[Cascade]

What is the interpretation of this part of the HUM regulations:

"By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass."

I ask with particular reference to the use of "may".

If a system opens some hands with x HCP but does not open with others with y HCP (y>x) then it would seem to me that 'an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass'.

e.g. Say I had this structure:

1♣ 8+ with 4+ hearts
1♦ 8+ with 4+ spades
1♥ 11+ with 4+ clubs
1♠ 11+ with 4+ diamonds
1NT 12-14

Now hands with 9-10 HCP and no major are not opened so that opening hands with a four-card major and 8 HCP are weaker than some of the hands that we PASS.

So is this system a HUM?

[PeterE]

Yes, definitely.

[Mbodell]

That's just a silly interpretation. I have no standing but consider someone who plays a 12-14 nt, but opens a precision 1M with 10-15. Now they pass a balanced 11 point hand with no 5 card major. But they open a 10 point hand with a 5 card major. That ought not be a HUM system.

I'd say a proper reading of that should be if some bid at the one level may be weaker than pass as in there exists hands that are too weak to pass that as a result are opened at the one level. For instance consider an opening 1♣ that is either 0-6 or 17+ and a pass that is all hands 7-10 that aren't 2+ level preemts. Now there would exist hands that are too weak to pass that would get opened at the 1 level thus this would be a HUM system.

But again, I'm no expert on these rules, but I think your OP is beyond silly in its interpretation.

[Cascade]

Mbodell, on Sep 17 2009, 06:45 PM, said:

But again, I'm no expert on these rules, but I think your OP is beyond silly in its interpretation.

I am growing tired of this sort of criticism.

There is no interpretation in the OP. Try rereading it. It is a question.

[aguahombre]

Mbodell, on Sep 17 2009, 01:45 AM, said:

That's just a silly interpretation. I have no standing but consider someone who plays a 12-14 nt, but opens a precision 1M with 10-15. Now they pass a balanced 11 point hand with no 5 card major. But they open a 10 point hand with a 5 card major. That ought not be a HUM system.

I'd say a proper reading of that should be if some bid at the one level may be weaker than pass as in there exists hands that are too weak to pass that as a result are opened at the one level. For instance consider an opening 1♣ that is either 0-6 or 17+ and a pass that is all hands 7-10 that aren't 2+ level preemts. Now there would exist hands that are too weak to pass that would get opened at the 1 level thus this would be a HUM system.

But again, I'm no expert on these rules, but I think your OP is beyond silly in its interpretation.

scary when i agree with you

[cherdanno]

PeterE, on Sep 17 2009, 01:33 AM, said:

Yes, definitely.

Then Kaplan-Sheinwold (with solid minor openings) is HUM too?
("1 m openings are always sound -- in points if balanced, in quick tricks if unbalanced. 1 M openings may be shaded." - http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=e.../ksupdated.html )

[Mbodell]

Cascade, on Sep 16 2009, 10:48 PM, said:

Mbodell, on Sep 17 2009, 06:45 PM, said:

But again, I'm no expert on these rules, but I think your OP is beyond silly in its interpretation.

I am growing tired of this sort of criticism.

There is no interpretation in the OP. Try rereading it. It is a question.

Alright. Then what I mean is the interpretation represented by:

Quote

If a system opens some hands with x HCP but does not open with others with y HCP (y>x) then it would seem to me that 'an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass'.

is just plain silly. Maybe by "it seems to me" you didn't mean to say that your interpretation was what you described. But, it seems to me that when I read "it seems to me" that the person is making an interpretation.

[paulg]

Cascade, on Sep 17 2009, 07:06 AM, said:

What is the interpretation of this part of the HUM regulations:

"By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass."

I ask with particular reference to the use of "may".

If a system opens some hands with x HCP but does not open with others with y HCP (y>x) then it would seem to me that 'an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass'.

e.g. Say I had this structure:

1♣ 8+ with 4+ hearts
1♦ 8+ with 4+ spades
1♥ 11+ with 4+ clubs
1♠ 11+ with 4+ diamonds
1NT 12-14

Now hands with 9-10 HCP and no major are not opened so that opening hands with a four-card major and 8 HCP are weaker than some of the hands that we PASS.

