[Codo]

I would open both.

Hand 1 is crap, but it still has a 5 card major and 12 HCPS, so a no brainer to open it in any given system.
Hand 2 is an easy opener too, nice suit, two aces, what do I need more?

[Mbodell]

I would open the first in most circumstances and the second in some. If I was playing weak NT I'd open 1nt. If playing strong NT in a 2/1 system I'm open 1M and pass a 1nt response (regardless of if our agreement is forcing or semi-forcing).

[phil_20686]

I think they are both normal openers. Would be closer to passing the second than the first. Think the T987 in the heart suit are very valuable in the first hand. Also, having your J's with other honours means they are not as undervalued as they would be with other honour structure. I think that this hand one is really quite a respectable wk nt. I Feel the two hands are pretty close. If you played in NT you would definitely prefer the top one to the second, though obviously the top one is horrible in a suit.

[rmnka447]

The rule of 20 popularized by Marty Bergen was simply the total of the two longest suits and HCP. Then some experts, after seeing how blatantly some people applied the rule, started advocating a rule of 22 which did include QTs along with long suits and HCP.

A couple years ago, Mike Lawrence published a series of articles in the ACBL Bulletin on this very subject.

Funny, but virtually all the examples Bergen uses in his books (Points Schmoints series, Marty Sez series) that he says meet the rule of 20 also meet the rule of 22 with one exception ♠ - ♥ 6 ♦ KJ109652 ♣ AJ1097.

Furthermore, Bergen also points out that opening ♠ K ♥ QJ ♦ Q5432 ♣ Q5432 which meets the rule of 20 is ridiculous. He also states that he would never pass ♠ AQ1098 ♥ A1098 ♦ 1098 ♣ 10 which fails it.

While Bergen never explicitly endorses a rule of 22, he does later state that "It may be out of fashion to count quick tricks, but you can't play good bridge without doing so".

I think Bergen likes a little more flexibility than a hard and fast QT rule, but still uses them as part of the decision making process.

P.S. The Lawrence articles were in the August 2009-October 2009 issues in the new player section.

[rmnka447]

Just for the record, Hand 1 is never an opening bid for me.

Hand 2 depends.

With my aggressive bidding style partner, it would be a clear opener no matter what seat.

With more conventional partners, I might pass in 1st or 2nd seat, but would open in 3rd or 4th seat. Depending on the partner, the 3rd seat opener might be either 1 ♠ or 2 ♠.

[kayin801]

Passing either of these hands is insane. I guess I'd at least give thought to not opening the 1st in 4th seat though.

[jillybean]

I hate seeing these "rules" appear in BBF, and BBO players quoting them as their reasoning for opening or not opening a particular hand. Aspiring players need to learn to hand evaluation and that is not going to happen when they rely on these wretched rules. There will always be marginal hands which you may or may not open depending on any number of factors. I think it is preferable to develop your own hand evaluation skills and then agree with your partner what your minimum openings look like.

Opening "rules" should be banned in bbf along with insults, excessive ♥'s and vulgar language.

[mike777]

Great post JB that brings up so many issues.


I am one of those that argue hand evaluation is simply a matter of rules. That judgement is simply a matter of rules. Very often unstated rules that players are unable to express or teach in words. A perfect example why teaching is tough.


But you make the great case that BBO hates rules. I strongly agree with your last 2 sentences.

[Mbodell]

I agree with mike777. I think rules are useful to help people develop judgement. If you are used to needing 13 HCP before you can open (or 12 HCP even), and want to develop some better judgement, try agreeing to open all 7 LTC or better hands. After doing this for a while you'll discover that on hands with 7 or better LTC but fewer HCP you often get good results, but on some you get bad results as the 7 LTC is too loose. So then you learn from these results and get judgement. You have to prime the pump of examples (both successful and unsuccessful) before people get judgement of when to stretch to bid with fewer HCP and when to not stretch. HCP, rule of 20 or rule of 22, LTC, ZAR points, K&R evaluation, CCC points, binky points, length adjustments, extra points for shortness, support points, cover cards, law of total tricks, etc. are all just guidelines that help people as starting places.

I mean how would you describe the judgement of what looks like a strong 1nt bid? I bet there would be some rules about HCP and/or balanced hand as a starting point.

