Tuesday,
November 05, 2002 12:43 PM
Hand
Evaluation – Openers ( Rule of 20 )
PITBULLS:
Most experts in the modern game open light with
distributional hands . Marty Bergen writes an article
on his method of determining whether a hand is worth opening or not . He calls it the “rule of 20” .
I follow the same principles when deciding if I open or not ,
however I factor in quick tricks into his rule . Under evaluating queens & jacks & adding
for Aces & Kings and taking into account 6-4 or 5-5 distributions is a
habit I have had for decades . Here is a hand from the
Vanderbilt ♠QJ10xx
♥2 ♦QJ ♣KQJxx where they “opened” with only 1 defensive
trick. Using the Bergen rule of
20 it evaluates to 22. Partners hand was ♠Axx ♥KQJ10x ♦Axx ♣Ax so let partner out at the 5 level.
Unfortunately they got a diamond lead and the king was offside as was the trump
king. One down so it cost them the Vanderbilt. Opening bids still need controls
– rule of 20 or no rule of 20. Bad openers ( lack of
quick tricks ) throw partner off in
competing ( scared to push them to game ) , penalty doubles , game bidding and slam bidding . I would have bid 6♠ with the above hand opposite an opening
bid for two down. I do not give partner leeway for holding only one trick when they opened the bidding. Bridge bidding is
difficult enough as it is. Would it be nice to have an opening bid Standard
like Culbertson suggests in his
writings. Have the requirement for
controls built into your opening bid
structure as a standard ???
Bergen had a lot to do with the “modern
openers” ( which I despise ) in his writings , however I do agree with him if his light
openers contain “quick tricks”. He divides opening bidders into
two classes – Modernists ( himself ) & the pass
& guess contingent ( the rest of us non modernists ) . His last line of his
article below shows that attitude. “The Rule of 20 can enjoy triumphs that are
sometimes missed by the pass-and-guess contingent.” Strange ,
all the hands that he says he would open below , I would open also because they
do have quick tricks. Bergen seems
to gloss over the subject. He discusses quick tricks in a around about way in
that he subtracts for too many
queens & jacks or frozen honours. He also adds
for Aces ( quick tricks ) & says to upgrade for
Aces & Kings .
“ I hope that you got the message. Regardless of your
experience and ability, speaking as soon as possible is invariably more
successful and makes this game easier than passing and guessing.” This statement
by Bergen is just a half truth. Opening light does have
tactical advantages , that is a given. However , when you are just replacing one guess with another
by opening without quick tricks , you are worse off than the “pass & guess”
contingent as Bergen calls them. Bergen’s cure is worse than the original ailment
of not opening. My partners
have no guess , Marty.
They know when I pass , it is because I do not have the defensive
tricks required to open the bidding as Bridge has been played for 65 + years . I
just do not buy into your doctrine without the quick trick requirement.
.
THE
RETURN OF THE RULE OF 20
By
Marty Bergen
©1999 Marty Bergen
Rule of 20
Refinements — “Subtractions”
Subtract one
point for each of the following short-suit honor combinations:
Singleton king, queen, or jack (all but the ace).
Subtract one
point for each of the following dubious doubletons:
King-queen; king-jack; queen-jack (again, note that the ace
is not involved).
Rule of 20
Refinements — “Additions”
Add one
point for the following:
Two tens, especially when they are
in combination with higher honors in suits that are three or more cards in
length.
Rule of 20
Refinements
Rating Honor Cards
Aces and
kings are underrated, be prepared to upgrade.
Queens and
jacks are overrated — hands with a lot of
these cards should be downgraded.
When
in doubt, open!
As I said
earlier, do not allow your new knowledge to complicate your life. Bridge is
difficult enough, without my adding to it. I always want readers to enjoy The
Rule of 20 for its simplicity and accuracy.
Okay,
enough chatter from me. Here are some examples you can use to practice The Rule
of 20.
ª A1085 10 HCP
© A72 5 diamonds
¨ Q10954 4 spades
§ 4 +1 for the two tens
20 — Open 1¨. This is my kind of hand
ª QJ 12 HCP
© K6543 5 hearts
¨ KJ6 3 diamonds
§ Q87 -1 for the doubleton QJ
19 — Pass. Ugly.
ª Q432 12 HCP
© QJ65 4 spades
¨ QJ7 4 hearts
§ A4 -1 for too many queens and
jacks
19 — Pass.
