Bergen Rule of 20
Stig Holmquist
all HCP must be in the two long suits. This I based on the
interpretation by the BridgGuys, close assocciates of Bergen.
Specifically they stated "the working cards or values should be in the
two longest suits", which they illustrated with a 5-5-2-1 type hand
with 10 HCP but only 3 of which were in the long suis, so they said
this hand did not qualify for an opening bid, since the most of the
values were not in the long suits.
Most people seem to think the rule applies regardless of where the HCP
are located. Being of an open mind and curious I wrote to the
BridgeBuys asking for an explanation.
They responded by making a major revision of the site and removing the
controversial example but replacing it with an irrelevant one.
But their statement that the working cards or values should be located
in the two long suits is still part of their interpretation. However,
when explaining the difference they refer to the book "To open or not
to open" by Bergen in which they claim he writes in #6"The high card
points are not limited to only the two long suits."
These two statements are not compatible ,and when I asked for further
clarification, I was told it is proprietary info in his book, which
they are not free to quote.
Can somebody explain this apparent contradiction? I can't.
Stig Holmquist
OldPalooka
Consider any hand with at least one doubleton, singleton, or void.
Count Goren points - high cards and distribution. Ignore adjusting
downward for no aces, but make downward adjustments for short suit
honors. If you have 13 points, you have a rule of 20 hand. When I
took up duplicate bridge 50 years ago, that was the exact rule my
expert partner and mentor taught me. "At matchpoints don't adjust for
having no aces and open all hands with 13 Goren points in high cards
and distribution."
I have no idea whether this is Marty's #6, but it is bona fide advice
from the ancient masters, and probably pretty close to Marty's
reasoning too.
-- Bill Shutts
OldPalooka
>
> - Show quoted text -
PS, I forgot he also told me not to adjust for 4333 distribution, so
13HCP in a 4333 is a rule of 20 hand too!
-- Bill
Will in New Haven
> At an earlier posting I claimed the Bergen rule of 20 required that
> all HCP must be in the two long suits. This I based on the
> interpretation by the BridgGuys, close assocciates of Bergen.
>
> Specifically they stated "the working cards or values should be in the
> two longest suits", which they illustrated with a 5-5-2-1 type hand
> with 10 HCP but only 3 of which were in the long suis, so they said
> this hand did not qualify for an opening bid, since the most of the
> values were not in the long suits.
>
> Most people seem to think the rule applies regardless of where the HCP
> BridgeBuys asking for an explanation.
I had to all-caps that mind-blowing statement. But, just in case you
are serious, I think the BridgeGuys are making a sensible adjustment,
or fairly sensible, of which Bergen apparently does not agree with. If
you are still of an open mind, I will say that the completely
UNadjusted Rule of Twenty is probably worse than not counting any
honors except those in the long suits.
>
> They responded by making a major revision of the site and removing the
> controversial example but replacing it with an irrelevant one.
>
> But their statement that the working cards or values should be located
> in the two long suits is still part of their interpretation. However,
> when explaining the difference they refer to the book "To open or not
> to open" by Bergen in which they claim he writes in #6"The high card
> points are not limited to only the two long suits."
>
> These two statements are not compatible ,and when I asked for further
> clarification, I was told it is proprietary info in his book, which
> they are not free to quote.
>
> Can somebody explain this apparent contradiction? I can't.
Can't you afford the friggin BOOK? If you want to obsess over "Bergen
says this" and "Goren says that," shouldn't you have some research
materials available?
--
Will in New Haven
henry...@yahoo.com
Stig Holmquist
******************
So, does this mean that you the vitriol spewed against me in that
former thread was, in fact, both WRONG, because you were wrong and I
was right, and uncalled for, in that you based your understanding of
the Bergen rule of 20 on Bergen's own book, "To Open or Not To Open,"
excepts of which I found at Amazon dot com, and that you will admit
this in print with an apology for your swiftboating invective? As a
gentle reminder of your venom, I post the relevant snippets here:
Jul 29, 1:03 pm
I fully expected you to display your LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE
BERGEN COUNT [emph added].Why would you be any better informed than
Grant If you care to educate yourself about the Bergen count you must
go and read up on it as it is explained by his buddies, Claus and Ray
at the Bridgeguys website. They make it very clear that the count
applies only to the two longest suits and that HCP in side suits don't
count. The same explanation is given at "BridgeHands".Thus the Bergen
count has very limited application. Does that blow your mind? Get the
facts.
Stig Holmquist
**
Jul 29, 5:00 pm
If you think the Bridgeguys have misrepresented Bergen I suggest you
ask Bergen.
Stig Holmquist
jul 29, 6:20 pm
The subject matter of my original post is two specific hands each
with
11 HCP and the same shape. not any other hand.
[snip]
IN THE MEAN TIME YOU NEED TO ASK YOURSELF IF YOU ARE SOME KIND OF
MASOCHIST WHO MUST MAKE AN ASS OF HIMSELF TO FEEL PLEASURE [emph
added]. Go and see a shrink and get a grip on yourself. YOU ARE
PATHETIC [emph added].
Stig Holmquist
Jul 30, 2:08 pm
I'm sure you feel revarded when some of the village idiots support
you, like Will in NH. I can just imagine players filling the hall ways
at national events waiting for a chance to play with master player
Will, who thinks being concerned about standards for opening bids is a
waste of time . Thus he has dismissed the writings by Kaplan and
Bergen as irrelevant and can't understand why I bring it up here. You
are lucky to have such back up. I wonder what his standing is
Stig Holmquist
***************
Nah, I didn't think so. Just another piece of evidence conveniently
to ignore lest you come to realization that you were, what's that word
again?
Oh yeah.
Wrong.
Henrysun909
henry...@yahoo.com
Specifically they stated "the working cards or values should be in the
two longest suits", which they illustrated with a 5-5-2-1 type hand
with 10 HCP but only 3 of which were in the long suis, so they said
this hand did not qualify for an opening bid, since the most of the
values were not in the long suits.
