[shevek]

We open nearly all hands with 12 HCP, unless there are problems like stiff honours.

The 11-point hands are unclear.

First there is the idea of length points - "add a point for a 5-card suit"
Firstly, is the quality of the suit important? Do you add a point for ♥65432?

I get how this works for notrumps

♠Ax ♥QJx ♦KQTxx ♣QT4

can open a strong 1NT because 14+1 = 15.

Does it also apply in deciding whether to open at all?
For instance

♠Kxx ♥Kxxxx ♦KQx ♣xx

Is this a 1♥ opening, because 11+1 = 12?

Maybe yes, but then what about the Rule of 20?

That hand has 11+8 = 19 Opening Points so should pass.
If we move a heart to diamonds, then it is a pass, however you count points.

So a question is ...
Which takes precedence? Length points or the Rule of 20

[dsLawsd]

Personally, I never use length points except to decide whether to open with 2 Clubs. I also don't use shortness points, but instead look to the texture and suit quality. Also, I tend to open a little light at matchpoints but take care when playing imps.

I dislike the rule of 20, but look to see what my major suit contains.
So I might open 1 Heart (playing semi-forcing nt with Drury in 3rd seat)
But I also often discount 1 point for an aceless hand and Qx AND Jx.

Jeff Rubens "Secrets of Winning Bridge" is a great reference for when and what to open- developing judgment. And Kit Woolsey's book on "Matchpoints" offers great insight also.

I would open 1 Heart on the last hand at matchpoints in 3rd seat.

I would Not open 1 NT on the 14 point hand even with tenaces. But that depends greatly on your total system.
A good friend of mine prefers 14 to 16 NT for that reason.

[Cyberyeti]

I tend to open unbalanced hands using rule of 19, balanced hands I take into account intermediates and a 5 card suit, as I have to open them a 12-14 1N rather than a suit, I would not open the 11 count you give, add the 109 of hearts, I might well.

[The_Badger]

I'm not totally keen personally on the Rule of 20 though obviously these things have been thoroughly analysed by players far, far better than me. As Cyberyeti rightly says, a few intermediates cards in the hand can make all the difference, especially in the long suit(s). ♥65432 is a definite downgrade.

I think you also have to take account what system you are playing too, whether it be Acol, SAYC, 2/1, etc. If you are playing a 5M system, the extra card has, as I see it, been already take into consideration.

What I look for using the Rule of 20 is an easy rebid whatever partner responds. That makes all the difference I feel. If you feel compromised in that situation, then maybe it's better to pass than open.

[Joe_Old]

If I remember correctly, the ACBL Bulletin recently published a good discussion of the Rule of 20. Being only two pages long, it was hardly complete.
The Rule of 20 is meant for first and second seat only. In fourth seat use the Rule of 15 and third seat you open with anything you think you can get away with, depending upon vulnerability. The second example hand I'd open in third seat at any vulnerability. Take away the queen and I'd still open 1♥ white (with a partner who is clued in to aggressive calls; that's why Drury was invented). I know top experts who will open any hand in third seat that they would overcall with, particularly if they hold 5+ ♠ because of the pre-emptive value. Many players open 5 card suits at the two level in third seat.
When using the Rule of 20 (or 19), one aim is to get in the opponents way, but the major goal is to identify distributional hands with a potential game (or slam) bonus in mind. Obviously, the bonus possibility rarely applies when opening light in third or fourth seat. Therefore, when opening light in first or second seat prime cards (A or K) and short suits are extra valuable. AQxxx Axxx xxx x is a far more potent hand than Kxx Kxxxx KQx xx, Kxx Qxxxx KQx Jx, or QJx Qxxx KQ Kxxx. That is, prime cards concentrated in your long suits are a big plus. Balanced hands (any 4432 or 5332) usually don't rate an upgrade unless subsequent bidding identifies something positive, like a double fit.

[mikeh]

The Rule of 20 is an abomination. It isn't merely unhelpful: it is actively damaging.

It was popularized because it is simple and most people who play bridge yearn for simple solutions to complex problems. There is no such thing as a free lunch in bridge, and hand evaluation is no exception.

There are hands that I would open, based on my own valuation metrics, that would also be opened by adherents to the Rule of 20.

