[wank]

I noticed on the EBU website that there is a random convention which has been licensed called the 'Stevenson Spade' whereby a 1♠ opener shows an opening bid in which one of the minors is the longest suit, and which says nothing about the majors. This would be a HUM according to the WBF.

There is only one other WBF HUM allowed by the EBU: a nebulous minor opener in a non-strong minor system. It's obvious why this might be allowed - people are relatively well exposed to precision 1♦ and the lack of a strong minor opening shouldn't make a great deal of difference.

On the other hand, I can see no reason whatsoever why an exception should be made for this Stevenson Spade. If I'm not mistaken there is an EBU Laws and Ethics committee member called Stevenson. Obviously the 2 might not be connected, but if they were that would be more than a trifle suspicious and would lead to some to conclude that the committee isn't very impartial. Perhaps someone could shed some light on that.

Either way, perhaps you could comment on how justifiable you consider the licensing of this convention within the wider EBU approach to the licensing of 1M openings which is as follows:-

Agreeing to open 1 of a suit is permitted if it promises 4+ cards in a specified suit, forcing or not.

Agreeing to open 1 of a major is permitted on any hand if it's forcing and promises a hand conforming to extended rule of 25.

Agreeing to open 1 of a major is permitted to show a [semi-]balanced hand in a specified range but must not be forcing.

[blackshoe]

According to my dictionary "random" means "made, done, happening or chosen without method or conscious decision". What evidence do you have that this convention, or the approval of this convention, meets that meaning?

That any particular person in England might or might not see a reason for allowing the convention doesn't mean that the EBU committee charged with approving conventions didn't think there was a valid reason to do so. If you want to know what that reason is, I suggest you ask them, instead of trolling conspiracy theories on the internet.

[wank]

Well, as per the title of this section of the BBO forum, it's for international laws, so one would hope it's possible to get a less biased response here than communicating with the EBU committee whose response might be influenced by politics. I don't consider your reply to be very constructive, which is sad considering I saw that you're one of the moderators for this section of the forum. Do you write to all the original committee members before you comment on a hand posted in the appeals section? Do you write to the original director who gave a reported decision with which you diagree, in case there's some relevant extraneous information?

With regard to your criticism of the word 'random' with regard to this convention's licensing, the fact that it's not a popular convention - I've never played against anyone using it - but it is one of only 2 WBF HUM methods to have got licenses (the other of which, the nebulous minor, is a common convention, albeit in an uncommon context) does appear random to me.

A parallel could be drawn with the multi 2 diamonds. defending against which was considered too complex for players under the EBU's old system intermediate level of conventions [level 3], but which was allowed by the EBU specifically because it was popular. If this convention is not considered to be too complex to defend against, then there is no reason why the entire raft of 1 level openings can't be relaxed, for example why not a Stevenson 1♥ - 1 bid lower so easier to defend against in theory, or a stevenson 1♦/♣ showing an opening bid with the longest suit being a major. On the other hand, if it is complex to defend against, why is it given an exception when it's obviously not very popular (I would be shocked if this convention had crossed the threshold into being considered 'popular')?

I have no problem with the licensing of this convention per se, as I would much prefer an anything goes approach. However, whatever the rules are, they should be applied consistently.

[Vampyr]

wank, on Nov 10 2009, 05:48 AM, said:

I have no problem with the licensing of this convention per se, as I would much prefer an anything goes approach.  However, whatever the rules are, they should be applied consistently.

Indeed. I don't like the EBU approach at all -- make regulations defining categories of permitted agreements, and then grant licenses for specific exceptions when people request it.

[mjj29]

wank, on Nov 9 2009, 11:04 PM, said:

On the other hand, I can see no reason whatsoever why an exception should be made for this Stevenson Spade. If I'm not mistaken there is an EBU Laws and Ethics committee member called Stevenson. Obviously the 2 might not be connected, but if they were that would be more than a trifle suspicious and would lead to some to conclude that the committee isn't very impartial. Perhaps someone could shed some light on that.

The licence to play a Stevenson Spade was applied for by the David Stevenson who runs this forum and currently sits on the EBU Laws and Ethics committee. I don't know whether he was there when it was granted a licence.

