hand which would pass". What does pass show? 0-10 or so I suppose. So is a 7-count with six clubs "weaker than 0-10"? No. Not a HUM.

This interpretation does shows how hard it is to draft regulations. This interpretation would never occur to me and I agree with Pran that this 1NT opener is clearly a HUM.

[helene_t]

paulg, on 2014-February-21, 07:57, said:

This interpretation does shows how hard it is to draft regulations. This interpretation would never occur to me and I agree with Pran that this 1NT opener is clearly a HUM.

Well it may be difficult in some cases but in this case the definition is extremely cryptic without good excuse.

Playing classic Precision (no nebulous diamonds) without the forcing 1NT you might pass with Kxx-Kx-Qxx-KJxxx (too weak for a 13-15 1NT opening) but open 1♠ with KJxxx-Kx-Jxx-Kxx (satisfies the 11-15 criterion for 1♠). You might dislike that style but some people play it. And it was never the intention of the drafters of the WBF definitions to outlaw such styles.

avoscii's system is similar to that. You open onesuiters with clubs from (7)8 points and other hands from (10)12 or such. It is a bigger disparity than you would normally find in styles in which some suits (typically the majors) are opened lighter than others, and this might be enough to call it a HUM. Maybe a more concise HUM definition would involve an overlap of up to 4 HCPs so that if you pass some 12-counts you are not allowed to open any 8-counts. Or some such. But that would need to be spelled out. As the regulation stands, I think it would be unreasonable to call it a HUM. Unless he sometimes passes with a "tweener" with long clubs and 11 points which might be too good for a weak two but too weak for anything else.

Pran's interpretation would require us to open all four (or five, if playing weak NT) 1-level openings with exactly the same degree of soundness. I think that would make a significant proportion of pairs HUM players.

The idea is to prevent people from playing ferts and strong pass. It is a bit difficult to spell that out accurately. No matter where you draw the line it will seem unfair or arbitrary to some. For example, a system in which 1NT=9-12 while many unbalanced 10-counts are passed may well be against the spirit of the regulation although it does not violate my interpretation. Note that Brink-Drijver play this at favourable vulnerability. If such a well-known pair can get away with it, avoscii probably can as well.

Campboy's interpretation is too liberal, IMHO, though. The Pass=0-7 OR 17+ systems that have been discussed in the non-natural systems forum a couple of times are HUMs I think.

What is case law for situations in which it is impossible to say whether a convention is allowed or not because of unclearness of the regulations? Does the pair that plays the convention get the benefit of the doubt?

[pran]

Helene is correct that the original intention was to make all strong-pass systems HUM. This could of course not be stated directly in any regulation because then the regulation would soon be circumvented by giving the agreement a different name.

So the way this is spelled out is that your agrements must not allow any hand to be opened at the one-level with less strength than a hand that by agreement is a hand that should not be opened, or your agreements are classified as HUM.

(Weaker hands may of course be opened at two- or higher levels).

A consequence is of course that if your agreements include a 1 NT opening bid range of 9-11 then your agreemements must include some opening bid (not neccessarily at the one-ledvel) for each and every hand that holds at least 10 HCP to avoid HUM classification.

[pran]

helene_t, on 2014-February-21, 08:15, said:

[...]
What is case law for situations in which it is impossible to say whether a convention is allowed or not because of unclearness of the regulations? Does the pair that plays the convention get the benefit of the doubt?

In Norway they would have to submit their system to the Norwegian Laws Committee for approval before using it.

[paulg]

helene_t, on 2014-February-21, 08:15, said:

What is case law for situations in which it is impossible to say whether a convention is allowed or not because of unclearness of the regulations? Does the pair that plays the convention get the benefit of the doubt?

First of all someone has to care, in this case the OP clearly does, and then ask your RA where you want to play. This will normally be your NBO.