Thus AQxxxx Axxx xx x is a clear 1S opener, whether one uses the Rule of 20 or the LTC (Losing Trick Count), or length adjustment for the spade suit or shortness adjustments for the minors.


xxxxxx xxxx AQ A is not an opening bid, imo.

Yet it passes the Rule of 20. It passes the LTC (loser count of 7 = opening bid). It passes the length or shortness adjustments, but nobody with a shred of bridge judgment would see this hand as remotely similar to AQxxxx Axxx xx x

Posing an obvious and trivial example should be enough to show that hand evaluation cannot be reduced to a number, and then the number be used to decide whether to bid or pass.

Having said that, the reality is that most bridge players don't have the unconscious methods of valuation used by experts.

As an example, in terms of how I value hands, I do use hcp. I adjust for Aces and Kings, under-valued in the 4321 count, and for Queens and Jacks, over-valued, and for spot cards, especially in 4+ suits (not counted at all in the 4321 method).

I look at losing trick count when I have some shape.

I look at whether I have multiple honours in a suit. When I hold AJ0xxx xxx that is better than Axxxx J10x

I look at the extent to which my honours are in my long suits, as opposed to my short suits.

Other than the hcp and the LTC, none of this leads to a numeric value.

The LTC, by the way, is merely a last check on otherwise very close hands.

The factors I weigh cause me to think in terms of whether, given the hcp and the shape, I 'like my hand' or don't.

AQxxxx Axxx xx x is a hand I like. It's 'only' 10 hcp but I have 4 controls (a plus, an average minimum opener will have about 3). I like the spade Q being with the Ace. I like the fact that all my values are in my long suits. That means that I have an enhanced chance of being able to establish and cash the little cards in those suits.

All of this takes time to develop, so what do I suggest along the way?

Firstly and most importantly realize that hand evaluation is complex and that it is an error to assume that any simple rule will be consistently valid. Like it or not, you have to modify that simple rule.

Indeed, the Rule of 20 is only an abomination if it is simply stated and simply applied...it leads to absurdities.

It is imo ok to use the Rule of 20, in the same manner one uses training wheels when learning to ride a bicycle. The training wheels will reduce the accidents early on, but will prevent one from ever becoming a good cyclist, until one learns to do without.

Without necessarily using a numeric solution, remember that:

hands with Aces and Kings are worth more than hands, with the identical hcp, relatively rich in Kings and Queens

hands with the honours in the long suits, are worth more that the same hcp hands with honours in the short suits

Hands with good spots (texture) in long suits, accompanied by one or more honours, are worth more than the same hand with no spots or texture

Hands with long suits, especially with honours and texture, are worth more than flat hands. However, 4441 hands are not good hands: which is why, if you are going to use numeric adjustments for shape, you are far better to add points for extra length, beyond 4 cards, than for shortness.

Develop a rule about opening. Personally, in my current serious partnership, we open almost all 11 counts, but we play 14-16 1N, and we are very, very aware, as responder, that we can't force to game merely because we hold 12 hcp..or even an indifferent 13.

I don't advise this approach for advancing players.

I'd suggest opening almost all 12 counts. An exception would be where our 12 hcp are 'soft' (Aces and Kings are 'hard', Queens and Jacks are 'soft') and short. KQ tight is not, for example, worth 5 hcp...unless partner bids the suit.

With unbalanced hands, consider opening with fewer than 12. By all means, use the Rule of 20 if you want, but make sure that you see honours in short suits as negative factors. Don't be a robot. Open a 10 count, based on the Rule of 20, only when your hcp contain at least 1 Ace and 1 King (ideally 2 Aces) and all of your strength in in your long suit(s)

Open a 9 count at the one level only on truly exceptional hands, with Aces and texture in your long suits, and if it is really a one-suiter, in a major, consider opening 4M instead. AJ10xxxx x Axxx x is a 9 count that meets the Rule of 20, but to me this is a 4S opening bid, especially if not vulnerable or in 3rd chair.

I don't know anyone who developed good valuation skills overnight. By all means use simple devices but never, ever forget that the simpler the metric, the less reliable/accurate it will be.

The truth is that these rules are designed almost exclusively for the majority of people who play bridge....who aren't serious about learning to play the game well. It's like my golf pro said to me once: do you want to be someone who plays golf, or do you want to be a golf-player?

