System Legality Question

[awm]

Working on a bidding system and wanted an answer to two questions:

 

1. Is this system "brown sticker" under WBF classification?

2. Would it be allowed in ACBL events?

 

The unusual part is that we pass with unbalanced hands where clubs is the primary suit unless holding 15+ hcp. Thus:

 

Pass = 0-11 BAL or 0-14 primary clubs or 0-8 any

1c = 15+ hcp any

1d = 4+ diamond unbalanced no longer suit 9-14 hcp

1M = 5+ cards in suit 9-14 hcp

1nt = 12-14 BAL

Higher = various weak hands (assume these are allowed by regs)

 

Pass is not forcing at all, but in 3/4 we would play slightly different methods so we don't pass 14 opposite 14 with clubs. Assume something like "standard precision" in 3/4 seat.

[barmar]

So you pass with 6+ clubs and 14 HCP, then partner passes with balanced 11 HCP, and you miss your club part score? But this isn't the place to discuss playability, just legality.

 

This doesn't seem to be Brown Sticker, but I think it's a HUM, by this criterion: "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." Your Pass shows either a minimum opening hand w/clubs or "alternative weak possibilities".

[hrothgar]

I would argue that this is perfectly legal.

 

Many non HUM systems are based on sound opening bids. (This strikes me as an extreme example, but there nothing wrong with sound openings)

 

Many non HUM systems require sounder openings for the minors than the majors.

 

From my own perspective, the critical issue is that your pass appears to be "continuous"

[pran]

Working on a bidding system and wanted an answer to two questions:

 

1. Is this system "brown sticker" under WBF classification?

2. Would it be allowed in ACBL events?

 

The unusual part is that we pass with unbalanced hands where clubs is the primary suit unless holding 15+ hcp. Thus:

 

Pass = 0-11 BAL or 0-14 primary clubs or 0-8 any

1c = 15+ hcp any

1d = 4+ diamond unbalanced no longer suit 9-14 hcp

1M = 5+ cards in suit 9-14 hcp

1nt = 12-14 BAL

Higher = various weak hands (assume these are allowed by regs)

 

Pass is not forcing at all, but in 3/4 we would play slightly different methods so we don't pass 14 opposite 14 with clubs. Assume something like "standard precision" in 3/4 seat.

I only have the Norwegian translation available, but to my knowledge it is identical to the WBF regulation:

 

A system is HUM if it satisfies at least one of five criteria:

 

1: Pass in opening shows or can show a strong hand (i.e. a hand that holds at least a King more than an average hand)

 

2: An opening bid at the one-level can be weaker than a pass in the same position

 

It appears to me that your system is HUM because of both these criteria.

 

(Criteria 3-5 are irrelevant for your system.)

[hrothgar]

I only have the Norwegian translation available, but to my knowledge it is identical to the WBF regulation:

 

A system is HUM if it satisfies at least one of five criteria:

 

1: Pass in opening shows or can show a strong hand (i.e. a hand that holds at least a King more than an average hand)

 

2: An opening bid at the one-level can be weaker than a pass in the same position

 

It appears to me that your system is HUM because of both these criteria.

 

(Criteria 3-5 are irrelevant for your system.)

 

Here's the WBF definition (The first element is significantly different than the Norwegian definition)

 

2.2 HUM Systems

For the purpose of this Policy, a Highly Unusual Method (HUM) means any System

that exhibits one or more of the following features, as a matter of partnership

agreement:

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

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.

d) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either

length or shortage in a specified suit

e) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either

length in one specified suit or length in another.

EXCEPTION: one of a minor in a strong club or strong diamond system

 

From my perspective, the key issue is (a)

 

Phil's pass does not ALWAYS promise a strong hand, therefore it does not show a strong hand.

[Cyberyeti]

Here's the WBF definition (The first element is significantly different than the Norwegian definition)

 

 

 

From my perspective, the key issue is (a)

 

Phil's pass does not ALWAYS promise a strong hand, therefore it does not show a strong hand.

 

Not sure, the 12-14 with clubs fulfils a) as there seems to be weak options also, but it can have opening values.

 

Even if we get past a), b) is problematic as pass can clearly be stronger than any of the 1 bids other than 1♣.

 

I don't really understand how b) is supposed to be interpreted, as playing something pretty normal but with a 9+ mini and sound 1 bids (where you're opening 9s but passing 10s) would seem to fall foul of the letter of this.