Stig Holmquist
*************
Actually, here is what you claimed that they said:
/start quote/
If you care to educate yourself about the Bergen count you must go and
read up on it as it is explained by his buddies, Claus and Ray at the
Bridgeguys website. They make it very clear that the count applies
only to the two longest suits and that HCP in side suits don't count.
The same explanation is given at "BridgeHands".Thus the Bergen count
has very limited application.
Stig Holmquist
/end quote/
That's a rather different statement than "the HCPs should be in the
long suits," since your previous statement is that HCPs in the short
suits don't count.
By the way, was this the correspondence or event that was supposed to
give me apoplexy?
Henrysun909
henry...@yahoo.com
wrote:
in that you based your understanding of
the Bergen rule of 20 on Bergen's own book, "To Open or Not To Open,"
excepts of which I found at Amazon dot com,
********
In my haste, I mistyped the above. It should have read,
in that I based my understanding of the Bergen rule of 20 on Bergen's
own bool, "To Open or Not To Open," excerpts of which I found at
Amazon dot com.
Henrysun909
Rob Morris
> At an earlier posting I claimed the Bergen rule of 20 required that
> all HCP must be in the two long suits. This I based on the
> interpretation by the BridgGuys, close assocciates of Bergen.
>
> But their statement that the working cards or values should be
> located in the two long suits is still part of their interpretation.
> However, when explaining the difference they refer to the book "To
> open or not to open" by Bergen in which they claim he writes in
> #6"The high card points are not limited to only the two long suits."
Okay, I'm not going to be able to help you find authoritative sources,
but I think finding them is totally irrelevant. You can figure this out
yourself, from first principles, without appealing to authority.
You do understand, don't you, that the 'rule of 20', and all other such
rules, are not inherent laws of the universe, but attempts to judge the
trick-taking potential of a hand?
The rule of 20 is a simple way of codifying which shapely hands are
roughly equivalent in playing strength to a minimum opening. Yes, you
even count the points in the short suits. But then you start *thinking*.
Extreme honour placement can give us minimum rule-of-20 hands which
don't really have as much playing strength as they should. It's fairly
clear that:
(a) AJxxxx KQxx x xx
is a better hand than:
(b) AJ KQ Jxxx xxxxx .
- for all the reasons which should be obvious (hand (b) has honours in
short suits, weak long suits, no singletons, minor suits, suits in
awkward-to-bid order).
Lots of pairs open every rule of 20, or rule of 19, hand, and that's
fine for them, it has advantages and disadvantages. But in a partnership
with a slightly sounder opening bid style, I'd be very upset with a
partner who justified a bad result from opening hand (b) with a claim it
was just "rule of 20". Anyone can see that the disadvantages of the
hand are precisely the ones *not* taken into account by the rule.
No-one (to my knowledge) has come up with numerical fractional
adjustments to the rule of 20 to tell you just how much to devalue
values in short suits - it would be like putting a laser sight on a
caveman's club in the hope of turning it into a precision tool. You can
tell all this without referring to any books.
--
Rob Morris
arr em four four five (at) cam dot ac dot uk
StevieTee
wrote:
>
> In my haste, I mistyped the above. It should have read,
>
> in that I based my understanding of the Bergen rule of 20 on Bergen's
> own bool, "To Open or Not To Open,"
>
What's a "bool"...?
HERE'S A GREAT NEW IDEA -- PROOFREAD your posts before you click on
the "Send" button....
No one expects you to be a great typist. But failing to proofread is
just carelessness, laziness, or both.
Steve Sun
Barry Margolin
Rob Morris <rm...@cam.spam.ac.uk> wrote:
> No-one (to my knowledge) has come up with numerical fractional
> adjustments to the rule of 20 to tell you just how much to devalue
> values in short suits - it would be like putting a laser sight on a
> caveman's club in the hope of turning it into a precision tool. You can
> tell all this without referring to any books.
While it doesn't directly address the question about honors in the short
vs. long suits, there are some well-known adjustments to the Rule of 20.
A popular one is the Rule of 22, where you add the lengths of your two
longest suits, your HCP, and your quick tricks, and open if they add up
to 22 or more.
Colchamiro's book uses Mel's Rule of 22, which is that you can open a
hand that meets Bergen's Rule of 20 only if it has at least two
defensive tricks.
Since queens and jacks don't usually contribute to quick tricks, these
adjustments help devalue them in many cases.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Stig Holmquist
wrote:
Thank you for you constructive commennts, which I agree with fully.
Your two example hands perfectly illustrate the problem i'm having
with the BridgeGuys interpretation of Bergen's Rule of 20.
In his original book "Points-Schoints" he did not mention quick tricks
and was taken to task by varios authorities, such as Z.Jabbour, and he
then wrote "To open or not to open" and stressed the importance of QT
as now spelled out by the BridgeGuys in their revision. That's the
second time my criticism has paid off and I've also inspired changes
in the last ond the next ACBL Encycl. The squeeky wheel theory.
Bergen's books are not written for experts but for beginners and
orinary players lacking sound judgment.
Your second hand with all HCP in the short suits would not qualify if
you follow the BridgeGuys, but beginners would not understand why, if
they count any and all HCP as implied by Bergen.
When I next teach an intermediate class in Sept. I'll favor the
BridgeGuys, but will suggest that more than half of the values must be
in the long suits, like 2/3 or 3/4 of it.
Stig Holmquist
Carl
I have the book in front of me here (I sell them), and there are
several errors in your statements and/or perceptions of this rule. As
one example, the book mentions quick tricks as just one parameter of
judgment and adjustment; I'd hardly say "stresses" it. There are good
examples of hands to open (or not) that are short in quick tricks (or
not).
Marty Bergen writes books mostly for intermediates wishing to improve.
This particular book is all of $6.95 and has enough valuable
information in it to keep you busy for quite some time.