People who play bridge use things like the Rule of 20. Bridge-players don't.

Sorry for the rant:) But hand evaluation is a pet theme of mine

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2018-September-20, 13:38, said:

People who play bridge use things like the Rule of 20. Bridge-players don't.

Sorry for the rant:) But hand evaluation is a pet theme of mine

Some bridge players use rule of whatever, but only as part of the process, and it's almost subconscious, but we have to use it in a sense as it's used by the EBU in regulating what we're allowed to agree to open.

We open all rule of 19 hands that there's not a good reason to not open basically, and that's where the judgment and experience come in.

[miamijd]

mikeh gave a pretty good summary.

My general advice is to stop using "Rules." They generally aren't helpful. Instead, focus on principles of hand evaluation.

With respect to the hands you showed:

1. ♠Ax ♥QJx ♦KQTxx ♣QT4

I would never upgrade this and open a 15-17 NT unless I was playing in a GIB robot tourney (in which case it's an obvious 1NT opener). There's nothing special about it. The honors are poor three queens - ugh). The suit is OK but not stupendous. Just open 1D and rebid 1NT.

2. ♠Kxx ♥Kxxxx ♦KQx ♣xx

I would never open this in 1-2 seat playing 2/1. Why? Weak suit; no Aces; no intermediates; and 5332 (which is the worst distribution possible with a 5-bagger). If you can't bear passing hands like this, then play a strong club system; then you can open them 1H.

Cheers,
mike

[mikeh]

miamijd, on 2018-September-20, 14:37, said:

mikeh gave a pretty good summary.

My general advice is to stop using "Rules." They generally aren't helpful. Instead, focus on principles of hand evaluation.

With respect to the hands you showed:

1. ♠Ax ♥QJx ♦KQTxx ♣QT4

I would never upgrade this and open a 15-17 NT unless I was playing in a GIB robot tourney (in which case it's an obvious 1NT opener). There's nothing special about it. The honors are poor three queens - ugh). The suit is OK but not stupendous. Just open 1D and rebid 1NT.

2. ♠Kxx ♥Kxxxx ♦KQx ♣xx

I would never open this in 1-2 seat playing 2/1. Why? Weak suit; no Aces; no intermediates; and 5332 (which is the worst distribution possible with a 5-bagger). If you can't bear passing hands like this, then play a strong club system; then you can open them 1H.

Cheers,
mike

I was going to edit my post to comment on these two hands.

I agree entirely with you on the first hand. To the OP: note that the example hand has few controls, and lots of 'quacks', which is a very bad thing from the point of view of upgrading. In a former partnership, where we played a very complex method, with 10-12 1N in some seats, and lots of relays and other gadgets (and this got us to play in the Bermuda Bowl, so it was a good method) we had a rule that we rarely opened in 1st or second (including when 10-12 was off, due to being red v white) unless we had 3 controls. The typical 15 hcp balanced hand expectation is 4 controls...any hand lighter than that would never be upgraded into 15-17.

On the second, it is a matter of style. As I noted, in my current serious partnership we would open this without hesitation, but we have designed our methods around the idea that we rebid 1N with balanced 11-13 hcp. Plus, we have 3 controls and an easy 2C rebid over 1N (we systemically promise as few as 2 and, again, our system is designed to cater to this)

I would very much advise against this style other than in a partnership that has spent a LOT of time discussing this, and designing your system accordingly. As an example, I would not advise this in the context of a 15-17 1N opening bid, because now 1H 1S 1N shows 11-14, and imo one's notrump ranges, for opening or rebidding, should never have more than a 3 point range.

[Joe_Old]

mikeh and miamijd make good points for the serious tournament players. But, most bridge players aren't serious tournament players, so equating Rules to crutches isn't helpful, particularly in a novice and beginner forum. Don't make beginning players ashamed of using tools meant to ease them into the game. If a player never advances to the point where he or she realizes that a particular Rule isn't a perfect tool, then at least it lets that player feel less uncertain about the game. Point out the flaws, okay, but have a little compassion for the non-expert.

[RD350LC]

shevek, on 2018-September-19, 19:15, said:

We open nearly all hands with 12 HCP, unless there are problems like stiff honours.

The 11-point hands are unclear.

