HUM and brown stickers

[patroclo]

Are these system popular at the high level?

In the world Championship may be used ?

What are the most famous players that use them in their convention card ?

[paulg]

HUM and Brown Sticker conventions may be played in the Open and Women Series of the European Team Championships - there are often a handful of BSCs but rarely a HUM. They may also be played in the knock-out stages in the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup, but not the Round-Robin phases, although only a New Zealand pair registered such a system in Bali.

 

The fact that they are not permitted in much else has reduced their popularity worldwide.

[the hog]

HUM and Brown Sticker conventions may be played in the Open and Women Series of the European Team Championships - there are often a handful of BSCs but rarely a HUM. They may also be played in the knock-out stages in the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup, but not the Round-Robin phases, although only a New Zealand pair registered such a system in Bali.

 

The fact that they are not permitted in much else has reduced their popularity worldwide.

 

Except in enlightened countries such as Australia, where they are often played by little old ladies

[rhm]

HUM and Brown Sticker conventions may be played in the Open and Women Series of the European Team Championships - there are often a handful of BSCs but rarely a HUM. They may also be played in the knock-out stages in the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup, but not the Round-Robin phases, although only a New Zealand pair registered such a system in Bali.

 

The fact that they are not permitted in much else has reduced their popularity worldwide.

Except for multi.

It is allowed on almost all levels, popular, and fulfills all criteria with regard to Brown Sticker.

There is no justification why multi is allowed but for example Wilkosz banned.

The problems for the defense are similar if not identical.

It is a triviality that a convention, which is banned, can hardly be popular.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[fromageGB]

Should HUMs and brown stickers be banned by the authorities? It seems to me that it never works, people burying their heads in the sand and attempting to adhere to a frozen concept, rather than letting it evolve. By all means have a system of rules; rules define a game and while they may change, they should not prevent different approaches. It is as if the national football (soccer) authorities said "you must play a 253 formation" in 1890 and time stopped still. Nobody was allowed to try 442 or 4231, or develop the game to where it is now.

[paulg]

Except in enlightened countries such as Australia, where they are often played by little old ladies

Except even the national teams, at least in Bali, did not play apply for any BSCs or HUMs to be played in the KO stages. Are they common with those Australian pairs who compete for places on the national teams?

[sfi]

Except even the national teams, at least in Bali, did not play apply for any BSCs or HUMs to be played in the KO stages. Are they common with those Australian pairs who compete for places on the national teams?

 

They're probably actually less common with the pairs who play in the national trials. I would guess that about 1/4 of the pairs in a national event would be playing some brown sticker convention, but maybe 10-15% in our trial events. On the other hand, I think all three opponents we played tonight at the club had brown sticker conventions.

[Trinidad]

Except even the national teams, at least in Bali, did not play apply for any BSCs or HUMs to be played in the KO stages. Are they common with those Australian pairs who compete for places on the national teams?

At the time that I lived in Sweden, the Swedish bridge league had a very liberal system policy. They were limiting what you could play based on how complex it was to defend against it. The complexity of each system was quantified with a specific method. And for each tournament an allowed complexity level was defined. This -in my opinion elegant- "complexity quantification method" was invented by Daniel Auby. In practice, it meant that at most tournaments you were allowed to play simple forcing pass systems or a bunch of "mean" conventions (like a 2♥ opening as weak two suiter, round or pointed and a 2♠ opening as a weak two suiter, red or black, together with a multi 2♦).

 

The Swedish teams are selected by a selector, using -among others- "Observation tournaments". The rules for the tournaments were very strict: All systems needed to be WBF legal. The reasoning was simple: We only want to select pairs based on how they would be able to compete in the Bermuda Bowl.

 

The Swedish selector at the time was ... Daniel Auby.

 

In short, pairs that normally play HUMs and BSCs will not be selected for the national team.

 

Rik

[sfi]

They're probably actually less common with the pairs who play in the national trials. I would guess that about 1/4 of the pairs in a national event would be playing some brown sticker convention, but maybe 10-15% in our trial events. On the other hand, I think all three opponents we played tonight at the club had brown sticker conventions.

 

I found some actual numbers. In the 2012 trials, there were 25 pairs in the open field. 2 pairs were playing brown sticker 2-level openings and another 10 were playing 2D to show weak with one of the majors. My guess was a bit high on this limited data.

[Cascade]

Did you count the pairs playing short club which meets the definition of hum - shows shortage or length in the denomination named.

[sfi]

Short clubs don't meet the WBF (or the ABF) definitions for HUM. They might make the system red, but not yellow.