ª A953 12 HCP
© 952 4 spades
¨ A63 3 hearts
§ A84 +1 for the aces
20 — Open 1§.
ª K742 12 HCP
© K 4 spades
¨ QJ93 4 diamonds
§ K784 -1 for the singleton king
19 — Pass.
ª 64
9 HCP
© AJ10854 6 hearts
¨ A1086 4 diamonds
§ 3 +1 for the helpful tens
20 — Open 1©, not 2©
I love
this hand. It has great offense and adequate defense.
Too many people open 2© and wonder what went wrong when
they miss a game. Would your partner consider inviting to game after you opened
2© and he
held either of the following hands:
ª A953 © K7
¨ KJ52 § J62
ª AK92 © 97
¨ K9 § 98752
Obviously not.
************
DO
EXPERTS APPLY THE RULE OF 20?
Only sometimes. How do
they fare when they rely on their expert judgment to solve subsequent dilemmas?
Sometimes well, but other times not so well. Here are two examples from
top-level tournament play in 1999.
ª 9 © A1082
¨ A10 § Q108542
A world
champion from the Women’s Team Trials held this hand as dealer with both sides
vulnerable. She passed, which seems very wrong to me. Not only does this hand
satisfy The Rule of 20, but those lovely tens bring the total to 21. I will
also remind readers of the power of six-four
distribution.
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH
Our Heroine
Pass! 1¨ 1ª Pass
2§ 2ª 3§ 4ª
5§ Pass Pass Dbl
All Pass
Do I agree
with the eventual 5§ bid? No. One of my theories is
that many
players, even experts, sacrifice too often in five of a minor.
As The LAW indicates, unless you have 11 trumps or a
once-in-a-lifetime distribution, on most hands, the five level belongs to the
opponents.
Why did
our heroine bid 5§? Se
realized how good her hand was, especially once a fit
had been established. I doubt she expected to make 5§ after partner’s modest single
raise, but she hoped to lose less than the opponents would score in 4ª.
How did
she do? She went down two doubled, for a loss of 500 points. That would have
been less expensive than making, a duplicate score of 620. Unfortunately, the
opponents had no chance to make 4ª. Her decision to bid on was
therefore quite expensive.
What
happened when the opposing team played this deal? The sensible player who held
these cards opened 1§ and was subsequently able to rebid
that suit. Once she had given her partner
a good description of her hand, she no longer had to guess at a high level.
I hope that
you got the message. Regardless of your experience and ability, speaking as
soon as possible is invariably more successful and makes this game easier than
passing and guessing.
My second
example is taken from the semifinals of the Spingold Master
Knockout Teams, the premier event of the Summer Nationals. This time the
perpetrator was in second position following an opponent’s pass. Only the
opponents were vulnerable. If you admired West’s distribution in our first
example, this one will knock your socks off.
ª — © 6
¨
KJ109652 §
AJ1097
Twelve
cards in two suits — I have not held too many of those. The Rule of 20 resolves
all doubts: nine HCP plus seven diamonds and five clubs plus one (for the two
relevant tens) totals 22, so I would have opened 1¨.
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH
Pass
Pass! 1¨ 1ª 2©
3§ 3© Pass 4©
All Pass
If you
believe that West’s one sign of life did justice to the cards he held, “you ain’t seen nothing yet”. Take a
gander at the auction produced by the world champion at another table.
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH
Pass
Pass! 1¨ 1ª 2©
Pass!! 3© Pass 4©
Pass!!! All
Pass
Wow! The expert
sat there and passed throughout. This spectacular display of nonbidding is exactly what he would have done holding:
ª 432 © 432
¨ 5432 § 432
Maybe I’m
crazy, but treating his hand in the identical manner as the Yarborough above leaves me speechless.
How did it
work out? About as well as it deserved — 4© was laydown
for 11 tricks, a score of 650. Meanwhile, ¨5 doubled would be down only one for a
loss of 100. What a surprise! The hand with seven-five distribution played better
on offense than defense.
Do experts
and world champions have great confidence in their ability to figure out what
to do at any given moment? I will answer by saying that they do not suffer from a lack of ego. On most
hands they do just fine. There is no way that the average player can even hope
to emulate that success. However, those players who appreciate The Rule of 20
can enjoy triumphs that are sometimes missed by the pass-and-guess
contingent.