First there is the idea of length points - "add a point for a 5-card suit"
Firstly, is the quality of the suit important? Do you add a point for ♥65432?

I get how this works for notrumps

♠Ax ♥QJx ♦KQTxx ♣QT4

can open a strong 1NT because 14+1 = 15.

Does it also apply in deciding whether to open at all?
For instance

♠Kxx ♥Kxxxx ♦KQx ♣xx

Is this a 1♥ opening, because 11+1 = 12?

Maybe yes, but then what about the Rule of 20?

That hand has 11+8 = 19 Opening Points so should pass.
If we move a heart to diamonds, then it is a pass, however you count points.

So a question is ...
Which takes precedence? Length points or the Rule of 20

I use the rule of 20 only in 3rd and 4th seat. Otherwise, I open on 12 hcp, or a good 11. I also deduct a hcp for no aces, and an additional one for 4333 distribution.
So about the hand that may be considered a 1♥ opening-I would not open it, except MAYBE in 3rd seat, white vs red. 11 hcp, -1 for no aces equals 10, and that is not an opening bid in my mind.
I am also fairly strict about my 1NT openings. I use 15-17 hcp, and will not deviate from that. Again, no aces, deduct a hcp. 4333 hands-deduct a point. So for the example hand, I count it as 14 hcp, no deduction factors, so I would open it 1 ♦.

[RD350LC]

Joe_Old, on 2018-September-20, 15:02, said:

mikeh and miamijd make good points for the serious tournament players. But, most bridge players aren't serious tournament players, so equating Rules to crutches isn't helpful, particularly in a novice and beginner forum. Don't make beginning players ashamed of using tools meant to ease them into the game. If a player never advances to the point where he or she realizes that a particular Rule isn't a perfect tool, then at least it lets that player feel less uncertain about the game. Point out the flaws, okay, but have a little compassion for the non-expert.

I agree-don't get into exotic conventions, like rolling Blackwood, Reverse Bergen raises and the like.
BUT, I do like a couple of additional items that I use. When counting point, deduct a point for no aces, add a point for all 4 aces, and deduct a point for 4333 distribution. These are simple to remember.

[mikeh]

Joe_Old, on 2018-September-20, 15:02, said:

mikeh and miamijd make good points for the serious tournament players. But, most bridge players aren't serious tournament players, so equating Rules to crutches isn't helpful, particularly in a novice and beginner forum. Don't make beginning players ashamed of using tools meant to ease them into the game. If a player never advances to the point where he or she realizes that a particular Rule isn't a perfect tool, then at least it lets that player feel less uncertain about the game. Point out the flaws, okay, but have a little compassion for the non-expert.

I appreciate this point. I was a beginner myself, and I don't know anyone who was any good at all right off the bat.

We all use rules. I was going to write, in my long post, about the metrics I learned all those years ago....adding points for length is one I remember, but even before that I learned to count a void as 5 points, a stiff as 3 and a doubleton as 2.

I even knew people who, for a short time, used to add points for length AND add points for shortness, not realizing that they were basically counting the same features twice.

We need rules, at least until and unless we play enough, and are lucky enough to be good enough, to internalize our valuation methods. While I think in terms of good hand, bad hand, like my hand, don't like my hand, and those valuations change with every round of the bidding, I am sure that in my subconscious I am using or somehow including some rules I learned over the ages.

My main point was that even the beginner should, imo, be aware that the method he or she is learning to use is not the be all and end all of metrics....to be aware that there are better tools out there, so that he or she doesn't get too committed to what is a flawed method.

Learning a simple but fundamentally bad method may be necessary...indeed I would argue that it is....but teach that this is just the first step, not the end of the journey. When I read some of the discussions of, say, the Rule of 20, I see very little discussion other than how great it is. It isn't great...it's frankly awful and unplayable UNLESS you modify it. In which case, why bother? You need to understand valuation to some degree simply to know how and when to modify the Rule. If you already know that much, you're beyond needing the Rule in the first place, and if you don't, then the Rule will lead to a lot of silly results (mixed of course with lucky ones, and we all remember the lucky results and ignore the disasters).

Now, maybe I am approaching it from an elitist point of view....I and most of the players I began playing with were consumed with a desire to get better, and thus we were always looking to learn. Back then, the resources were few and far between. The only computer on campus filled a huge room in the Computer Science building and we used punch cards to program it... a long program in engineering undergrad was 100 lines!