 

Additionally, the event regulations prohibited yellow systems in the playoffs altogether. I presume that was to more closely mirror the Bermuda Bowl regulations, but not sure.

 

There were lots of short club with transfer responses systems though.

[Cascade]

By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit - wbf system policy.

 

1♣ (1 or) 2 - shortage or 3+ - length, seems clearly to meet this definition to me.

 

Unlike for example a natural 1s opening that doesn't show length or shortage in any one suit.

[paulg]

By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit - wbf system policy.

 

1♣ (1 or) 2 - shortage or 3+ - length, seems clearly to meet this definition to me.

The WBF regulation is ambiguous and subject to differing literal interpretations (most of which, to be honest, differ from yours), but luckily the WBF Systems Committee clarified matters in Bali.

 

Notice from the WBF Systems Committee

For the avoidance of doubt, the Committee notes that an opening of one club which may be made on a doubleton or singleton club which is ostensibly natural and non-forcing should be regarded as natural. This means that Brown Sticker defence methods (which are permitted against artificial forcing openings) are not allowed against these "natural" bids.

 

[bali Daily Bulletin, Issue 7, http://worldbridge.o...tins/Bul_07.pdf]

 

One might hope that this makes it into the System Policy at some point.

[Cthulhu D]

The WBF regulation is ambiguous and subject to differing literal interpretations (most of which, to be honest, differ from yours), but luckily the WBF Systems Committee clarified matters in Bali.

 

Notice from the WBF Systems Committee

For the avoidance of doubt, the Committee notes that an opening of one club which may be made on a doubleton or singleton club which is ostensibly natural and non-forcing should be regarded as natural. This means that Brown Sticker defence methods (which are permitted against artificial forcing openings) are not allowed against these "natural" bids.

 

[bali Daily Bulletin, Issue 7, http://worldbridge.o...tins/Bul_07.pdf]

 

One might hope that this makes it into the System Policy at some point.

 

This is ridiculous. While 1C = 1+ C is not a HUM, it is artificial.

[blackshoe]

Hm. The ACBL has done much the same thing. I wonder who was first?

[mycroft]

That line is phrased badly. It is intended to bar Suspensor type systems - where 1♠, say, shows *either* 0-2 or 5+ spades (but *not* 3 or 4). Either length (4+) or shortage (0-3), in other words. What is confusing is that it's not explicitly clear that continuous ranges that are in both categories aren't what they're aiming for.

 

It is a tribute to the regulations and their effectiveness that this is confusing now, because there are whole generations of bridge players who have never heard of this as a possible systemic setup. Note that this is not expressing any judgement on whether the regulation is a good one, just an effective one.

 

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.

[mycroft]

Hm. The ACBL has done much the same thing. I wonder who was first?

Ed, it was the people who have been complaining most about having to deal with defending the evil Multi that also thought it wasn't fair to have to defend against the same defences that strong clubbers have to, just because they think the best way to open a flat 18 is in what may be their shortest suit. And "of course" it's natural.

 

Having said that, the good news is that the exception clawed out for the 4=4=3=2 short-clubbers doesn't apply to the "clubs or balanced" crowd, so although I can't play crazy defences against it in Bali, I can in the local ACBL club. Also, most of the people who want to play "clubs or balanced", want to play it with "transfer responses to 1♣" - but that's Mid-Chart, so I'm not going to see it. Of course, they want that added to the GCC, because it's "easy to defend against", unlike, say, a 1♥ opening showing spades, or 1♥-1♠ forcing, denying spades. There's a good possibility it might happen, too, at which point I guess we'll see the fight to have the opening considered natural as well.

[the hog]

They're probably actually less common with the pairs who play in the national trials. I would guess that about 1/4 of the pairs in a national event would be playing some brown sticker convention, but maybe 10-15% in our trial events. On the other hand, I think all three opponents we played tonight at the club had brown sticker conventions.

 

That is a pretty fair assessment in my opinion.

[the hog]

This is ridiculous. While 1C = 1+ C is not a HUM, it is artificial.

 

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

[sfi]

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

 

The wording looks pretty clear. A 1+ club opener is red unless always strong (blue) or something else makes the system yellow. But it's not a HUM under section 2.2 of the WBF regs.

 

Edit: Looks like the note quoted above would make the system green. I agree with Cthulhu D - that seems pretty strange.

 

Around here, it's fairly common for top players to play 1C (and sometimes 1D as well) as balanced or natural. That looks to be different than simply "short club" and those systems are routinely classified as red in Australia. 2+ club, when the only time you would have 2 clubs is 4=4=3=2, is specifically defined as "natural" and can be an agreement in a green system.

[Cthulhu D]

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?