Is this bid really a HUM?

[EarlPurple]

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.

[EarlPurple]

Note that the system is similar to this one:

 

http://web.inter.nl.net/hcc/M.A.F/index0.htm

 

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

 

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

[jdonn]

How is opening 1♣ as you describe "fairly natural"?

[EarlPurple]

Because it's really no more than a regular phoney opening bid of one of a minor except that it promises a 4-card major, although it can be bid with no clubs at all if the shape is exactly 4-4-5-0.

 

It isn't however forcing. Partner can (and probably should) pass with xx xx xxx QJxxxx

 

According to the M.A.F site they say all their bids are permitted in Norway.

 

I'm not saying the 1♣ bid I describe should be considered natural, it should of course be alerted and would come under the red category. But I wouldn't call it HUM which equates it to an opening bid made on fewer than 7 points in a strong pass system.

 

How is it more confusing than a Stayman bid although the responses are more like puppet.

[dake50]

1C "may be short" on 4xS,4xH,3xD,2xC then is also HUM? Promises no known length in any suit.

Does then ACBL "may be short" mean artificial opening? That should be "alert" but this bid is excepted? Is ACBL allowing this WBF HUM? Law dogs sic this one.

There exist "fairly natural" HUM's.

 

But I agree that complex methods shouldn't make HUM, some other test must be better.

One 'catchall' artificial bid doesn't make Highly Unusual Method, except by definition.

 

Aside HUM by responses to natural openings if even one response is 'catch-all' artificial?

[EarlPurple]

As part of a strong club or strong diamond system 1 of the other minor may be a "catch-all" bid for those that don't fit in the system anywhere else.

 

But in this case neither 1♣ nor 1♦ are strong but one is used to indicate a hand that has a 4-card major and the other is used to deny such a hand. In my system and in M.A.F the club bid shows the major and the diamond bid denies.

 

As a strong club/diamond system qualifies as blue I reckon actually that this should be blue too.

 

1♦ denying is listed as one of the HUM types but the 1♣ bid, because it shows length in one of two named suits, namely spades and hearts, is one of the definitions of HUM according to the WBF wording.

 

Although the 1♦ bid by nature must indicate length of 4 cards in at least one minor (because you must have a 4-card suit somewhere), that isn't the nature of the bid (to find a minor fit) so much as to deny the major.

[helene_t]

I never understood the HUM definition. There are plenty of standard systems that have a suit opening that promises length in either of two known suits. Norwegian Standard (or some such) in which 1♣ shows 4+ clubs and/or 4 spades, for example.

 

My guess would be that as long as you don't play weak paradox jump shifts you will be fine with most TDs.

 

BTW MAF is not so uncommon in the Netherlands. If it were considered a HUM it would certainly have been mentioned in the BF magazine.

[jdonn]

Because it's really no more than a regular phoney opening bid of one of a minor except that it promises a 4-card major, although it can be bid with no clubs at all if the shape is exactly 4-4-5-0.

 

It isn't however forcing. Partner can (and probably should) pass with xx xx xxx QJxxxx

 

According to the M.A.F site they say all their bids are permitted in Norway.

 

I'm not saying the 1♣ bid I describe should be considered natural, it should of course be alerted and would come under the red category. But I wouldn't call it HUM which equates it to an opening bid made on fewer than 7 points in a strong pass system.

 

How is it more confusing than a Stayman bid although the responses are more like puppet.

So it shows 0+ cards in the suit opened, and promises length in either of two other suits. This is your idea of "fairly natural"? The fact that partner can pass if weak with long clubs is totally irrelevant, there are numerous completely artificial bids that can be passed if partner is weak with length in that suit. This system seems quite highly unusual to me.

[EarlPurple]

The bid is not "natural" if by natural it means you are interested in playing in this suit. Non-natural shouldn't necessarily mean HUM though. 2♣ Stayman is totally non-natural, in fact it will often be bid particularly when clubs are short, eg you might try 2♣ on a weak 4-3-5-1 hand or even 4-4-5-0 (even better) intending to pass any response.

 

What doesn't seem to make sense is that one should be allowed to open 1♦ or 1♣ as a "catch-all" bid where the other minor is strong that effectively shows length nowhere in particular as a "blue", but one should not be allowed to use 1♣ and 1♦ in a system to distinguish between hands with a 4-card major and hands without one (whilst the strong bids occur at the two-level) because that would be considered "HUM".