Here, we have a resource for which we would have given our eyeteeth, if not a limb. I'm far from the best player who posts here, but I'm also far better than the best player my group of beginners knew back then. My purpose, then, is to try to give back to the game, and I hope that those enquiring beginners who read and/or post here will read what I and other experts post knowing that that is our intent.

[Joe_Old]

mikeh, on 2018-September-20, 16:33, said:

I appreciate this point. I was a beginner myself, and I don't know anyone who was any good at all right off the bat.

We all use rules. I was going to write, in my long post, about the metrics I learned all those years ago....adding points for length is one I remember, but even before that I learned to count a void as 5 points, a stiff as 3 and a doubleton as 2.

I even knew people who, for a short time, used to add points for length AND add points for shortness, not realizing that they were basically counting the same features twice.

We need rules, at least until and unless we play enough, and are lucky enough to be good enough, to internalize our valuation methods. While I think in terms of good hand, bad hand, like my hand, don't like my hand, and those valuations change with every round of the bidding, I am sure that in my subconscious I am using or somehow including some rules I learned over the ages.

My main point was that even the beginner should, imo, be aware that the method he or she is learning to use is not the be all and end all of metrics....to be aware that there are better tools out there, so that he or she doesn't get too committed to what is a flawed method.

Learning a simple but fundamentally bad method may be necessary...indeed I would argue that it is....but teach that this is just the first step, not the end of the journey. When I read some of the discussions of, say, the Rule of 20, I see very little discussion other than how great it is. It isn't great...it's frankly awful and unplayable UNLESS you modify it. In which case, why bother? You need to understand valuation to some degree simply to know how and when to modify the Rule. If you already know that much, you're beyond needing the Rule in the first place, and if you don't, then the Rule will lead to a lot of silly results (mixed of course with lucky ones, and we all remember the lucky results and ignore the disasters).

Now, maybe I am approaching it from an elitist point of view....I and most of the players I began playing with were consumed with a desire to get better, and thus we were always looking to learn. Back then, the resources were few and far between. The only computer on campus filled a huge room in the Computer Science building and we used punch cards to program it... a long program in engineering undergrad was 100 lines!

Here, we have a resource for which we would have given our eyeteeth, if not a limb. I'm far from the best player who posts here, but I'm also far better than the best player my group of beginners knew back then. My purpose, then, is to try to give back to the game, and I hope that those enquiring beginners who read and/or post here will read what I and other experts post knowing that that is our intent.

I sympathize with your dilemma. I'd like to see "best methods" taught at every level, but I know that just isn't practical. My complaint with your post isn't that you trashed the Rule of 20, but that you chose this particular forum to do so. I never would have written a word if this was a forum for Advanced players, but this forum for Novice/Beginner isn't the right place. The rule of 20 is, quite simply, appropriate here.

For me, the Rule of 20 is something I consider when trying to construct an opponent's hand.

Mike, I like to see you post, because your insights are accurate and valuable. Just please remember who is in your audience.

[bravejason]

shevek, on 2018-September-19, 19:15, said:

We open nearly all hands with 12 HCP, unless there are problems like stiff honours.

The 11-point hands are unclear.

First there is the idea of length points - "add a point for a 5-card suit"
Firstly, is the quality of the suit important?
...

...
Which takes precedence? Length points or the Rule of 20

I add for length only if the suit contains an honor or if partner has bid or supported the suit. The rationale is that if partner can’t bid or support the suit and the suit lacks an honor, then it may not be possible to win a trick in that suit and thus those cards are not contributing to the strength of the hand. Other (better?) players might decide that they can turn those long small cards into tricks and thus consider that a contribution to the strength of the hand by adding points for it.

Precedence of Rule of 20 versus length points is using two systems at once, in my opinion. So the question isn’t priority, it is which system? As another poster alluded to, you need a system or method for hand evaluation. There are a number of methods available from books and online material. I experimented with different methods until I found one that worked for me. Try one for a a while, then try another, and so on until you find something that you like.