As to why it was granted and not any other simillar bids it is simply that noone has requested anything else. The EBU consider individual applications for systems which are not currently legal, it is far from the only one. A quick glance through shows 11 named conventions which are given exceptions. A similar number were given exceptions in the previous orange book but have either been removed (rarely) or the general rules rewritten to encompass them (much more common).

The EBU approach seems to be 'accept individual applications where they seem reasonable, if enough similar applications are made, change the rules so they are all allowed under a blanket regulation', which seems like a sensible approach. There's no point in allowing conventions that noone wants after all. I also hope that there isn't a requirement for a convention to become 'popular' before it is allowed. How will it become popular if it is not allowed?

I also would like to think that the Laws and Ethics committee members are able to use the same process as everyone else if they see a change that they would like made to the regulations without having people cry favouratism.

[helene_t]

I don't think there is any exception made for the Stevenson Spade. As far as I understand, EBU doesn't use the concept of "Licensed agreements" anymore.

Rather, there is a general framework from which it can be deduced whether a particular convention is allowed or not. The Orange Book then gives examples. The Stevenson Spade is used as an example because it is well-known among directors because a famous director invented it. You are free to invent your own conventions as long as they fit into the general framework.

(This may not be 100% accurate, please correct me if I am wrong).

[wank]

that's not true. the framework is as I wrote it above. individual conventions can be licensed as well. this is outside the framework.

[Vampyr]

mjj29, on Nov 10 2009, 10:30 AM, said:

I also hope that there isn't a requirement for a convention to become 'popular' before it is allowed. How will it become popular if it is not allowed?

The OP wasn't talking about conventions in general, but about HUMs.

[helene_t]

Sr I stand corrected.

Yeah agree it looks a little weird.

The balanced or semibalanced 1M opening be restricted to not including a 4-card major, so a.o. 6m322 would be covered by that. I suppose the Stevenson spade can be opened with a singleton or void somewhere, though.

[campboy]

The EBU is currently very permissive about constructive opening bids at the 1-level. Also, it generally has quite different criteria from the WBF as to what aspects of a convention make it worth prohibiting, so it is no surprise that some conventions will be permitted which are HUMs, and some will be prohibited which are not HUMs. If you look at the section on 2-level openings, for example, you will find that a significant number of what the WBF would call "Brown Sticker" conventions are permitted, while a few things which are not Brown Sticker are not permitted.

Since exemptions are specifically considered by the Laws and Ethics committee only when applied for, probably the reason no similar convention to the Stevenson spade is licensed is simply that no-one has asked.

[bluejak]

Over the last 15 or so years the number of applications turned down is very few compared to the number accepted.

If you would like to put in writing in a letter to the EBU that the only reason this agreement is permitted is because I am a member of the L&EC, feel free. I can think of two members, neither of them still on the Committee who would be charmed to sue you.

As to moderating, this forum is for people to make suggestions and ask reasonable questions. Suggestions that a Committee has acted in a totally unreasonable fashion are hardly covered by this and do not seem to be a sensible way of seeking information.

The term 'licensing' was discontinued about 15 years ago. Agreements are either permitted or not. While there are occasional complaints about the method of deciding this they are rare and no-one has come up with a viable alternative. However, I cannot remember any earlier complaint ever that the method involves bias.

The concept of HUMs is not one used in England in deciding what to permit. Nor do we consider whether an agreement is GCC or MidChart: what other authorities do is irrelevant. So I do not understand what the question about permitting this 1♠ involves that it is a HUM.

Quote

Indeed. I don't like the EBU approach at all -- make regulations defining categories of permitted agreements, and then grant licenses for specific exceptions when people request it.

That is not the approach. Applications for permission to use something is the way it has been done for a long time: that is the way to get something new played. Blanket permissions have developed out of individual permissions where the Committee think this is best.

Quote

for example why not a Stevenson 1♥ - 1 bid lower so easier to defend against in theory, or a stevenson 1♦/♣ showing an opening bid with the longest suit being a major.

If someone applies for this, we shall find out whether the Committee will allow it. Since no-one has we do not know, do we?