To Rob Morris: Thomas Andrews has an article on his website that
addresses the devaluation of honors in short suits, indirectly, under
Binky Points. When I plug his numbers into a spreadsheet and process
every example hand in "To Open, or Not to Open" by Marty Bergen, the
correlation is very good. There is, as expected, an area of overlap,
since Marty generalizes short holdings like AJ, KQ and KJ as the same
"minus" value. Yes, Stig, this stuff is ALL in the book!
Cheers,
Carl
Stig Holmquist
wrote:
I've a copy of p.2 of Points,Schoints and there is not one word about
quick tricks.as I stated. Why do you think Z.Jabbour called attaention
to this in an artcle in the bulletin? Get you facts staight next time.
And there is no page reference to QT in the index of the book.
Please cite the pages in that book where QT are mentioned. I did
mention that he had included QT in "To open or not to open"
So where is my error with regard to QT?
Stig Holmquist
Carl
"To Open, or Not to Open" by Marty Bergen. I almost always
refer to the most recent instance of a noun, when used generically.
Your various posts strewn about are so full of errors and
misconceptions
about this concept, that the only advice I am going to offer is for
you
to purchase the book (from someone else, please) and then attempt to
speak
with a degree of authority. That's my last post on the matter.
Carl
henry...@yahoo.com
Get you facts staight next time.
**************
ROFL, just like you told me to in the thread "Honors in Short Suits,"
and then I was proved to be right??
Henrysun909
as crickets chirp in the background waiting for a simple admission of
error.......
henry...@yahoo.com
It's much easier to speak with authority when (1) you don't have to be
bothered by the primary source material or simple matters of right and
wrong, (2) you are never wrong so point #1 doesn't matter anyway, and
(3) when you are shown to be wrong in violation of point #2, you know
it is an impossibility so you character assassinate the messenger and
ignore the substance of the evidence.
Not that I have any ongoing dispute in mind, ROFL.....
Henrysun909
StevieTee
>
> I've a copy of p.2 of Points,Schoints and there is not one word about
> quick tricks.as I stated.
Carl, be patient with Stig. He only has a copy of page 2 of the
book. It's going to take him at least a year or so before he works
his way to getting a copy of page 3....
LOL - Steve Sun
vsp...@hotmail.com
Points, trumps, etc are just estimates of trick taking potential.
From statistics all estimates are built-in error. If you're using
better estimates than your opponents you will be right more
often than they. That doesn't mean you'll be able to beat them
every board.
Nick France
In simple terms, even Bergen has in print some exceptions to the rule
of 20. (Look in 'More Points Schmoints'). It is obvious that even
Bergen thinks that not all rule of 20 hands should be open. He was
just trying to make the obvious point that too many people just count
HCP and don't think about distribution.
Nick France
henry...@yahoo.com
In fact, Bergen once sent me an email asking if anyone would open
Q
QJ
QJxxx
QJxxx
even though it meets the rule of 20: 5 clubs + 5 diamonds + 11 hcps =
21.
The answer is obviously not unless you have some gadget showing both
minors in a hand weaker than an opening bid.
Curiously, Klinger's rule of 22 would allow for
xxxxx
xxxx
AKx
A
to be opened (9 + 11 + 3 = 23) as well as
xxxx
xxxxx
AK
Ax
which comes to the same count of 23.
Personally, since I have to have a very good reason not to open hands
with 3 quick tricks, I'd open the 4=5=3=1 hand and, reluctantly, pass
the 4=5=2=2 hand. Change that hand to
xxxx
xxxxx
Ax
AK
and I'd open it 1h and rebid 2c.
Henrysun909
Stig Holmquist
wrote:
>I am discussing the book you most recently mentioned,
I'm fully aware of what Bergen wrote in "To open or not to open" since
it is accounted for at the BridgGuys site. I knew you had nothing
constructive to contribute so I'm adding your name to my list of
village idiots. You are in good company.
Stig Holmquist
Stig Holmquist
wrote:
Why don't you tell us what Bergen wrote on p.3 about quick tricks
As usual you are full of crap, with no facts.
Stig Holmquist
henry...@yahoo.com
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:04:20 -0700 (PDT), Carl <C...@carlritner.com>
ROFL, a prime example of "Being of an open mind and curious"
methinks...
Henrysun909
henry...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Can't you afford the friggin BOOK? If you want to obsess over "Bergen
says this" and "Goren says that," shouldn't you have some research
materials available?
--
Will in New Haven
***********
Why have research materials when you can't accurately report what they
say anyway (Goren, Lawrence, Bergen.....)?
Besides, it's much easier to be dismissive of people when you don't
have to worry about those darn little details like facts, documents,
and evidence.
Henrysun909
Nick France
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
And I have a rule to always open a hand with 3 quick tricks so I'd
open all your examples. While I understand the problem, I figure
partner will never be disappointed with my hand if we defend.
Nick France
Jim Greer
Please add me to your list of "village idiots". Your posts are distressing
in that you seem unable to engage in dialogue, preferring instead to hurl
abuse and resort to ad hominem attacks in place of reasoned arguments.
Incidentally, why have Will (New Haven) and I never seen you at a
Connecticut bridge tournament>
--
Jim Greer
"Stig Holmquist" <stigf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rr3k94hf2avhqmsj2...@4ax.com...
StevieTee
>
> >> I've a copy of p.2 of Points,Schoints and there is not one word about
> >> quick tricks.as I stated.
>
> >Carl, be patient with Stig. He only has a copy of page 2 of the
> >book. It's going to take him at least a year or so before he works
> >his way to getting a copy of page 3....
>
> >LOL - Steve Sun
>
> Why don't you tell us what Bergen wrote on p.3 about quick tricks
> As usual you are full of crap, with no facts.
>
> Stig Holmquist
Stig, I couldn't care less about what Bergen has to say about "quick
tricks," or any other subject for that matter. The only bridge
authority whose opinion I care about is Audrey Grant.