Note that any system or method of hand evaluation can be made simpler or more complex. The Rule of 20 that people simply think of as HCP plus count of cards in two longest suits can be expanded to properly reject hands that on the surface are a Rule of 20 hands, but are actually not good hands to open. Similarly, the old Goren system that people think of simply as 4-3-2-1 & 3-2-1 was more complex than that. Clearly, expanding a simple approach adds complexity and requires you to remember more, but the benefit is a more accurate hand evaluation. You have to find your own sweet spot between simplicity and accuracy.

[shevek]

dsLawsd, on 2018-September-19, 23:22, said:

I would Not open 1 NT on the 14 point hand even with tenaces. But that depends greatly on your total system.
A good friend of mine prefers 14 to 16 NT for that reason.

I did and it worked that time.
Partner has the right cards:
♠Kxx ♥Kxx ♦Axx ♣xxxx

If I move my small diamond somewhere else, game is no good.
KQTxx is a pretty good suit.

[nullve]

mikeh, on 2018-September-20, 13:38, said:

There are hands that I would open, based on my own valuation metrics, that would also be opened by adherents to the Rule of 20.

Thus AQxxxx Axxx xx x is a clear 1S opener, whether one uses the Rule of 20 or the LTC (Losing Trick Count), or length adjustment for the spade suit or shortness adjustments for the minors.


xxxxxx xxxx AQ A is not an opening bid, imo.

Yet it passes the Rule of 20. It passes the LTC (loser count of 7 = opening bid). It passes the length or shortness adjustments, but nobody with a shred of bridge judgment would see this hand as remotely similar to AQxxxx Axxx xx x

Posing an obvious and trivial example should be enough to show that hand evaluation cannot be reduced to a number, and then the number be used to decide whether to bid or pass

xxxxxx xxxx AQ A

AQxxxx Axxx xx x

[nullve]

mikeh, on 2018-September-20, 13:38, said:

The Rule of 20 is an abomination. It isn't merely unhelpful: it is actively damaging.

I'm struggling to understand why you think so.

mikeh, on 2018-September-20, 13:38, said:

As an example, in terms of how I value hands, I do use hcp. I adjust for Aces and Kings, under-valued in the 4321 count, and for Queens and Jacks, over-valued, and for spot cards, especially in 4+ suits (not counted at all in the 4321 method).

I like to think I use the rule of 19 when deciding whether to open 1-of-a-suit. But I also do everything you mention here and bake it into the hcp count. Does that mean I'm not using the rule of 19?

[rmnka447]

Put me solidly in line with the mikeh and miamijd posts.

mikeh likes to check controls (basically K=1, A=2) as part of his opening analysis. I opt for QTs. So I will use rule of 20 for hands that satisfy it and have 2+ QTs. But as mikeh pointed out, there are certain hands that even though they satisfy the rule and extra high card quality requirements are not openers.

I like to use losing trick count as a "tie breaker" on distributional hands that are on the opener/non-opener cusp.

I think where the abhorrence for the Rule of 20 applies is in the blind application of it to any hand. I've certainly gotten into heated debates with other posters on this forum about not opening hands that satisfy the Rule of 20 that I know the really good players I respect wouldn't open either. For example, ♠ x ♥ KJ ♦ QJxxx ♣ QJxxx satisfies the rule of 20, but is never an opener.

OTOH, there are hands that don't satisfy the rule of 20 or meet the extra high card requirements that I have opened. They include:

♠ - ♥ xx ♦ KQ109xx ♣ KJ10xx (meets Rule of 20, but only 1 1/2 QT but lots of playing tricks in this 6 loser hand)
♠ AQ10xx ♥ A109x ♦ xx ♣ xx (fails Rule of 20, but has 2 1/2 QTs with honors and intermediates working together in the long suits in a Major oriented hand)

Ultimately, you have to learn to use judgment in applying any rules or techniques that you use to determine whether to open hands.

[nullve]

rmnka447, on 2018-September-23, 14:43, said:

I like to use losing trick count as a "tie breaker" on distributional hands that are on the opener/non-opener cusp. .

Isn't the (simple) LTC method equivalent to counting distributional points using the (Goren) 3-2-1 scale and then adding 1 point (the value of a doubleton) for each "cover card", i.e. each ace, non-singleton king or non-singleton, non-doubleton queen?

Zelandakh has often made the point that the (M)LTC method is a terrible point count method in disguise. For example, here.