Quote

On the other hand, if it is complex to defend against, why is it given an exception when it's obviously not very popular (I would be shocked if this convention had crossed the threshold into being considered 'popular')?

How on earth does something become popular without being allowed when it was not popular?

[Echognome]

For what it's worth, I played the Stevenson 1♠ opening for several years when I lived in England. It has a definite purpose. Consider our 1-level openings at the time:

1♣ ART, 16+ hcp
1♦ 4+♥, 10-15hcp, may be canape
1♥ 4+♠, 10-15hcp, may be canape
1♠ no 4cM, 10-15hcp, unbal --> one or both minors
1NT 12-15 bal or semi-bal

So the 1♠ opening freed us up from having to use 2♣ and 2♦ to show constructive openings (and indeed we used them for preempts). It was a very constructive bid. We played over 1♠:

1NT GF Relay
2♣ Pass/Correct
2♦ 5+♥, INV+
2♥ 5+♠, INV+
etc.

Then we could relay out partner's exact shape for game/slam purposes. We had a low level pass/correct.

Basically it fit nicely into the system. It may not be what a particular pair enjoys playing, but we certainly did and I'm thankful someone had applied for the license.

[awm]

It may be vaguely relevant that the ACBL committee in charge of such regulations has been accused of favoritism as well. The cited convention is a 2♠ opening which shows a weak hand with an unspecified minor (on the mid-chart). This is played mostly by Meckstroth and Rodwell (Meckstroth was on the committee for many years). Most comparable calls showing an unspecified suit are not allowed.

Certainly it seems a bit odd when you have general rules and then there are a very small number of exceptions which are mostly played by the committee members. However, I think for the accusation of favoritism to carry any weight, the committee must have a history of declining to allow comparable methods that were requested by non-committee members. I could understand if there were a lot of people whose "weird" one-level constructive openings had been refused by the committee while the Stevenson Spade is allowed. However, it seems like this is not actually the case in the EBU. In ACBL, the committee does have a history of refusing relatively benign conventional methods (for example people have been trying to get 3NT = good preempt in an unspecified major allowed for years in ACBL; it's simpler to defend than 2♠ = unspecified minor or 3NT = unspecified minor, both of which are allowed, yet the committee seems to be dragging its feet).

[jallerton]

****, on Nov 10 2009, 04:04 AM, said:

I noticed on the EBU website that there is a random convention which has been licensed called the 'Stevenson Spade' whereby a 1♠ opener shows an opening bid in which one of the minors is the longest suit, and which says nothing about the majors.  This would be a HUM according to the WBF.

There is only one other WBF HUM allowed by the EBU: a nebulous minor opener in a non-strong minor system.  It's obvious why this might be allowed - people are relatively well exposed to precision 1♦ and the lack of a strong minor opening shouldn't make a great deal of difference. 

Not strictly true:

WBF systems policy said:

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 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
By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass.
By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength.
By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit
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

So yes, the Stevenson 1♠ Opener is a HUM, but no the Precison 1♦ Opener is not.

However, I would suggest that the Stevenson 1♠ Opener is not the only HUM licensed (sorry, David, permitted) at Level 4. How about the following?

1. Agreeing to open 1 of a major is permitted on any hand if it's forcing and promises a hand conforming to extended rule of 25.

2. Agreeing to open 1 of a major is permitted to show a [semi-]balanced hand in a specified range but must not be forcing.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Nov 9 2009, 11:41 PM, said:

According to my dictionary "random" means "made, done, happening or chosen without method or conscious decision". What evidence do you have that this convention, or the approval of this convention, meets that meaning?

From the Jargon File

Quote

1. Unpredictable (closest to mathematical definition); weird. “The system's been behaving pretty randomly.”

2. Assorted; undistinguished. “Who was at the conference?” “Just a bunch of random business types.”

3. (pejorative) Frivolous; unproductive; undirected. “He's just a random loser.”

4. Incoherent or inelegant; poorly chosen; not well organized. “The program has a random set of misfeatures.” “That's a random name for that function.” “Well, all the names were chosen pretty randomly.”

