[paehcpaehc]

I wonder if the following bid matches the definition of an HUM

1C = 1) any unbalanced hand without 4 card major, or 2) 16-18 balance

Hence it can show length in clubs or length in diamonds.
It seems to match the definition "shows either length in one specified suit or length in another"
Any thoughts?

[hrothgar]

 paehcpaehc, on 2020-March-03, 12:41, said:

I wonder if the following bid matches the definition of an HUM

1C = 1) any unbalanced hand without 4 card major, or 2) 16-18 balance

Hence it can show length in clubs or length in diamonds.
It seems to match the definition "shows either length in one specified suit or length in another"
Any thoughts?

HUM describes a system, not an individual bid.

This will ultimately depend on the minimum strength for definition 1

[johnu]

What country do you play in? And what is the minimum to open 1♣

[Cyberyeti]

 paehcpaehc, on 2020-March-03, 12:41, said:

I wonder if the following bid matches the definition of an HUM

1C = 1) any unbalanced hand without 4 card major, or 2) 16-18 balance

Hence it can show length in clubs or length in diamonds.
It seems to match the definition "shows either length in one specified suit or length in another"
Any thoughts?

Unless it's changed recently this would be fine in the UK and fall under the rules designed to cater for for what is essentially a strong diamond's 1♣:

Longest suit clubs
Longest suit diamonds
Balanced

As alternatives with an odd balanced range

[helene_t]

We have had this discussion before: https://www.bridgeba...ould-it-be-hum/

It seems that although it meets the literal definition of a HUM, in practice most directors and comitees would condone it. The spirit of the regulation presumably is to restrict certain artificial major suit openings, and maybe minor suit openings that could have 5-card length in an unknown major. Openings like the nebulous Precision 1♦ opening is considered more benign, even if the regulations strictly say that they are allowed only in the context of a strong ♣ or strong ♦ system.

[pescetom]

 helene_t, on 2020-March-03, 15:27, said:

We have had this discussion before: https://www.bridgeba...ould-it-be-hum/

It seems that although it meets the literal definition of a HUM, in practice most directors and comitees would condone it. The spirit of the regulation presumably is to restrict certain artificial major suit openings, and maybe minor suit openings that could have 5-card length in an unknown major. Openings like the nebulous Precision 1♦ opening is considered more benign, even if the regulations strictly say that they are allowed only in the context of a strong ♣ or strong ♦ system.

It seems that the WBF Systems Policy has changed since the discussion you cite.
I interpret that it would not allow this, due to "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either three cards or more in one specified suit or three cards or more in another" applied to the minors.
This apart from "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with 7 high card points or less", if "Any" unbalanced could refer to less.
As a Director applying this I would not condone, especially as my RA won't allow me to open a 2 level Suction which is considerably less clear

[helene_t]

 pescetom, on 2020-March-03, 16:01, said:

I interpret that it would not allow this, due to "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either three cards or more in one specified suit or three cards or more in another" applied to the minors.

Yes, you may be right.

But a 2+ 1♣ opening, as in Italian Standard for example, promises either 3+ clubs OR 3+ spades for example (actually 3+ of everything else if it doesn't have 3+ clubs).

Presumably it was not the intention of the lawmakers to classify Italian Standard as HUM.

This is one of my pet peeve: why can't the lawmakers write what they mean? It's not rocket science. "For any pair of suits (A,B), an opening which contains unbalanced hands with 5+ A and 3- B and also contains 5+B and 3- A, with both options not promising 15+ HCPs, is considered HUM". If that is what they mean. If it's not, then write what the do mean.

Arghhhhhh.

[pescetom]

 helene_t, on 2020-March-03, 18:14, said:

Yes, you may be right.

But a 2+ 1♣ opening, as in Italian Standard for example, promises either 3+ clubs OR 3+ spades for example (actually 3+ of everything else if it doesn't have 3+ clubs).

Presumably it was not the intention of the lawmakers to classify Italian Standard as HUM.

This is one of my pet peeve: why can't the lawmakers write what they mean? It's not rocket science. "For any pair of suits (A,B), an opening which contains unbalanced hands with 5+ A and 3- B and also contains 5+B and 3- A, with both options not promising 15+ HCPs, is considered HUM". If that is what they mean. If it's not, then write what the do mean.

Arghhhhhh.

I agree that explanations like the one you suggest would be much clearer.

I guess you could consider the Italian 2+ 1♣ as a technical violation of the HUM rules as written (even if it's just a rational way to play 5-card majors), but the policy does say later on that "For the avoidance of doubt an opening bid of one club which may be made on a doubleton or singleton club and which is ostensibly natural and non-forcing should be regarded as natural and not artificial.".