 

The general system is fairly natural but is orientated, like most systems, to primarily finding a major-suit fit and the minor-suit fits are only secondary. Opener will often show them on the second round and sometimes will not show them at all when the contract heads towards the more usual NT. Of course sometimes 3♣ will be a superior contract to 1NT and will be missed, but the aim is primarily to find the major-suit fit and they are found more often through this system so like with many systems there are gains and losses that have to be outweighed.

 

The fact that it is harder to compete in minors eg an auction 1♦-(2♠) and responder can't simply bid 3♦ with 5 of them because opener may be 3-3-1-6 but this sort of thing can happen in short-minor systems anyway. A lot of the time you can get by with negative doubles and 2NT scrambles to find the better minor fit and you rarely get doubled in such an auction even if you end up in a hopeless 5-2 fit.

 

The point of HUM should be not that one particular bid is non-natural but that the system as a whole is non-natural, i.e. some opening bids of 1 are destructive in nature and that pass can be stronger than an opening bid of 1 or that opening bids of 1 are exceptionally weak or somewhat cryptic (long or short in the same suit). This is not the case here.

[gwnn]

I don't understand.

 

It's like saying "I read that Colorado is a state from USA. Surely it is not a state though because a state can't be with STRAIGHT borders." - you have to read the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and realize what is and what is not a state. You can't go around claiming that the shape of the borders is the defining criterion for statehood.

 

Read the HUM definition. If the definition fits, a bid is a HUM. If it does not fit, it is not a HUM.

 

Stayman is not a HUM because it is not an opening bid.

[Trinidad]

The way you explain the system, the correct bid with

 

1) ♠KJ87 ♥- ♦KQJ976542 ♣-

2) ♠- ♥KJ87 ♦KQJ976542 ♣-

3) ♠KJ87 ♥- ♦- ♣KQJ976542

4) ♠- ♥KJ87 ♦- ♣KQJ976542

 

would be 1♣.

 

With

 

1) ♠KJ7 ♥8 ♦- ♣KQJ976542

2) ♠8 ♥KJ7 ♦- ♣KQJ976542

3) ♠KJ7 ♥8 ♦KQJ976542 ♣-

4) ♠8 ♥KJ7 ♦KQJ976542 ♣-

 

it would be 1♦.

 

If that is the case, it seems entirely fair to call this highly unusual.

 

You seem to have a problem with the fact that 'non descript openings' are allowed in the context of a strong club (or diamond) system. However, the condition in that case is that there is only 1 bid that is catch all. And in many strong club systems (like Precision) the 1♦ opening is something like "Natural, or a balanced hand, not in the NT range". While I agree that this 1♦ opening is not natural, it is far from unusual.

 

Rik

[paulg]

Like gwnn I am slightly confused.

 

The relevance of what methods various countries permit is pretty irrelevant to the WBF. If you are going to play in a WBF tournament, then you have to abide by their system policy for the event.

 

Paul

[Walddk]

I agree that EarlPurple's 1♣ opening is a HUM for all the reasons put forward by other posters. In this context I would like to add the Swedish (deceased?) "Lilla Glada Säfflespadern" where pass shows 8+ hcp, 4+ spades, and 1♣ 8+ hcp, 5+hearts (not 4 spades).

 

http://www.syskon.nu/system/002_lgs_01.pdf

 

With this system the opponents even have a suit to cue bid, and it is still considered a HUM.

 

Roland

[awm]

It does seem like the definition of HUM is not very clear. For example:

 

(1) A 1♣ opening showing either 4+♣ or a balanced hand (so thus could be 2♣) seems to show either length (3+) or shortage (2) in clubs. This is a popular method, and not just as part of a strong diamond system. Is it HUM?

 

(2) Many people will open very light in a major suit, but not in a minor. It's not uncommon in a precision system (for example) to open 1♠ with a 5-3-3-2 nine count but to pass a 2-3-3-5 ten count. This implies that an opening bid at the one level (1♠) could be weaker than pass. Is this HUM?

 

(3) It does seem that you could play a version of "standard" where 1♣ shows 5+♣ (or 6+♣) and 1♦ contains exactly the same distributions that bid 1♦ in a strong club system (but a wider range of strengths). The strong club system is classified "blue." Would this system now be classified as "yellow"? Certainly the 1♣ opening is extremely natural, and while the 1♦ opening is certainly "artificial" it shows exactly the same set of distributions as a bid that is not HUM (and in fact it's probably easier to defend because the wider range of strength prevents some shenanigans that go on in a big club system).

 

I suspect that the "length or shortage" thing is really intended to restrict openings like 1♠ showing 5+♠ or 0-1♠, and not so much openings with a continuous range. And I also suspect that the "pass may be stronger than opening one" is intended to refer to hands with the same distribution (i.e. it should be okay to pass pretty good balanced hands and open pretty light with shape, or pass pretty good hands with primary minor and open pretty light with primary major; the concern is if you open certain patterns while passing the identical pattern with more points). But none of this stuff is really made very clear....