5. In no particular order, though deterministic. “The I/O channels are in a pool, and when a file is opened one is chosen randomly.”

6. Arbitrary. “It generates a random name for the scratch file.”

7. Gratuitously wrong, i.e., poorly done and for no good apparent reason. For example, a program that handles file name defaulting in a particularly useless way, or an assembler routine that could easily have been coded using only three registers, but redundantly uses seven for values with non-overlapping lifetimes, so that no one else can invoke it without first saving four extra registers. What randomness!

I think he may have been using sense 6.

[mjj29]

jallerton, on Nov 10 2009, 05:39 PM, said:

WBF systems policy said:

2.2 HUM Systems
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

So yes, the Stevenson 1♠ Opener is a HUM, but no the Precison 1♦ Opener is not.

It is a HUM if it's not in a strong club or strong diamond system. For example:

1C=either minor, 1D=hearts, 1H=spades, 1S=16+

[helene_t]

I can't make much sense of the word "random" in this context.

Maybe if we have the agreement that after opps unfavorable vuln strong 1♣ opening, with certain hand types we just pick a random bidding card between, say, 1♦ and 2♦, i.e. an extreme example of a mixed strategy.

But if what is meant is "catch-all", then "random" is a weird word to use.

[greenender]

Most of the things that are specifically permitted arise because people are trying to construct a system and find that some hand-type causes a difficulty. They find a solution, but find that it doesn't come within the list of permitted agreements (either the blanket or the specific ones). They therefore apply for it to be permitted, and frequently succeed. The fact that it may look a little odd in isolation is a red herring. It wasn't applied for in isolation.

I wouldn't mind betting that David applied for the Stevenson 1♠ because either he or someone he knew wanted to play a system such as Echognome mentions. After all, if you want to play a strong club and transfer openings showing the majors, 1♠ ought to show something.

The general scheme of regulation is far, far better than it was when I started playing nearly 30 years ago. In those days the equivalent of the Orange Book was published annually, and contained far more individually licensed methods and far fewer generic provisions. It also contgained oddities such as that certain things could only be played in the context of a given basic system.

Bridge players being what they are, no system of regulation is going to satisfy everybody, but I know of few who would wish to return to the bad old ways. The fact that we have a system of regulation that is as good as it is is due in large part to the enthusiasm and commitment of people such as David over many years, and please bear in mind, that - apart from modest payment for occasional specific projects - all these people are unpaid volunteers.

[bluejak]

The history of the 1♠ bid is simple. Many many years ago back when systems were licensed someone - I forget who, but I have a faint memory of an unknown name from Manchester - applied for a license for a very simple system, namely:

1♣ 15+, bal or 4441 or longest suit a minor
1♦ 11+, 5+♥s
1♥ 11+, 5+♠s
1♠ 11-14, unbal, longest suit a minor
1NT 12-14, bal

The L&EC of the day turned the application down.

More recently, someone tried to get permission for an Australian system where 1♦ showed spades. Nowadays, agreements are permitted: we no longer "license" nor consider systems. When it was agreed, it seemed obvious that if you allow 1♦ to show spades, then you should allow any one-bid to show any one specific suit. So we did.

Now, vague and nebulous clubs, forcing or not, have been allowed for some time, so long as they do not include an unbalanced hand where the longest suit is a major. So it occurred to me that the system above had been legalised - except for the 1♠ bid. We started playing it with a Precision type 2♣ opening, and the 1♠ opening showing diamonds, and I applied for permission to play the 1♠ bid as above, pointing out it filled a hole in the system.

At around the same time, I made a proposal for a change in alerting that would improve it a lot, in my view. I was quietly confident that my alerting change would go through, and my application for 1♠ would not.

Wrong on both counts.

[jeremy69]

I think the OP is quite well named (in an anonymous sort of way).
I can recall asking for a convention to be licensed but before I was a member of the L&E and it was a. rejected and b. I paid, I think, £12 for the privilege.

Since I have been a member I don't recall any member getting special treatment in the area of licensing or indeed anything else but if you want to suggest that this is wrong then I think specific evidence rather than random, unpleasant, anonymous and unsubstantiated rant would be better.