[hrothgar]

Not sure, the 12-14 with clubs fulfils a) as there seems to be weak options also, but it can have opening values.

 

Even if we get past a), b) is problematic as pass can clearly be stronger than any of the 1 bids other than 1♣.

 

I don't really understand how b) is supposed to be interpreted, as playing something pretty normal but with a 9+ mini and sound 1 bids (where you're opening 9s but passing 10s) would seem to fall foul of the letter of this.

 

KS is not a HUM, therefore this is not a HUM

 

(Item b is meant to ban strong pass systems like Regres or Suspensor, not systems that have different strength requirements to open majors versus minors or, in this case, clubs versus everything else)

[pran]

KS is not a HUM, therefore this is not a HUM

 

(Item b is meant to ban strong pass systems like Regres or Suspensor, not systems that have different strength requirements to open majors versus minors or, in this case, clubs versus everything else)

Are you sure this is item b and not item a? One way of reading a is that it bans system where a pass in the opening position is always stronger that an opening bid at the one-level.

 

But I am really confused by a, particularly because of the clause "even if there are alternative weak possibilities".

I suspect that the Norwegian translators were equally confused and that this is the cause of the discrepancy.

 

So please clarify: What is the precise meaning of a when it says "shows" rather than "may show" and what is the precise limit for "values generally accepted for an opening bid of one"?

[Trinidad]

KS is not a HUM, therefore this is not a HUM

 

(Item b is meant to ban strong pass systems like Regres or Suspensor, not systems that have different strength requirements to open majors versus minors or, in this case, clubs versus everything else)

I don't want to chose a side in this debate yet, but I feel that "having different strength requirements for clubs vs everything else" is misrepresenting Adam's system: Essentially his suit openings are 9-14, except that hands with clubs are simply not opened. Not opening a certain hand type at all is different from "having different strength requirements".

 

I certainly agree that 11 point hands with a five card major can be regarded as stronger than 12 point hands with a 5 card minor (and otherwise the same pattern). Some flexibility for the player's judgement should be allowed...

 

But I doubt that Adam really would consider ♠JT43 ♥A4 ♦KJ6432 ♣7 (a 1♦ opening) to be a stronger hand than ♠JT43 ♥A4 ♦7 ♣AKJ643 (a pass).

 

Rik

[helene_t]

Agree with Richard. There are many systems that have much more aggressive openings major suit openings than minor suit openings. This shouldn't be a problem.

[campboy]

I don't really understand how b) is supposed to be interpreted, as playing something pretty normal but with a 9+ mini and sound 1 bids (where you're opening 9s but passing 10s) would seem to fall foul of the letter of this.

If you play a 12-14 1NT, what does "weaker than 1NT" mean? Less than 12, of course. A 13-count isn't "weaker than 1NT" just because there are some stronger hands that would open 1NT. Similarly a hand isn't "weaker than pass" just because there are some stronger hands that would pass. What is forbidden by (b) is agreeing to open (at the 1-level) some hands which are too weak to pass. Unless your pass shows values, this isn't an issue.

 

(a) disallows passes which include some always-strong options, even if there are alternative weak options. But "0-14 with clubs" is a single wide-ranging option, not a strong option and a separate weak option.

[jfnrl]

Here after, you have the transposition of WBF Systems Policy 2.2 in the French regulation :

Article 138 – Systèmes Hautement Artificiels

138.1 Caractéristiques SHA

On appelle « Système Hautement Artificiel » tout système agréé au sein d’une paire et possédant à l’ouverture l’une au moins des caractéristiques suivantes :

a) Passe à l’ouverture avec une force généralement admise pour ouvrir au palier de 1 même s’il peut montrer aussi une main plus faible.

b) Une ouverture au palier de 1 pouvant être plus faible que Passe.

c) Une ouverture au palier de 1 déniant 8 points d’honneur.

d) Une ouverture au palier de 1 décrivant dans la même couleur soit une longueur soit une courte.

e) Une ouverture au palier de 1 qui montre soit une longueur dans une couleur spécifiée soit une longueur dans au moins une autre couleur (spécifiée ou non).

 

b) to e) are very close to the WBF items {c) is written in very poor French}.

But my understanding of a)

(that i understand as "an opening pass that may show a hand that would be opened in all usual systems")

is that you are not allowed to pass a 14 HCP one-suited by system.

[pran]

[...]

But my understanding of a)

(that i understand as "an opening pass that may show a hand that would be opened in all usual systems")

is that you are not allowed to pass a 14 HCP one-suited by system.