Steve Sun
henry...@yahoo.com
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:04:20 -0700 (PDT), Carl <C...@carlritner.com>
Would this be the same Bridgeguys site upon which
(1) you relied for your erroneous view that the Bergen rule of 20 only
counts HCPs in the long suits to get to 20, and
(2) who then undertook "a major revision" when you called this to
their attention, so that
(3) they have already proved themselves wrong with respect to Bergen.
but whom you
(4) still assert as your authority for understanding Bergen's method?
or, in plainer English, you are using one page of Bergen's book plus a
website that is known to have been mistaken about Bergen as your basis
for claiming to understand Bergen better than someone who has a copy
of Bergen's own book at hand?
Henrysun909
Will in New Haven
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:04:20 -0700 (PDT), Carl <C...@carlritner.com>
For one thing, a team of your "village idiots" could beat the living
snot out of you and any three people you could get to team up with you
in an actual bridge game.
–
Will in New Haven
“He was the state champion of Connecticut. I figured ‘How tough could
he be?’” Tony Danza on one of his last boxing matches
BBO expert
If even Carl can get on his killfile, how is it that he sees _any_ posts
from this newsgroup?
BBO expert
> And I have a rule to always open a hand with 3 quick tricks so I'd
> open all your examples. While I understand the problem, I figure
> partner will never be disappointed with my hand if we defend.
I think I would too. They qualify on losing trick count and rule of 15,
too. They're none of them the worst hands I've ever opened. :-)
henry...@yahoo.com
When I next teach an intermediate class in Sept. I'll favor the
BridgeGuys, but will suggest that more than half of the values must be
in the long suits, like 2/3 or 3/4 of it.
Stig Holmquist
***************
Zoinks! I hadn't caught this line before!!
So, if 2/3 or 3/4 of the points must be in the long suits, does that
mean that
Ax
QTxxx
Qxxxx
A
is not an opening bid since only 4 of 12 hcps are in the two long
suits? or that
Axxxxx
Kx
xxxx
A
is not an opening bid because only 4 of 11 hcps are in the two long
suits?
But on the other hand
J
Jx
KJxxx
KJTxx
is an opening bid because 8 of the 10 hcps (i.e., more than 2/3 or
3/4) are in the long suits?
Surely, this way madness lies.
Henrysun909
Will in New Haven
wrote:
In what sense are these guys "closely associated with Bergan?" Do they
claim that? Does Bergen acknowledge it?
Or is it a FigNewton of Stig's imagination?
dak...@aol.com
He notes In/Out valuation: prime cards win, but quacks IN our suits
are offensive; OUT of our suits defensive. Don't start a light opener
fight without IN values.
Will in New Haven
An excellent point and a reference to a great and little-remembered
book.
henry...@yahoo.com
wrote:
I don't know whether Secrets is still in print, but the chapter on in
and out evaluation was reprinted in the excellent compendium "For
Experts Only."
Henrysun909
brsri...@gmail.com
> At an earlier posting I claimed the Bergen rule of 20 required that
> all HCP must be in the two long suits. This I based on the
> interpretation by the BridgGuys, close assocciates of Bergen.
>
> Specifically they stated "the working cards or values should be in the
> two longest suits", which they illustrated with a 5-5-2-1 type hand
> with 10 HCP but only 3 of which were in the long suis, so they said
> this hand did not qualify for an opening bid, since the most of the
> values were not in the long suits.
>
> Most people seem to think the rule applies regardless of where the HCP
> are located. Being of an open mind and curious I wrote to the
> BridgeBuys asking for an explanation.
>
> They responded by making a major revision of the site and removing the
> controversial example but replacing it with an irrelevant one.
>
> But their statement that the working cards or values should be located
> in the two long suits is still part of their interpretation. However,
> to open" by Bergen in which they claim he writes in #6"The high card
> points are not limited to only the two long suits."
>
> These two statements are not compatible ,and when I asked for further
> clarification, I was told it is proprietary info in his book, which
> they are not free to quote.
>
> Can somebody explain this apparent contradiction? I can't.
>
> Stig Holmquist
The most disgusting part of hand evaluation is hand devaluation. Is it
just me or it's getting kind of boring lately on r.g.b.??
Boring
raija d
<henry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9e664540-ca26-4195...@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
It was there all along, no new evidence needed.
henry...@yahoo.com
It was there all along, no new evidence needed.
************
In fact, in a private email to me one of our colleagues observed that
in the not-immediate past, Stig's posts have been polished,
professional, and respectful but lamented the sharp downturn in the
quality of discourse that started a few years back, and I offer this
snippet to help place the entire approach in question in context:
/start quote/
Mar 14 2006 2:33 pm
One often reads that common sense should be used in biding. E.g . in
the above post about "count of 9" it was stated by raija; "All
significant adjustment factors beyond the quick Rule of 20 have to do
with common sense in hand valuation."
Where does common sense in bridge come from? How would a computer or
an average or lesser player exercise it? Good bridge must be based on
probabilities and mathematics as evidenced by many books such as
"Mathematical Theory of Bridge" by Borel&Cheron and many more listed
in the ACBL Encyclopedia.
The great French mathematician F.S.deLaplace wrote: "The theory of
probabilities is in the end nothing but common sense reduced to
calculus". And Voltaire told us that "common sense is not so common".
H.D.Thoreau wrote:"A true account of reality is the rarest poetry, for
common sense takes a hasty and superficial view".
But the best advice comes from Lord Kelvin's famous statement: "When
you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers,
you know something about it; but
when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers,
your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the
beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely , in your thought,
advanced to the stage of science".
One man's sense is often another man's non-sense.
Spouting common sense can be a copout for lack of logic.
In short, learn to quantify your opinions and they may be more
respected.
Stig Holmquist
/end quote/
For the people who post regularly to this forum, any attempt to reduce
judgment to strict mathematical formulae will not be particularly well
received, and ultimately it is this systemic divide - judgment versus
arithmetic - that will keep the lines of disagreement open.
Henrysun909
Will in New Haven
wrote:
But everything that Stig said in that post you quoted had some merit.
