Opening (Quick tricks or Guideline of 20)
New
open a hand below 13 points.
Currently, I am using articles by David Lindop as a guide for bidding.
For opening hand evaluation, he has a guideline of 20 listed here
http://audreygrant.com/articles/StandardArticles/GrantStandard_10.pdf
You add the HCP + length of your
2 longest suits. If the total is 20+, you open, otherwise pass
(Obviously with 13 points, you total will always be 20+, so always open).
I wanted to check what do people here use as a guide for hands with
less than 13 points.
If it's quick tricks, do you have different amount of quick tricks
requirement for 10,11,12 points or is it the same?
BTW, I came across the name Audrey Grant while reading a thread here
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/browse_thread/thread/1b7418510af78c83/e4f034c25793e2a0
On her website, I found these articles by David Lindop which covers
a lot of bidding and I have found it very useful for a beginner. I have gone
through 4-5 of the articles on balanced hands & responses & I found it
to be an excellent guide at my level.
Here is the link to all the articles for any beginner who may be interested
http://audreygrant.com/articles/newsBASICS.html
jonathan23
> Karen Walker's site uses Quick Tricks as a guide to whether you should
> open a hand below 13 points.
>
> Currently, I am using articles by David Lindop as a guide for bidding.
> You add the HCP + length of your
> 2 longest suits. If the total is 20+, you open, otherwise pass
> (Obviously with 13 points, you total will always be 20+, so always open).
>
> I wanted to check what do people here use as a guide for hands with
> less than 13 points.
I will guess that you will get a variety of answers (and very
different ones from the many posters who play other systems). The
more advanced the player, the more they think about in evaluating
their hand at every turn. Some very successful players have had very
different requirements for opening the bidding.
I use the rule of 20 with some other considerations:
-If the hand is light on honour cards I prefer to have two quick
tricks (this makes it the "Rule of 22").
-I don't like my hand as much if my honour cards are in my short
suits.
-I don't like my hand as much if both my suits are minors.
All that does not mean I won't open, but they're things to think
about.
> If it's quick tricks, do you have different amount of quick tricks
> requirement for 10,11,12 points or is it the same?
For teaching authorities who tell people to care about quick tricks
for their opening bids (Standard American styles especially) two is a
very common number regardless of whether you're 1 point light or 3.
Maybe a few said 2 1/2 quick tricks. Part of the reason for this
requirement is so that responder knows that opener has a reasonable
expectation of taking some tricks on defence when there is a choice
between bidding on and doubling for penalties.
--
- Jon Campbell
Ottawa Canada
KWSchneider
> open a hand below 13 points.
>
> Currently, I am using articles by David Lindop as a guide for bidding.
> You add the HCP + length of your
> 2 longest suits. If the total is 20+, you open, otherwise pass
> (Obviously with 13 points, you total will always be 20+, so always open).
>
> I wanted to check what do people here use as a guide for hands with
> less than 13 points.
> If it's quick tricks, do you have different amount of quick tricks
> requirement for 10,11,12 points or is it the same?
>
>
> On her website, I found these articles by David Lindop which covers
> a lot of bidding and I have found it very useful for a beginner. I have gone
> through 4-5 of the articles on balanced hands & responses & I found it
> to be an excellent guide at my level.
> Here is the link to all the articles for any beginner who may be interestedhttp://audreygrant.com/articles/newsBASICS.html
We first need to consider the purpose of the opening, which can be
broken down into two categories - constructive and obstructive.
Constructive openings [to which you refer] need defensive values,
otherwise partner will be left out to dry when he/she introduces a new
suit or bids some level of notrump. Obstructive [pre-emptive] openings
can be broken into two subsets: suit, where the bulk of your assets
are within the suit bid; and balanced [mini-notrump] where you are
assuming that the rest of the HCP are evenly distributed and you've
reached the PAR score first.