The corresponding Norwegian translation is:

pass in an opening position which shows or may show a hand containing at lest a King above an average hand.

 

Thus in Norway a system is HUM if it allows passing instead of opening a 13 HCP (or more) hand regardless of shape.

[Trinidad]

Agree with Richard. There are many systems that have much more aggressive openings major suit openings than minor suit openings. This shouldn't be a problem.

But there is no opening for this minor (clubs), at all.

 

The call for a "club opening" is "Pass".

[pran]

But there is no opening for this minor (clubs), at all.

 

The call for a "club opening" is "Pass".

And that "feature" makes the system HUM

[Zelandakh]

And that "feature" makes the system HUM

That may well be true in Norway but I am not convinced that is true by WBF rules. By your regulations, a conservative system designed for beginners in which you need 15 points to open would be a HUM even though Pass is consistently the weakest call for all hand types with no overlap. And I am reasonably certain that is not the intent of the regulators regardless of what various international translators might have come up with.

[jfnrl]

EBL and WBF have the same Systems Policy.

In the seminar notes of the 4th tournament directors course is given an english-english translation of the HUM definition :

A system is classified as ‘HUM’ if it exhibits by partnership agreement any

one of the following characteristics:

- a pass in the opening position may have twelve or more high card

points (‘HCP’)

- an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than Pass

- an opening bid at the one level may be made on seven or fewer HCP

- an opening bid of one has alternative possible meanings that the

hand may be long or short in a specified suit

- an opening bid at the one level has alternative possibilities that it

shows length in one suit or length in another suit.

I suppose that this text was sent to WBF which didn't deny it.

[barmar]

Hmm, I routinely pass 12 HCP hands with 4333 shape. I know that's conservative, I didn't realize it was HUM.

[pran]

Hmm, I routinely pass 12 HCP hands with 4333 shape. I know that's conservative, I didn't realize it was HUM.

The Norwegian translation (allegedly from WBF) says HUM if agreements allow passing a 13 HCP (or more) hand in an opening position.

 

(The exact text is "a pass in the opening position may have the HCP strength of at least a King more than an average hand")

[Zelandakh]

The Norwegian translation (allegedly from WBF) says HUM if agreements allow passing a 13 HCP (or more) hand in an opening position.

 

(The exact text is "a pass in the opening position may have the HCP strength of at least a King more than an average hand")

So Fantunes would be HUM if they chose to leave a hand type out of their 2 bids? And a pair playing Stone Age Precision (13-15 NT) that chose to devalue 4333 hands by 1hcp? Again, do you have any evidence to support that position other than the dodgy translation?

[pran]

So Fantunes would be HUM if they chose to leave a hand type out of their 2 bids? And a pair playing Stone Age Precision (13-15 NT) that chose to devalue 4333 hands by 1hcp? Again, do you have any evidence to support that position other than the dodgy translation?

Standard rulings in Norwegian events.

 

We enforce very strictly that when a regulation specifies a particular HCP limit (e.g. "An opening bid at the one level is HUM if it can show or contain less than 8 HCP") this limit is absolute and not negotiable. A player will never be heard with an argument that the equivalent strength of the hand is more than 7 HCP.

[Zelandakh]

Standard rulings in Norwegian events.

I understand that it is standard in Norway. We have just discussed how IB regulations vary from country to country and your opinion is that the interpretation used in Australia and New Zealand is against the Laws, let alone against WBF regulations. So why should we trust Norwegian regulation to be any more representative?

[pran]

I understand that it is standard in Norway. We have just discussed how IB regulations vary from country to country and your opinion is that the interpretation used in Australia and New Zealand is against the Laws, let alone against WBF regulations. So why should we trust Norwegian regulation to be any more representative?

How on earth do IB regulations have any relevance with the HCP limits in regulations on HUM? Did you notice the problem where passing instead of opening with 12 HCP apparently caused the system to be HUM? Our 13 HCP limit avoids that problem. (Such limits anyway are not a matter of law.)

 

And where have I implied that the Australian and New Zealand IB regulations are against the laws? As far as I can remember I have acknowledged the fact that such regulations allow a variety of leniency in judgements by the Directors.

[mycroft]

Interesting! I play a HUM, finally!

 

But seriously, my take on K/S is such that (very rare) 13s that can't be opened 1NT and don't have a safe rebid may have to be passed. Arguably, they're worth less than a K more than average (minors suck, especially both minors), and that's the argument I'd make if I used judgement to pass one.