However, at least recently he's been lacking in that open-mindedness
and curiousity that he claimed to have. And, if his goal is to teach
begginers and intermediates, complicating the decision on whether to
open the bidding is the last thing he should do. So many bridge
teachers have students who take lessons and then take more lessons and
never, ever play. I hope he is not among those teachers and I would be
happy to learn that he isn't.
Carl
> judgment to strict mathematical formulae will not be particularly well
> received, and ultimately it is this systemic divide - judgment versus
> arithmetic - that will keep the lines of disagreement open.
>
> Henrysun909
It's pretty well known in this group that the best computer bidding
program available today is, in itself, a source of disagreement, but
where the vast majority agree is that they all bid rather poorly.
Since processor speeds are up three orders of magnitude since the
1980s and a terrabyte drive is on sale for $179 at Staples, it is
becoming more and more apparent that what the program lacks is neither
search tree space nor the speed with which to navigate it, but the
ability to look at a hand and "size it up" based on human-brain
pattern recognition and gut-level judgment.
I have been working on a fairly "simple" task, getting a simple rule-
based program to agree with Marty Bergen on just the opening bid
examples in "To Open or Not", which is why I took an interest in this
thread. I've been experimenting with various point-count scales,
adjustment factors, Binky Points, etc in an attempt to reduce the Rule
of 20 and the adjustments outlined in this small book down to lines of
code. The task is "simple" only in concept; I've yet to move from a
crude spreadsheet to a programming language, probably Visual Basic
since I'm lazy and machines are now very fast.
I enjoy doing this and I think we'll someday be able to have a
computer program that relies on strict formula to bid well enough to
handle a few dozen test cases with some degree of approved uniformity.
But throw a contested auction at it, in the second or third round, and
what you've got here is pretty much a bad crap shoot. Develop a few
thousand sensible heuristics, a fast Monte-Carlo simulator and a
couple of terrabytes of BridgeBrowser type data and you'll have a
fairly so-so crap shoot.
While I somewhat admire Stig's tenacity and steadfastness in trying to
reduce the opening bid (and hand evaluation process) to a series of
checklists and test cases, it's looking like the hopelessness of the
task is taking its toll. One man's hobby is another's obsession, and
at this point I guess I'll just thank my lucky stars I have many other
things to do in life, one of them playing and enjoying this great game
of judgment!
Open the hand, or not, and then listen to what RHO has to say. But
please, move on.
Carl
henry...@yahoo.com
To me, attempting to reduce hand evaluation to a series of
mathematical pluses and minuses is akin to determining whether Kobe
Bryant or Lebron James is the better basketball player on the basis of
statistical data only, and uncontested statistical data at that.
By the same token, whether Jx is worth more, or less, than Jxx, and by
how much is simply a fruitless undertaking. Or, to use an example
from an actual board (1981 Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup):
Ax
ATxxxx
Q
Jxxx
xx
KQx
KT9x
AKQx
Is the queen of diamonds worth more than the queen of spades? Well,
that depends on a number of factors that are not quantifiable:
what suit is trumps, hearts or clubs (if clubs and clubs are 3-2, then
it doesn't matter, but if clubs are 4-1 then it matters greatly)?
who is declarer, north or south (if north, then you'd definitely want
the queen of spades, but if south it depends on whether the opening
lead is a diamond or a spade)
which pointed king does south have (if the king of spades, it doesn't
matter)?
And this is a pretty simple hand. What about, on the auction 1h 2c 2d
3d, the relative value of a singleton heart versus a doubleton heart?
If partner's hearts are AJxxx you'd rather have a singleton, but if
they are AKxxx you'd rather have the doubleton. And what if partner's
hearts are AQxxx? I imagine that would depend on how the opposing
hearts lay.
It seems to me, having played, read, written about, and thought about
bridge for more than 30 years, that trying to reduce hand evaluation
to an algorithm will simply not succeed in any more than the most
rudimentary way. Even though I disagree from time to time with
Steven, where he is surely right in principle is that judgment cannot
be reduced to math.
Henrysun909
raija d
<henry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9622182a-0334-40fc...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
If judgment COULD be converted to math, it would no longer be judgment.
Bridge is closer to an art form than science or math, IMO.
StevieTee
> reduce the opening bid (and hand evaluation process) to a series of
> checklists and test cases, it's looking like the hopelessness of the
> task is taking its toll. One man's hobby is another's obsession, and
> at this point I guess I'll just thank my lucky stars I have many other
> things to do in life, one of them playing and enjoying this great game
> of judgment!
>
Of all the stupid things that Stig has had to say (and there have been
far, far too many to count), to me, the following comment rates as
perhaps his greatest stupidity (although, I will admit, there is stiff
competition for this title):
>> My interests are motivated by Mike Lawrence comment:
>>
>> "when you learn something the right way, it is like taking three steps
>> forward. Whe you learn something the wrong way, it is like taking one
>> step forward and two steps backwards."
>>
>> Learning from some books on the market is like taking three steps
>> backwards from the start. My students are doing very well.
>>
>> A house must be built on a solid foundation and a bidding system must
>> be based on sound opening bids or it will collapse like a house of
>> cards.
>>
>> Stig Holmquist
(posted 7/29/08, 3:39 am)
If the point that Stig was arguing (that the "opening bid" is
foundational to a solid bidding system) was even remotely correct,
this would be easy to verify by empirical research.
Simply examine the hands at a series of national and international
championship team matches. Take out all the hands where the same
player opened the bidding at both tables, and analyze the remaining
hands.
If the "opening bid" was such a critical part of a "sound bidding
system," then surely a pattern would appear where an advantage or
disadvantage would accrue based on the decision at one table to open
the bidding and the decision at the other table to pass. If there was
any inherent benefit to opening the bidding or not opening the bidding
on certain types of hands, then an analysis of these hands should show
a pattern of IMP gains in favor of one decision or the other.
But -- as pretty much everyone who posts here on RGB other than Stig
will know instinctively -- there WILL BE NO PATTERN OF IMP GAINS OR
LOSSES SHOWN BY SUCH AN ANALYSIS. Opening the bidding works well on
some hands, and not so well on others. On many more hands, both
tables arrive at the same contract, even though one player opened the
bidding and the other did not.