So is this system a HUM?

Surely asking the WBF is more appropriate? Especially when the chairman of the Systems Committee is a fellow countryman.

Paul

(Of course I've yet to receive a reply for my last two questions of them, but they have been working in Brazil)

[Cascade]

Mbodell, on Sep 17 2009, 06:55 PM, said:

Cascade, on Sep 16 2009, 10:48 PM, said:

Mbodell, on Sep 17 2009, 06:45 PM, said:

But again, I'm no expert on these rules, but I think your OP is beyond silly in its interpretation.

I am growing tired of this sort of criticism.

There is no interpretation in the OP. Try rereading it. It is a question.

Alright. Then what I mean is the interpretation represented by:

Quote

If a system opens some hands with x HCP but does not open with others with y HCP (y>x) then it would seem to me that 'an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass'.

is just plain silly. Maybe by "it seems to me" you didn't mean to say that your interpretation was what you described. But, it seems to me that when I read "it seems to me" that the person is making an interpretation.

What I didn't say was that logic seemed to me to apply to the use of the word may "an 8 HCP opening may be weaker than a 9 HCP PASS" but that didn't seem to make sense. That leaves me wondering how is this supposed to be interpreted. Hence the question.

I did not think of the split range opening possibility.

A FERT 0-8 HCP that is always weaker than a stronger PASS would not need the construction "may" in the regulation. Your split range example does still need "may". However the light openings 0-8 are already HUM by virtue of "king or more below average".

So in order for this regulation to be necessary you would need a system that opened some 8+ HCP hands (could be limited) and PASS with some stronger hands.

I was trying to think of what sort of systems were intended to be excluded.

[pran]

The effect of the quoted HUM rule is simply this:

If the agreements are that there exists a hand of a specific strength (measured in HCP) which should be passed rather than opened, and a different hand of less strength (also as measured in HCP) that can be opened at the one level, then the system is HUM.

In order to avoid a HUM classification the latter hand must be opened at the two-level (or higher) unless it is to be passed out.

regards Sven

[PeterE]

cherdanno, on Sep 17 2009, 01:53 AM, said:

Then Kaplan-Sheinwold (with solid minor openings) is HUM too?

A system that distinguishes between balanced and unbalanced hands and adjusts the point strength according to the balance-type is not a HUM per se.

But in Wayne's system he did not mention balance. In his system a hand with 9-10 HCP without a major may be balanced or unbalanced. And those hands are quite probably stronger than some balanced 8 HCP hands with a 4 card major.
Therefore HUM.

[Cascade]

pran, on Sep 17 2009, 09:46 PM, said:

The effect of the quoted HUM rule is simply this:

If the agreements are that there exists a hand of a specific strength (measured in HCP) which should be passed rather than opened, and a different hand of less strength (also as measured in HCP) that can be opened at the one level, then the system is HUM.

In order to avoid a HUM classification the latter hand must be opened at the two-level (or higher) unless it is to be passed out.

regards Sven

The problem with this interpretation is that as others have pointed out it makes almost any standard system a HUM.

Say Not Vulnerable 3rd seat I would PASS systemically with ♠ KJx ♥ Kxx ♦ QJx ♣ Jxxx but would open systemically 1♥ with ♠ xx ♥ AKQxx ♦ xxx ♣ xxx. The existence of a hand that I would open with 9 HCP and one that I would PASS with 11 HCP.

I doubt this is intended to be classified as a HUM.

But as usual that is not really the problem the problem is where does the boundary occur.

What about a system where 1NT is 8-10 Balanced and other suit openings are 11+. Now there exist distributional 9 and 10 counts that are passed so the 1NT opening could be weaker than a PASS.

I really do not know what openings 8+ are intended to be classified as HUM by this regulation.

[Blue Uriah]

Cascade, on Sep 17 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

Say Not Vulnerable 3rd seat I would PASS systemically with ♠ KJx ♥ Kxx ♦ QJx ♣ Jxxx but would open systemically 1♥ with ♠ xx ♥ AKQxx ♦ xxx ♣ xxx.  The existence of a hand that I would open with 9 HCP and one that I would PASS with 11 HCP.