[paulg]

It does seem like the definition of HUM is not very clear. For example:

 

(1) A 1♣ opening showing either 4+♣ or a balanced hand (so thus could be 2♣) seems to show either length (3+) or shortage (2) in clubs. This is a popular method, and not just as part of a strong diamond system. Is it HUM?

No, an argument that's been debated a few times.

 

Clubs or balanced does not show club shortage. Club shortage is possible, as it is when you open 1NT, but it is not the same as guaranteeing length or shortage.

 

p

[EricK]

It does seem like the definition of HUM is not very clear. For example:

 

(1) A 1♣ opening showing either 4+♣ or a balanced hand (so thus could be 2♣) seems to show either length (3+) or shortage (2) in clubs. This is a popular method, and not just as part of a strong diamond system. Is it HUM?

No, an argument that's been debated a few times.

 

Clubs or balanced does not show club shortage. Club shortage is possible, as it is when you open 1NT, but it is not the same as guaranteeing length or shortage.

 

p

It depends how you split up all the possible hands. Does it show

 

Clubs

OR

balanced hand (saying nothing about clubs)

 

or does it show

 

clubs (in a balanced or unbalanced hand)

OR

short clubs in a balanced hand

[skjaeran]

It does seem like the definition of HUM is not very clear. For example:

 

(1) A 1♣ opening showing either 4+♣ or a balanced hand (so thus could be 2♣) seems to show either length (3+) or shortage (2) in clubs. This is a popular method, and not just as part of a strong diamond system. Is it HUM?

No, an argument that's been debated a few times.

 

Clubs or balanced does not show club shortage. Club shortage is possible, as it is when you open 1NT, but it is not the same as guaranteeing length or shortage.

 

p

It depends how you split up all the possible hands. Does it show

 

Clubs

OR

balanced hand (saying nothing about clubs)

 

or does it show

 

clubs (in a balanced or unbalanced hand)

OR

short clubs in a balanced hand

Showing length or shortness means that there's a split between the possible suit lenghts, like 0-1 OR 5+/0-2 OR 4+ etc, not a continous interval like 2+.

 

Someone said this opening would be legal in Norway. That's neither true nor false. We use the WBF definition of HUM, thus it would be HUM in Norway, and legal only in the 1st and 2nd division of our National League and in the Club Teams Championship final (8 team RR). It'd be legal in other open tournaments too, if the organizer decides so - and informs about this at the proper time.

[mycroft]

Yes, the canonical example of the "length or shortage" line is the Suspensor 1S call, promising 0-2 or 5+ spades (but not 3 or 4). A continuum that happens to both be in length and shortage doesn't count.

 

I'm still surprised at the WBF interpretation of "clubs or balanced" or "Precision 1D" as "natural" for the purposes of making defences against them BS, however. Both the letter and the spirit of the regulation argue against that, but 5 WBF votes is 5 WBF votes, I guess</cynical>.

[EarlPurple]

The way you explain the system, the correct bid with

 

1) ♠KJ87 ♥- ♦KQJ976542 ♣-

2) ♠- ♥KJ87 ♦KQJ976542 ♣-

3) ♠KJ87 ♥- ♦- ♣KQJ976542

4) ♠- ♥KJ87 ♦- ♣KQJ976542

 

would be 1♣.

 

With

 

1) ♠KJ7 ♥8 ♦- ♣KQJ976542

2) ♠8 ♥KJ7 ♦- ♣KQJ976542

3) ♠KJ7 ♥8 ♦KQJ976542 ♣-

4) ♠8 ♥KJ7 ♦KQJ976542 ♣-

 

it would be 1♦.

 

If that is the case, it seems entirely fair to call this highly unusual.

 

You seem to have a problem with the fact that 'non descript openings' are allowed in the context of a strong club (or diamond) system. However, the condition in that case is that there is only 1 bid that is catch all. And in many strong club systems (like Precision) the 1♦ opening is something like "Natural, or a balanced hand, not in the NT range". While I agree that this 1♦ opening is not natural, it is far from unusual.

 

Rik

Highly unlikely those would be treated as an opening bid of 1, particularly the ones without the 4-card major.

 

However we can look at any system that might be stuck on an extreme hand that doesn't otherwise fit into the 1 of a minor normal opening bid for the system.

 

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.

[Cascade]

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.

[paulg]

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]

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.

 

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]

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.