It's pretty obvious to me that, at this point in the development of
the game of bridge from a technical perspective, if there could be
shown any empirical evidence for the benefits of opening the bidding
or not opening the bidding on certain types of hands, the expert
players of this game would have identified this pattern a long time
ago.
So, as much as Stig blathers about the importance of a "solid
foundation" of opening bid standards, the empirical evidence would
suggest that he is utterly and completely wrong.
Which is what the rest of us have been saying all along.
Steve Sun
Stig Holmquist
Thank you for reviving my two year old nugget of wisdom.
If trying to quantify opening bid values is a waste of effort, why
then did Kapland and Rubens come up with the 4C method.
I know one world class player who uses it. If you did likewise, maybe
you too would be in his class. However there is more to bridge than an
opening bid, and there is play .
Good judgemnt comes from plenty of experience, which you get from alot
of poor judgments. So why not shortcicuit the learning process?
Stig Holmquist
Will in New Haven
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:15:45 -0700 (PDT), "henrysun...@yahoo.com"
There's nothing really wrong with it. It just isn't the be-all and end-
all of the game. And there have been many winning pairs with vastly
different opening bid requirements. Still, refining ones methods isn't
wrong, so long as one does not expect to arrive at perfection.
dranon
Shortcircuiting the learning process is fine as long as one doesn't
shortciruit the learning process.
henry...@yahoo.com
Thank you for reviving my two year old nugget of wisdom.
***************
It's definitely a nugget!
Tell me, Stig:
Do you have a copy of the issue from (I think) 1981 where the Kaplan
CCCC count was first described?
Henrysun909
henry...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
BTW, I note that you have remained silent on the substance of my
posts, which I take to mean another "I'll ignore one half of the Evil
Sun Duo and hope that no one remembers how wrong and abusive (see Jim
Greer's post) I was."
Henrysun909
henry...@yahoo.com
Good judgemnt comes from plenty of experience, which you get from
alot
of poor judgments. So why not shortcicuit the learning process?
Stig Holmquist
*************
For the same reason that adopting a million conventions without having
adequate experience with an mostly natural and inferior method of
bidding leaves most people completely unaware of why conventions were
developed in the first place?
Making mistakes is part of the learning process. Without knowing
where methods and evaluations are faulty, one never learns why better
methods and evaluation tools are better or how to use these better
methods and better evaluation tools.
I would go so far as to endorse someone learning bridge the old
fashioned Goren way, even with 4 card majors, strong 2bids, 16-18 1nt,
22-24 2nt, 25-27 3nt, no transfers, no artificial raises, straight
Goren by the book so that they get a feel for where that form of
bidding falls short and how it can be improved.
There's no shame in being wrong (even for you) and in fact being wrong
and developing the ability to learn from one's mistakes is perhaps the
most important element in becoming an above average bridge player.
Henrysun909
Stig Holmquist
What is the point of your question? Do you wish to discuss the method
here? To do so would be beyond your competence and would result in an
argument documenting your ignorance or lack of understanding. But feel
free to go ahead and ask. I might answer even though I lack any
computer based implementation of the 4C method. Note that Th.Andrewa
admits that his evaluator is somewhat suspect with regard to 4C.
Stig Holmquist
henry...@yahoo.com
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:20:15 -0700 (PDT), "henrysun...@yahoo.com"
So in addition to heaping verbal abuse to such an extent that someone
upon whom you haven't (yet) heaped such abuse wants to be added to
your list of village idiots, you can't even answer the simple question
of whether you have the Bridge World issue in question without heaping
additional abuse?
Do you have it or not?
Henrysun909
Chief of the village idiots
Chief lieutenant: Steven Sun
Inner circle: Will of NH, Raija, dranon
Outer circle: Gordon, Rubberduck, Carl Ritner, Jim Greer
Will in New Haven
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:20:15 -0700 (PDT), "henrysun...@yahoo.com"
Translation for those unfamiliar with Stigianisms: "I don't know shit.
I do not actually play bridge. I have made my widsom known and you
have dared disagree. So I will abuse you."
Note that he has no real talent for abuse. Calumny is his native
tongue but he is not literate in it. Abuse is the sea in which he
swims but he can barely dog-paddle.
If you need computer-based implementation to answer a question about a
method, that method is not usable at a bridge table.
Stig Holmquist
I don't have the Oct. 1982 issue of Bridge World but can get it.
Kaplan and Rubens specifically warned the readers that the method was
devised for use by a machine and is not meant for mere Mortals. At the
end of the article Kaplan says; "the 4C stands for :Caution, Complex
Computer Count.
Being that you have documented a serious case of innumeracy you would
be wasting your time trying to understand the method to implement it
at the table. It Th.Andrews us unsure he has got it right, what makes
you think you can do better? You are delusional.
Since the method is not suited for ordinary players at the table I
proposed a simpler but possibly nearly equal method.
What is you wish to argue about? Speak up!
Stig Holmquist
henry...@yahoo.com
> On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 08:08:23 -0700 (PDT), "henrysun...@yahoo.com"
I don't wish to argue about anything.
I simply wanted to make clear whether you actually have the issue of
the BW in question where Kaplan describes the genesis of the CCCC
count (he wanted Rubens to program his computer to deal out strong 2-
bids so that he could practice with Betty or Norman, Rubens asked him
for the criteria to use, etc.) and the details of the count.
Since you were willing to pontificate about the Bergen rule of 20
having only page 2 in front of you, at least in this context you have
the chance to read what Kaplan and Rubens said and report what they
wrote correctly, although based on your prior history you have shown
no real ability to do so (see: Goren, Lawrence, and Bergen).
Nonetheless, should you report the substance of that count
incorrectly, I shall stand ready to correct you and be on the
receiving end of yet more unwarranted vitriol.
Stig Holmquist
This thread was about the Bergen rule of 20 not about 4C.
Thus any detailed discussion of 4C is irrelevant. If my brief comment
about it is in any way incorrect I'm sur you would have found it.