My pet peeve is that I'm not allowed to make a 2-level opening which can be weak and shows either a one-suiter in the next higher ranking suit or a two suiter in the other two suits. This is considered a Brown Sticker on the basis that it does not promise a known suit - but while there are two possible and different situations here, both do promise known suit(s). I find this galling, especially considering the contorted exception they made for Multi.

[Povratnik]

 pescetom, on 2020-March-03, 16:01, said:

It seems that the WBF Systems Policy has changed since the discussion you cite.

I consider myself a VERY fluent English reader, but the fact that it's not my native language sometimes takes it's toll...
I don't fully understand section 2.1 d:
By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either three cards or
more, or two cards or less in a specified suit

Do ALL native English speakers perfectly understand this? Can somebody explain it to the rest of us?

[hrothgar]

 Povratnik, on 2020-March-04, 15:19, said:

I consider myself a VERY fluent English reader, but the fact that it's not my native language sometimes takes it's toll...
I don't fully understand section 2.1 d:
By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either three cards or
more, or two cards or less in a specified suit

Do ALL native English speakers perfectly understand this? Can somebody explain it to the rest of us?

This section of the regulation is meant to ban so-called "wonder bids"

Consider the following example: A 1♥ opening that shows either (0-1) Spades OR 4+ Spades

FWIW, I agree that the regulation is poorly written.
I probably wouldn't understand it myself if I didn't know some of the bids that this is designed to ban.

[pescetom]

 Povratnik, on 2020-March-04, 15:19, said:

Do ALL native English speakers perfectly understand this?

No
Taken literally it might mean 0 to 3+ cards in specified suit, perhaps excluding some but not all values below 3.

[helene_t]

 Povratnik, on 2020-March-04, 15:19, said:

Do ALL native English speakers perfectly understand this? Can somebody explain it to the rest of us?

There are two possible interpretations:

1) All bids must promise 2.00001 - 2.99999 cards in every suit. This is obviously impossible as it would render all systems illegal.
2) All bids must clarify, for each suit, whether they have length in that suit or not.

2) is just about possible to comply with. Consider this system
1♣= 4333
1♦= 3-suited (3+, 3+, 3+ ) short clubs
1♥=3-suited short diamond
1♠=3-suited short hearts
1NT=3-suited short spades
One-suited (7222, 8221) and two-suited (6322, 7321, 5422, 5521) hands must open at the 2-level or higher.

Of course, even under the more liberal 2) interpretation, every normal and/or playable system would be HUM.

At EBU level 4, a 1♥ and 1♠ opening must promise 4+ cards in the named suit. Can we make such a system that is not HUM? Let's try:
1♣=4333
1♦=3-suited short clubs
1♥=3-suited short spades, must have 4+ hearts
1♠=3-suited short hearts, must have 4+ spades
1NT=3-suited short diamonds

So now the 2-level openings must also contain 4432, 5332, 6331, 5530, 6430 and 5431 hands with 3-0, 3-1 or 3-2 in the majors.

[Povratnik]

My understanding isn't much deeper, but I FEEL much better ... Thanks for all answers

[Zelandakh]

 paehcpaehc, on 2020-March-03, 12:41, said:

Any thoughts?

As others have said the term HUM applies to a system and not to a specific bid. To answer this question you need to tell us:-
1. The minimum range of your 1♣ opening;
2. The meaning of your 1♦ opening;
3. The meaning of Pass, if that is at all different from a natural system.

At a basic level, if your 1♦ opening is strong then the overall system would probably be classified as Blue. If either of your 1♣ or 1♦ opening was being made on extremely weak hands then the system would be Yellow (HUM) under "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength." Otherwise, your system is likely to be classified as Red, since this 1♣ opening alone does not seem to tick any of the 5 boxes that would force a Yellow classification.

Finally, here is a link to the WBF Systems Policy so that you can see the actual regulations and judge for yourself.

[pescetom]

 Zelandakh, on 2020-March-05, 04:27, said:

Finally, here is a link to the WBF Systems Policy so that you can see the actual regulations and judge for yourself.

That link is to an obsolete version, the current version is linked in my first post to this thread.

[Zelandakh]

 pescetom, on 2020-March-05, 07:38, said:

That link is to an obsolete version, the current version is linked in my first post to this thread.

The 5 HUM points are identical in the 2 documents, just that in yours the defined terms have been substituted.

[barmar]

 Zelandakh, on 2020-March-05, 04:27, said:

As others have said the term HUM applies to a system and not to a specific bid.

But doesn't the definition of HUM precludes certain types of bids, so a single prohibited bid could render the entire system a HUM? That seems to be what the OP is asking: would including this bid in our system make it a HUM?

[helene_t]

Well, if 1d is 17+ unbal or 19+ bal, it clearly wouldn't be a hum.