If we only consider contructive openings, then the rule of 20 is
questionable if improperly applied. Let's take the following examples
and have a look:
AKJxx x Qxxxx xx [exactly 20 in "rule of 20" parlance] - trick taking
capability in a spade contract is 6 tricks [15points] and in a diamond
contract is 5.2 tricks [13points]. This is an excellent 1S opener.
xxxxx A Qxxxx KJ [exactly 20 in "rule of 20" parlance] - trick taking
capability in spades is 4.8 tricks [12 points] and in diamonds is 5.2
tricks. This is NOT a good constructive opener in spades.
Cheers,
Kurt
Martin Ambuhl
> AKJxx x Qxxxx xx [exactly 20 in "rule of 20" parlance] - trick taking
> capability in a spade contract is 6 tricks [15points] and in a diamond
> contract is 5.2 tricks [13points]. This is an excellent 1S opener.
This is surely not right. That hand has much greater trick-taking
potential in diamonds than in spades. The hard values in the spade suit
will be there in both contracts, and you may in a spade contract find
yourself trump rich, taking fewer tricks than expected. In a diamond
contract the soft diamond values come into play. The possibility of
long cards being tricks is also greater in a diamond contract.
> xxxxx A Qxxxx KJ [exactly 20 in "rule of 20" parlance] - trick taking
> capability in spades is 4.8 tricks [12 points] and in diamonds is 5.2
> tricks. This is NOT a good constructive opener in spades.
Notice as well that the first hand has 2 QT (2 1/2 HT), the second has 1
1/2 QT (a bit less than 2 HT). In addition, the singleton A and KJ
tight lack flexibility in play, so much that Jacoby suggests subtracting
a "point" (he includes 3-2-1 shortness count) whenever the singleton or
doubleton has no cards smaller than the jack.
HoneyMonster
Doesn't anyone feel (like me) that all this add-a-point, deduct-a-point
business is somewhat Walter the Walrus-like?
AKJxx x Qxxxx xx is an attractive 10 count, and in my opinion well worth
a 1S opener for most, whereas xxxxx A Qxxxx KJ is a crappy 10 count and
as such, obviously not.
Are all there arithmetic contortions really necessary?
jonathan23
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:58:46 -0400, Martin Ambuhl wrote:
> > On 4/11/2011 1:51 PM, KWSchneider wrote:
>
> >> AKJxx x Qxxxx xx [exactly 20 in "rule of 20" parlance] - trick taking
> >> capability in a spade contract is 6 tricks [15points] and in a diamond
> >> contract is 5.2 tricks [13points]. This is an excellent 1S opener.
>
> > This is surely not right. That hand has much greater trick-taking
> > potential in diamonds than in spades. The hard values in the spade suit
> > will be there in both contracts, and you may in a spade contract find
> > yourself trump rich, taking fewer tricks than expected. In a diamond
> > contract the soft diamond values come into play. The possibility of
> > long cards being tricks is also greater in a diamond contract.
>
> >> xxxxx A Qxxxx KJ [exactly 20 in "rule of 20" parlance] - trick taking
> >> capability in spades is 4.8 tricks [12 points] and in diamonds is 5.2
> >> tricks. This is NOT a good constructive opener in spades.
>
> > Notice as well that the first hand has 2 QT (2 1/2 HT), the second has 1
> > 1/2 QT (a bit less than 2 HT). In addition, the singleton A and KJ
> > tight lack flexibility in play, so much that Jacoby suggests subtracting
> > a "point" (he includes 3-2-1 shortness count) whenever the singleton or
> > doubleton has no cards smaller than the jack.
>
> Doesn't anyone feel (like me) that all this add-a-point, deduct-a-point
> business is somewhat Walter the Walrus-like?
Yes, but I haven't yet heard of anyone devising a better way to teach
beginners when they should open (with a natural 1-bid, anyway).
Culbertson tried to get learners to evaluate their hands by counting
probable winners and most of them seemed to find it too hard, hence
point count's popularity. But it can be taken too far.
>
> AKJxx x Qxxxx xx is an attractive 10 count, and in my opinion well worth
> a 1S opener for most, whereas xxxxx A Qxxxx KJ is a crappy 10 count and
> as such, obviously not.