The seemingly contradictory statements by the BridgeGuys about the
rule of 20 was specifically approved by Bergen in an email and so I'm
confused about the proper way of using the rule. Can you explain it?
Stig Holmquist
henry...@yahoo.com
> On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 17:50:23 -0700 (PDT), "henrysun...@yahoo.com"
We (meaning those who wasted time trying to teach a pig to sing)
already have, but you rejected it so why bother?
On the other hand, it is the height of insanity to continue doing the
same thing while hoping for a different outcome, and since no one has
ever accused me of being sane, I'll try again.
Bergen rule of 20 = HCPs (ALL of them, not just the ones in the two
longest suits) + length of longest suit + length of next longest
suit. If they add to 20, you have an opening bid.
My guess, since Bergen is neither a novice nor an idiot, is that he
also considers adjustments such as
intermediates in the long suits = plus value
honor togetherness in the long suits = plus value
majors over minors = plus value
lots of aces = plus value
poor intermediates = minus value
scattered honors = minus value
unprotected kings, queens, and jacks in the short suit
minors instead of majors = minus value
few aces = minus value
How much weight he gives to such factors I don't know. My guess is
that he ignores the 'Mathematical Axiom of the Stigster' and does not
quantify these plus or minus values and simply balances them against
each other. A hand with a lot of minus features is downgraded and a
hand with a lot of plus features is upgraded. A hand with basically
evened out plus and minus features is unchanged.
Perhaps Carl, who has Bergen's book in front of him, can confirm or
deny these speculations.
Whether he values quick tricks or not, I don't know (although since
Klinger has written about the rule of 22, basically the rule of 20
with 2 tacked on for quick tricks, it would not surprise me if he
did). Since I'm certain Bergen would open 1s with
AJT9xx
KJTxx
x
x
I am quite confident that he does not require 2 quick tricks to open.
If you really are confused about the rule (which I'm sure you've
spoken truthfully about), then I suggest you follow the advice of the
Fellow Village Idiots Carl and Will and spend a few dollars and
actually buy the book (To Open or Not To Open) and study it. Although
it is still an open question as to whether or not you can accurately
interpret what other people have written (Goren, Lawrence, Bergen) at
least you'd have a shot at it.
Finally, I may have misunderstood you, in your reference to the CCCC
count, to reflect actual knowledge of the count and its genesis. You
may, instead, have thrown it out as something you've heard about but
never studied. Indeed, this seems likely to have been the case. So I
suppose the best thing to do is get back to character assassinating
anyone who disagrees with you, whether they are demonstrably right or
wrong.
Stig Holmquist
Years ago I tried to study the 4C count but was unclear about one
specific point and wrote to Rubens for clarification. He responded
that he did not invent the method and told me to ask Kaplan, who had
been dead for a few years. That tells you something about Rubens. He
has also objected to the 4C as aka KnR.
What positive and constructive contribution have you made to my post
about Rule of 20 with your yakking about 4C? So when you can't address
the subject at hand you instead resort to diversion and obfjuscation.
Was that the major of your MS degree?
henry...@yahoo.com
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 07:28:47 -0700 (PDT), "henrysun...@yahoo.com"
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just for the record, although to you records seem to mean little, this
is your first post on the CCCC count:
/start quote/
If trying to quantify opening bid values is a waste of effort, why
then did Kapland and Rubens come up with the 4C method.
/end auote/
My reference to the original article is that, oddly enough, it
explains the origin of the 4C method, which would appear to answer
your question, "why then did Kapland [and Rubens come up with the 4C
method."
By confirming that youy don't have the issue although you claim that
you can get it, you once again demonstrate your uncanny ability to
reference something of which you appear to have no prior knowledge.
Henrysun909
Chief of the Village Idiots
Chief Lieutenant: Steven Sun
Inner Circle: WIll of NH, Raija, dranon
Outer Circle: Gordon, Rubberduck, Carl Ritner, Jim Greer
"Never try to teach a Stig to play bridge. It never works and only
annoys the Stig."
henry...@yahoo.com
Being that you have documented a serious case of innumeracy you would
be wasting your time trying to understand the method to implement it
at the table. It Th.Andrews us unsure he has got it right, what makes
you think you can do better? You are delusional.
**************
By the way, what part of "do you have the Bridge World issue in which
the 4C count is discussed" leads you to believe that "[I waste my]
time trying to understand the method to implement it at the table"?
Is this how you document your "serious case of illiteracy" in addition
to your reports on Goren, Lawrence, and Bergen?
BTW, if you care to discuss the 4C count, I'll be happy to oblige.
Henrysun909
Chief of the village idiots
Chief lieutenant: Steven Sun
Inner circle: Will of NH, Raija, dranon
Outer circle: Gordon, Rubberduck, Carl Ritner, Jim Greer- Hide quoted
text -
"Never try to teach a Stig how to play bridge. It never works and
only annoys the Stig."
Stig Holmquist
Not having the Nov.1982 issue does not exclude having a copy of the
article in question. How else could I've asked Rubens about it?
If you wish to debate the merits of the 4C count you better send it to
Rubens.
Stig Holmquist
>Henrysun909
>
henry...@yahoo.com
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 10:30:30 -0700 (PDT), "henrysun...@yahoo.com"
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ROFL,
so now you've gone from "you can't discuss the 4C count with me
because you're an idiot" to "I won't discuss it with you" (presumably
because you don't have the document in front of you and hence cannot
discuss it)??
That's truly hilarious.
/start first quote/
What is the point of your question? Do you wish to discuss the method
here? To do so would be beyond your competence and would result in an
argument documenting your ignorance or lack of understanding. But
feel
free to go ahead and ask. I might answer even though I lack any
computer based implementation of the 4C method. Note that Th.Andrewa
admits that his evaluator is somewhat suspect with regard to 4C.