I've found that the WBF Systems Committee does respond when you ask them direct questions. There is a pair in Scotland who play a Swedish Club style system, where 1♣ is a weak no-trump or any 17+ hand, with a 1♦ opener being a Precision-style nebulous diamond opener with 0+ diamonds. Technically this is a HUM, since 1♦ shows length in clubs or diamonds and the exception is only for strong club or diamond systems. However the WBF Systems Committee stated that this was not a problem and it was a RED system, although they've not changed the regulations in the past five years to reflect this decision.

[avoscill]

pran, on 2014-February-21, 04:46, said:

But I agree that there are some "solid" 10 (or maybe even 9) HCP that justify opening at the one level while there are "lousy" 11 HCP hands that should be passed out.

Now, the OP question was if he could use the 1NT opening bid as a weak 2 in Clubs, and that agreement clearly makes his system HUM if there (by agreement) can exist any stronger hand with which he will not open.

So maybe I can fall back to a minimum opening strength range (at least we shall unburden somewhat our club opening, which is unlimited). If I have understood you well, opening some distributional hands with only 9 HCP, while, at the same time, passing some 11 or even 12 balanced junks - is simply "normal" bridge, and won't make our system Highly Unusual.

[Trinidad]

paulg, on 2014-February-21, 07:57, said:

This interpretation does shows how hard it is to draft regulations. This interpretation would never occur to me and I agree with Pran that this 1NT opener is clearly a HUM.

The regulation speaks about the strength of a hand. It does not speak about the number of HCPs in the hand. (If their intention would have been to define strength in terms of HCPs the authors of the regulation would have had a relatively simple task.)

It is very good that the regulation doesn't speak about HCPs, since HCPs alone do not determine the strength of a hand.

Fundamentally, when you follow the regulation, you need to answer the question whether a weak two in clubs is a weaker hand than a hand that would pass.

This question falls apart in two sub-questions:
1) Is there a hand that would qualify for a weak two in clubs that would pass if you change one card in a suit to a higher card in that suit?
This first question is easy to answer. So that is what officials have been focusing on. (For the record, for my weak twos there are such hands: I will open ♠QJT9xx ♥Kxx ♦xx ♣xx with a weak two, but I will pass with ♠QJT9xx ♥Kxx ♦xx ♣Qx, which is without a doubt a stronger hand.)

2) How do we compare the strength of hands with different distributions (or different honor distributions)?
This question is very hard to answer. Perhaps in the future there may be a time where we can objectively decide whether ♠xx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣AQJxxx is stronger or weaker than ♠Kxx ♥Qxx ♦Kxx ♣Qxxx. But for now, we don't know. Opinions are divided. So, for this second question the officials have chosen the approach of "we recognize it when we see it". This is a sensible approach... particularly since it matches closely with the intentions of the authors of the regulation.

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2014-February-22, 02:15, said:

The regulation speaks about the strength of a hand. It does not speak about the number of HCPs in the hand. (If their intention would have been to define strength in terms of HCPs the authors of the regulation would have had a relatively simple task.)

It is very good that the regulation doesn't speak about HCPs, since HCPs alone do not determine the strength of a hand.

Fundamentally, when you follow the regulation, you need to answer the question whether a weak two in clubs is a weaker hand than a hand that would pass.

This question falls apart in two sub-questions:
1) Is there a hand that would qualify for a weak two in clubs that would pass if you change one card in a suit to a higher card in that suit?
This first question is easy to answer. So that is what officials have been focusing on. (For the record, for my weak twos there are such hands: I will open ♠QJT9xx ♥Kxx ♦xx ♣xx with a weak two, but I will pass with ♠QJT9xx ♥Kxx ♦xx ♣Qx, which is without a doubt a stronger hand.)

2) How do we compare the strength of hands with different distributions (or different honor distributions)?
This question is very hard to answer. Perhaps in the future there may be a time where we can objectively decide whether ♠xx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣AQJxxx is stronger or weaker than ♠Kxx ♥Qxx ♦Kxx ♣Qxxx. But for now, we don't know. Opinions are divided. So, for this second question the officials have chosen the approach of "we recognize it when we see it". This is a sensible approach... particularly since it matches closely with the intentions of the authors of the regulation.

Rik

But the regulation does indeed speak of strength in terms of HCP!