Doesn't this mean that, according to your system, you deem the first hand to be weaker than the second hand? It may have more HCP but you don't think it's good enough for a third seat opening, whereas you do think the second hand is.

I think the word 'may' in the regulations is intended to stop systems such as 1♣ showing either 0-2 or 16+, with Pass showing 3-9 or whatever. Here, the opening bid "may" be weaker than pass. It's not true that it "must" be weaker than pass and it's also not true that it "is usually" weaker than pass.

[bluejak]

One thing has been clear for many years: the WBF regulations are not well written, and it is easy to pick holes in them. Thus you need to follow normal interpretations of them and not treat them pedantically.

No, Wayne, your system is not a HUM. Since pass is 0+HCP, and none of your openings can be weaker than that, it is not a HUM. Yes, I agree that is not what the regulation says, but that is what it means.

[helene_t]

It must mean that there is a hand which opens at the 1-level but would pass (given the same vuln etc) if we change one of the cards to a higher card in the same suit. Something like what Mbodell says, I think.

Any other interpretation would make the definition (and the local regulations banning HUMs in many tourneys) absurd.

[cherdanno]

PeterE, on Sep 17 2009, 04:49 AM, said:

cherdanno, on Sep 17 2009, 01:53 AM, said:

Then Kaplan-Sheinwold (with solid minor openings) is HUM too?

A system that distinguishes between balanced and unbalanced hands and adjusts the point strength according to the balance-type is not a HUM per se.

But in Wayne's system he did not mention balance. In his system a hand with 9-10 HCP without a major may be balanced or unbalanced. And those hands are quite probably stronger than some balanced 8 HCP hands with a 4 card major.
Therefore HUM.

I think you missed my point. In K-S (the way I understand it), there are many unbalanced hands that are opened with 1M, that would be passed if the longest suit was a minor - even if you made them a point stronger.

[Trinidad]

Cascade, on Sep 17 2009, 08:06 AM, said:

What is the interpretation of this part of the HUM regulations:

"By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass."

I ask with particular reference to the use of "may".

If a system opens some hands with x HCP but does not open with others with y HCP (y>x) then it would seem to me that 'an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass'.

e.g. Say I had this structure:

1♣ 8+ with 4+ hearts
1♦ 8+ with 4+ spades
1♥ 11+ with 4+ clubs
1♠ 11+ with 4+ diamonds
1NT 12-14

Now hands with 9-10 HCP and no major are not opened so that opening hands with a four-card major and 8 HCP are weaker than some of the hands that we PASS.

So is this system a HUM?

No.

The simple criterion works like this:
Try to think of a hand that you would pass.
Now change the hand so that you change one card into a weaker card (a J to a T, or an 8 to a 7) in the same suit.

You are playing a HUM if by using this procedure, you could find two hands where you would open the weaker one, but would pass with the stronger one.

("Opening" means "opening at the one level".)

In your case, the distributions are different, therefore you are not playing a HUM. The reason, of course, is that it is impossible (and unnatural) to force every one to evaluate distribution and ranking of the suits in a preset, standardized way.

Rik

[barmar]

Isn't the real intent of this rule to describe "forcing pass" systems in a more generic way? Or is that addressed elsewhere in the regulation?

[campboy]

Well, there are other bits of the regulation to deal with normal forcing pass systems

Quote

1. 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
[...]
3. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength.

but I suppose it would be possible to play some sort of two-way pass which isn't covered by these, but is covered by #2.

[hrothgar]

Trinidad, on Sep 17 2009, 05:38 PM, said:

The simple criterion works like this:
Try to think of a hand that you would pass.
Now change the hand so that you change one card into a weaker card (a J to a T, or an 8 to a 7) in the same suit.

You are playing a HUM if by using this procedure, you could find two hands where you would open the weaker one, but would pass with the stronger one.

("Opening" means "opening at the one level".)

Hmmm

I LIKE this definition. I'm having a fairly hard time coming up with a convincing counter example. (I do wonder whether it would be better to change

"Opening" means "opening at the one level"

to

"Opening" means "opening 1♣ < -- > 1♠"