[campboy]

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

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.

Of course they are. But they are HUMs under specification a), not b).

Quote

a) 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

[avoscill]

helene_t, on 2014-February-22, 17:15, said:

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

What I said is that I would fall back to a meaning of 1NT that would conform
the regulations: some types of strong hands or a regular, but limited,
club opening. So the only question that could arise would be: am I
permitted to make a light opening in clubs (possibly with just 9 HCP),
and pass a balanced hand of 11 HCP? Since people are doing this all
the time, whatever their bidding system, I have concluded that the
regulations don't speak just the hcp language.

A problem with the regulations however remains, in the sense that
they may achieve precisely the opposite of what they were meant for in
the first place. Consider my position now:

1. I want to express a weak two in clubs with the 1NT bid, for a
series of reasons (pragmatical, logical, aestethical, and so on)
2. I can't do that, for the regulation says I need at least 8 HCP for
a level 1 opening (sadly, the law doesn't bother that mine is,
logically, a level 2 opening)
3. I try to remedy by defining the club weak two as promising 5 clubs
and 8-11 hcp - an opening more akin to the Fantunes two-bids, just
a bit weaker
4. This would satisfy me, but, alas, the regulation says also that an
opening bid at the one level may not be weaker than pass.
5. As it happens I am able to steal one more bid from my "true" level
one openings
6. Therefore, I set up to use 1♠ for the balanced 8-11 hcp hands. I
do not deem such hands worth to be opened, it is the Regulation
that pushes me to do it.
7. OK, now my pass is 0-7 hcp, weakest then any of the level one
openings, and the regulation should not complain

Or could it? At the bottom I'm left with an inescapable opening bid,
which in its turm must be tested for regularity. The 1♥ opening,
pushed in the corner by my acrobatic attempts to comform to the
regulation, must be defined in the following negative terms: it
promises opening strength (26+ zar points) and denies 4+-card
majors. It is a brave heart indeed, but the bidding vocabulary does
permit the auction to develop normally. The point is whether the
Regulation permits it. For, while not making direct statements about
suits, it is implied that hands so opened may be, among other
hand-types, one-suiters in ether clubs or diamonds. May this
contraddict article 2.2.e, which says that when "By partnership agreement
an opening bid at the one level shows either length in one specified
suit or length in another", then it is HUM?

[helene_t]

paulg, on 2014-February-21, 10:56, said:

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.

Strange. If that is not a HUM, what is?

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on 2014-February-25, 07:44, said:

paulg, on 2014-February-21, 10:56, said:

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.

Strange. If that is not a HUM, what is?

Well, according to the regulations it is a HUM.

The question is whether it was ever the intent of the regulators to define such a system as a HUM. My (pretty confident) guess is that it wasn't. The WBF Systems Committee took the approach of "We recognize it when we see it" and clearly recognized that this wasn't meant to be "more HU" than the 16+ strong club systems with a 12-15 NT and a nebulous 1♦ opening.

Rik

[helene_t]

But I don't understand. If they didn't want to ban such a system, which system did they want to ban? I am not trolling, I simply don't understand. When I first saw the definitions I imagined something like
1♣=balanced
1♦=5+M or some strong unbalanced hand
1M=Canape
1NT=both minors
2m=intermediate
and appreciated that that would be too weird, but OTOH tons of pairs play some kind of multi 1♦ in the context of a strong club system so they made an exception for that. But Swedish club is just as weird as the above. Or did the framers of the definitions have something even weirder in mind?

[Zelandakh]

I tend to think that most HUM-style regulations are there to weed out forcing pass and controlled psyche systems. I also think that these restrictions hold the game back and the regulations should instead allow them for events where opposing teams have a reasonable preparation time with the proviso that any issue with disclosure, no matter how small, will lead to an adverse ruling should damage occur. In other words that you can play weird stuff but if you do you also need to explain every inference and bend over backwards to make sure the opponents are not disadvantaged.

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on 2014-February-25, 08:44, said:

But I don't understand. If they didn't want to ban such a system, which system did they want to ban? I am not trolling, I simply don't understand. When I first saw the definitions I imagined something like
1♣=balanced
1♦=5+M or some strong unbalanced hand
1M=Canape
1NT=both minors
2m=intermediate
and appreciated that that would be too weird, but OTOH tons of pairs play some kind of multi 1♦ in the context of a strong club system so they made an exception for that. But Swedish club is just as weird as the above. Or did the framers of the definitions have something even weirder in mind?

I am not in the WBF Systems Committee, so I can only speculate about what they want. Having emphasized that I am speculating, my speculations are the following:

The main thing they want to ban are forcing pass systems.

They also want to ban systems that are artificial

• "for the sake of being artificial"
  
• (worse) "to make it hard for the opponents" (with weak bids)
  
• (worst) "to make it complicated to defend against and get the opponents into unknown territory".

They don't want to ban "natural systems" that follow the trend towards five card majors and hence ever shorter and/or artificial minors. So, artificial minors are allowed as long as there is "a good reason" for it. Acceptable good reasons are:

• Playing a strong club (oops, a Swedish/Polish Club should also be ok.)
  
• Playing five card majors

Trying to improve the accuracy of your system is not a bad reason, but isn't a good enough reason (yet).

I suspect that currently you are crossing the line if you want to play:
1♣ strong or 12-14 NT
1♦ 10-16 5+ hearts
1♥ 10-16 5+ spades
1♠ 10-16, 5 card m or (4441)
1NT 15-17
2x NAT, weak

If you wait 10 years with that, the line may have moved.

Rik

[helene_t]

Thanks Rik, that makes sense. Maybe a better phrasing would be that 1m can mean anything as long as it is 8+ HCPS, while 1M has to have an anchor suit or be very strong.

After all, we are used to dealing with 1m openings being explained in some vague way that sounds like "could be lots of things, might even have length in the suit bid". While if opps defined a 1♥ opening in a similar way I would really like to have agreements about whether we look for a heart fit or not.