/end first quote/
/start second quote/
If you wish to debate the merits of the 4C count you better send it to
Rubens
/end second quote/
Of course, it need not be said that I have carried on a fairly long on
again, off again correspondence with the editor of the Bridge World on
a variety of topics though not the 4C count.
Carl
wrote:
>
> Chief of the village idiots
> Chief lieutenant: Steven Sun
> Inner circle: Will of NH, Raija, dranon
> Outer circle: Gordon, Rubberduck, Carl Ritner, Jim Greer
I am not authorized to speak directly for Marty Bergen, being a mere
assistant on some of his books, but what Henry states above is all
very accurate and would reflect a fair assessment of this particular
book, "To Open, or Not to Open".
Marty devotes two pages to quick tricks, and does show examples of
hands with less than two QTs that are good opening hands. He also
states that good opening hands *usually* do have two or more quick
tricks, but not always.
The real meat of the book is the large section on plus and minus
adjustments, as I stated earlier. The Rule of 20 (or 22) is sort of
like an engine block, foundational but useless on its own. Unless your
only goal is life is to be a blockhead.
Cheers,
Carl
henry...@yahoo.com
wrote:
whoops, looks like I should have snipped some of the preceding
diatribe by Stig...
/start older post/
henry...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gosh, you mean that Marty understands that things like
intermediates in the long suits, honor togetherness in the long suits,
majors over minors, and lots of aces
are good things in a bridge hand, and things like
poor intermediates, scattered honors, unprotected kings, queens, and
jacks in the short suit, minors instead of majors, and few aces
are bad things in a bridge hand?
Man, those multiple time National Champions sure are sneaky!
Henrysun909
Chief of the Village Idiots
Chief Lieutenant: Steve Sun
Inner Circle: WIll of NH, Raija, dranon
Outer Circle: Gordon, Rubberduck, Jim Greer, Carl Ritner
(although Carl may be moving on up into the inner circle based on his
support of the Chief Village Idiot...)
"Never try to teach a Stig how to play bridge. It never works and
only annoys the Stig"
Stig Holmquist
This last confession that you correspond with Rubens explains why my
post about the Roth count of May 1 was suddenly deleted and at the
same time my critique of it was partially revised at Bridge World. It
seems unlikely Rubens wastes his time reading RGB so somebody informed
him and events followed. That makes you the Bridge Gestapo of RGB.
StevieTee
>
> Years ago I tried to study the 4C count but was unclear about one
> specific point and wrote to Rubens for clarification. He responded
> that he did not invent the method and told me to ask Kaplan, who had
> been dead for a few years. That tells you something about Rubens.
Well, actually, as all of us on R.G.B. are likely to have figured out,
that probably tells us something about the nature and tone of YOUR
CORRESPONDENCE TO RUEBENS, rather than about Ruebens himself....
Tell me, Stig, in addition to teaching bridge, do you also teach a
class on how to make friends and influence people?
LOL - Steve Sun
StevieTee
>
> This last confession that you correspond with Rubens explains why my
> post about the Roth count of May 1 was suddenly deleted and at the
> same time my critique of it was partially revised at Bridge World. It
> seems unlikely Rubens wastes his time reading RGB so somebody informed
> him and events followed. That makes you the Bridge Gestapo of RGB.
>
> Stig Holmquist
Henry, did you tattle-tale on Stig to Jeff Ruebens? For shame!!!
LOL - Steve Sun
henry...@yahoo.com
This last confession that you correspond with Rubens explains why my
post about the Roth count of May 1 was suddenly deleted and at the
same time my critique of it was partially revised at Bridge World.
It
seems unlikely Rubens wastes his time reading RGB so somebody
informed
him and events followed. That makes you the Bridge Gestapo of RGB.
Stig Holmquist
************
OK, everyone, raise your hand if you think that any correspondence I
might have had with Jeff Rubens could have been the instigation for
having Stig's post on the Roth point count be deleted from RGB
(especially since it hasn't been deleted yet) AND the reason why the
BW site was "partially revised."
This just keeps getting better all the time :)
Henrysun909
Chief of the Village Idiots AND RGB Gestapo Ubermensch
Douglas Newlands
>>
> This last confession that you correspond with Rubens explains why my
> post about the Roth count of May 1 was suddenly deleted and at the
> same time my critique of it was partially revised at Bridge World. It
> seems unlikely Rubens wastes his time reading RGB so somebody informed
> him and events followed. That makes you the Bridge Gestapo of RGB.
Welcome to the real world Stig! Didn't you realise the internet doesn't
work like most people think and that it's centrally controlled by the CIA.
As far as I know Jeff Rubens, Larry Cohen (watch from criticism of The
LAW being deleted) and Michael Rosenberg are appointed by the CIA to
watch over this section of the so-called internet.
There may be others - let us know if you spot any candidates.
I'm not going to sign my name because someone will be watching......
dranon
>On Aug 10, 4:52 pm, Stig Holmquist <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>This last confession that you correspond with Rubens explains why my
>post about the Roth count of May 1 was suddenly deleted and at the
>same time my critique of it was partially revised at Bridge World.
>It
>seems unlikely Rubens wastes his time reading RGB so somebody
>informed
>him and events followed. That makes you the Bridge Gestapo of RGB.
>
>Stig Holmquist
>
>************
>
>OK, everyone, raise your hand if you think that any correspondence I
>might have had with Jeff Rubens could have been the instigation for
>having Stig's post on the Roth point count be deleted from RGB
>(especially since it hasn't been deleted yet) AND the reason why the
>BW site was "partially revised."
>
>"Never try to teach a Stig to play bridge. It never works and only
>annoys the Stig."
I would raise my hand, but my tin foil hat precludes me from doing so.
dranon
wrote:
In this part of the country engine blocks are quite useful. They are
used as lawn decoration. They are used as a measure of sorts (I have
10 engine blocks, how many do you have?). And, most importantly, they
are marvelous as dead weights to ensure one's hoist is working
properly.
Stig Holmquist
Better yet, start a separate post about 4C and debate it to your
heart's content. I've told you almost all I know and understand about
it. Have a ball.
Stig Holmquist