Or to use another example, I have a newish-to-me-partner who is switching to weak nt with me and some of her other partners and likes it. But we were discussing when to look at penalizing the opponents in a part score when partner has opened a weak nt. I've invented a "rule" for that which helps until one develops the judgement to be better than the rule. My rule is X for penalties at the 2 level if your partners minimum HCP + minimum suit length + your HCP + your suit length >= 26 at MP, 28 at IMP. So over a 12-14 nt partner is promising 12 HCP and 2 cards in the suit. When I have 4 cards in the suit I'd want to double for penalties with 8 HCP at MP. With only 3 cards I'd need at least 9, and with 5 I'd be fine with 7 HCP. Is this "rule" better than judgement? NO! Is this "rule" a good starting point while you are developing judgement? Yes.

[GreenMan]

I use the rule of 20 and I don't care who knows it. I also devalue unprotected honors, discount for quacks and upgrade for extra aces, all judiciously. Lots of people do the same. Lots of people who don't use that rule or similar also don't know know to count Qx as less than 2 whole points. The one doesn't necessarily have to do with the other.

The Ro20 is a useful heuristic. So is "open with 13 HCP" or whatever else you may use. I'd rather see people taught to apply them intelligently than told not to use them at all.

[mike777]

Mbodell, on 2013-February-22, 01:17, said:

I agree with mike777. I think rules are useful to help people develop judgement. If you are used to needing 13 HCP before you can open (or 12 HCP even), and want to develop some better judgement, try agreeing to open all 7 LTC or better hands. After doing this for a while you'll discover that on hands with 7 or better LTC but fewer HCP you often get good results, but on some you get bad results as the 7 LTC is too loose. So then you learn from these results and get judgement. You have to prime the pump of examples (both successful and unsuccessful) before people get judgement of when to stretch to bid with fewer HCP and when to not stretch. HCP, rule of 20 or rule of 22, LTC, ZAR points, K&R evaluation, CCC points, binky points, length adjustments, extra points for shortness, support points, cover cards, law of total tricks, etc. are all just guidelines that help people as starting places.

I mean how would you describe the judgement of what looks like a strong 1nt bid? I bet there would be some rules about HCP and/or balanced hand as a starting point.

I think you make a great case for a term that you did not use. TRIAL AND ERROR
But you use excellent examples.


greenman uses the more complicated phrase "useful heuristic"

[Zelandakh]

If you use some basic "judgement" adjustments, such as +0.5 per ace, -0.5 per quack without a higher honour, -1 per singleton K, Q o J, -1 per "useless" doubleton honour, -0.5 per "doubtful doubleton honour", practically all of these hands come out with a number which would indicate the action (open/pass) adocated by the majority for a given hand of that value and shape. You can try counting values for shape too, which is fine but only takes you so far and it is probably simpler just to have a given level which is your minium for a particular hand pattern. I do think about adding values for balanced hands but that is a somewhat special case since you are comparing with a certain baseline pattern. Also, some hands in the middle are simply style calls and it matters less whether you choose to open them as whether your partner will expect you to open them.

Unfortunately, the bottom line here is that no matter how sophisticated your evaluation algorithm, it is not going to be a substitute for judgement and experience. Perhaps a computer could be programmed with an algorithm that took account of every detail given enough expert input but computer bridge has more pressing issues to deal with for the time being.

[mike777]

Zel makes excellent points.


I only refer to "useful heuristic" as a starting point.


If you have something better....great!


I just want to repeat using a heuristic, a long, tested one, can often be better in many things in life, not perfect.

[Cthulhu D]

Given i'm NV I'd open hand 3 in 1st through 3rd, but pass it in 4th. I'm playing a mini no trump so this isn't as much a distortion as it might be.

I'd open hand 2, but I might dump it in 4th just because partner shares my opening philosphy

[billw55]

jillybean, on 2013-February-21, 23:05, said:

I hate seeing these "rules" appear in BBF, and BBO players quoting them as their reasoning for opening or not opening a particular hand. Aspiring players need to learn to hand evaluation and that is not going to happen when they rely on these wretched rules. There will always be marginal hands which you may or may not open depending on any number of factors. I think it is preferable to develop your own hand evaluation skills and then agree with your partner what your minimum openings look like.

Opening "rules" should be banned in bbf along with insults, excessive ♥'s and vulgar language.

I wish I could give rep per sentence instead of only per post.

[Siegmund]

Oh dear.

I already see too many students who are unwilling to open flat 14 counts "because they dont have a second suit to rebid". Now they have a rule that tells them they are right!

Argh.

[EricK]

Playing a Weak NT I'd open 1NT on the first but pass the second. Playing a strong NT , I'd pass the first and open 1♠ on the second.

Well, in reality, I'd probably open both whatever I was playing, but I find it hard to live up to my high ideals.