Look at the first part where the regulation defines average hand, strong hand and weak hand.

And the regulation has no problem with weak hands opened at the two (or higher) level. The problem is hands weaker than passed out hands that are opened at the one level.

So until we have a recognized method of converting distribution values and HCP into a combined measurement of strength we are stuck with "strength" as measured by the HCP content of the hand.

[avoscill]

pran, on 2014-February-22, 08:23, said:

But the regulation does indeed speak of strength in terms of HCP!

Look at the first part where the regulation defines average hand, strong hand and weak hand.

At a closer look, this does not appear to be so. This is how the regulation defines the Average Hand:

"a hand containing 10 high card points (Milton Work) with no distributional values"

To my mind, it is clearly implied that the average hand may contain fewer than 10 HCP, if it also exibits some distributional values. And it is also implied, since the regulation does not provide nor indicate a standardized unit of measure for distributional values - that it is left to the individual partnerships the task of evaluating a hand's total value. Then, shouldn't we read the HUM systems feature described under paragraph [c] like this:

c.) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass (according to that partnership methods of evaluation)

[pran]

avoscill, on 2014-February-22, 10:02, said:

At a closer look, this does not appear to be so. This is how the regulation defines the Average Hand:

"a hand containing 10 high card points (Milton Work) with no distributional values"

To my mind, it is clearly implied that the average hand may contain fewer than 10 HCP, if it also exibits some distributional values. And it is also implied, since the regulation does not provide nor indicate a standardized unit of measure for distributional values - that it is left to the individual partnerships the task of evaluating a hand's total value. Then, shouldn't we read the HUM systems feature described under paragraph [c] like this:

c.) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass (according to that partnership methods of evaluation)

OK then; Our Norwegian translation is slightly different, it specifies "one honor card of each rank" (for "average"), respectively "lacks one king from an average hand", "a king above an average hand" etc.

It says nothing about distributional values, and now I would like to know how distributional values are evaluated?

I fear that a pair can avoid a HUM classification simply by saying that "We consider this hand to contain distributional values equivalent to ..."

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2014-February-22, 10:29, said:

OK then; Our Norwegian translation is slightly different, it specifies "one honor card of each rank" (for "average"), respectively "lacks one king from an average hand", "a king above an average hand" etc.

It says nothing about distributional values, and now I would like to know how distributional values are evaluated?

I fear that a pair can avoid a HUM classification simply by saying that "We consider this hand to contain distributional values equivalent to ..."

It's fine if a pair considers a hand to contain distributional values equivalent to...

Except that the pair doesn't make the rulings and doesn't get to interpret the regulations. That's up to the officials and the case law says that we will look at:
- the same distribution and change a high card
- for distributional hands, low in HCP: "We know it when we see it."

Rik

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2014-February-22, 08:23, said:

But the regulation does indeed speak of strength in terms of HCP!

Basically only in the definition of average hand (and some derived definitions), where - as avoscill points out - it is accompanied by the statement that "it contains no distributional values" (thereby clearly recognizing that distribution is a component of strength).

The parts of Art. 2.2, that are relevant for the question, only deal with "stronger / weaker then". Strength is not defined in HCPs.

It is not stated anywhere in the regulations that ♠xx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣AQJTxx should be considered as weaker than ♠Axx ♥Kxx ♦Qxxx ♣Qxx (about a maximum Pass in a 4333 hand).

Rik

[helene_t]

avoscill, on 2014-February-21, 18:06, said:

So maybe I can fall back to a minimum opening strength range (at least we shall unburden somewhat our club opening, which is unlimited). If I have understood you well, opening some distributional hands with only 9 HCP, while, at the same time, passing some 11 or even 12 balanced junks - is simply "normal" bridge, and won't make our system Highly Unusual.

You certainly could, although it might be hard to argue that a minimum weak two in clubs is stronger than a balanced 11.

But you don't even have to. You can get away with opening some hands that are unambiguously weaker than some of those which you pass (see my ref to the Brink-Drijver system in my previous post).