>
> Are all there arithmetic contortions really necessary?
They're probably necessary to fill the gap between picking up your
first hand in Bridge 101 and having real understanding of valuation,
which is a long journey. I can still see base camp 1 from here.
Martin Ambuhl
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:58:46 -0400, Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>
>> On 4/11/2011 1:51 PM, KWSchneider wrote:
>>
>>> AKJxx x Qxxxx xx [exactly 20 in "rule of 20" parlance] - trick taking
>>> capability in a spade contract is 6 tricks [15points] and in a diamond
>>> contract is 5.2 tricks [13points]. This is an excellent 1S opener.
>>
>> This is surely not right. That hand has much greater trick-taking
>> potential in diamonds than in spades. The hard values in the spade suit
>> will be there in both contracts, and you may in a spade contract find
>> yourself trump rich, taking fewer tricks than expected. In a diamond
>> contract the soft diamond values come into play. The possibility of
>> long cards being tricks is also greater in a diamond contract.
>>
>>> xxxxx A Qxxxx KJ [exactly 20 in "rule of 20" parlance] - trick taking
>>> capability in spades is 4.8 tricks [12 points] and in diamonds is 5.2
>>> tricks. This is NOT a good constructive opener in spades.
>>
>> Notice as well that the first hand has 2 QT (2 1/2 HT), the second has 1
>> 1/2 QT (a bit less than 2 HT). In addition, the singleton A and KJ
>> tight lack flexibility in play, so much that Jacoby suggests subtracting
>> a "point" (he includes 3-2-1 shortness count) whenever the singleton or
>> doubleton has no cards smaller than the jack.
>
> Doesn't anyone feel (like me) that all this add-a-point, deduct-a-point
> business is somewhat Walter the Walrus-like?
Of course. And I nowhere suggested that one should follow Jacoby's
advice. I merely pointed out that at least one highly respected player
thinks that tight honors are such a flaw that he is willing to deduct
"points" (you seem to have not noticed the scare quotes) for them.
There are several schemes for adjusting counts for concentrated honors,
isolated honors, honors in long suits, honors in short suits; I don't
advocate any of them any more that I accept Carl's blind Add-a=point,
deduct-a-point for the number of aces held.
>
> AKJxx x Qxxxx xx is an attractive 10 count, and in my opinion well worth
> a 1S opener for most, whereas xxxxx A Qxxxx KJ is a crappy 10 count and
> as such, obviously not.
>
> Are all there arithmetic contortions really necessary?
I see I have expressed myself poorly. I am in no way in disagreement
with that. My objection was to KWScheider's
AKJxx x Qxxxx xx ... trick taking capability in a spade contract is
6 tricks [15points] and in a diamond contract is 5.2 tricks [13points].
You will notice that in my stated objection to this there is no mention
at all of point count, and certainly no "add-a-point, deduct-a-point".
OldPalooka
Yes, my pet computer does not have a genetic program for recognizing
the difference between and attractive and crappy ten count, so it
needs some arithmetic help.
HoneyMonster
Apologies, Sir. I wasn't attacking your remarks; just commenting that
IMHO on RGB there is far too much Walrusing in general.
Adam Beneschan
> On 4/11/2011 1:51 PM, KWSchneider wrote:
>
> > AKJxx x Qxxxx xx [exactly 20 in "rule of 20" parlance] - trick taking
> > capability in a spade contract is 6 tricks [15points] and in a diamond
> > contract is 5.2 tricks [13points]. This is an excellent 1S opener.
>
> This is surely not right. That hand has much greater trick-taking
> potential in diamonds than in spades. The hard values in the spade suit
> will be there in both contracts, and you may in a spade contract find
> yourself trump rich, taking fewer tricks than expected. In a diamond
> contract the soft diamond values come into play. The possibility of
> long cards being tricks is also greater in a diamond contract.
This sounds plausible but I have my doubts. For one thing, if you
play in diamonds and dummy doesn't have good diamonds, the opponents
can draw your trumps. I'm not sure how much of a factor this is. But
I suspect that this would be best answered by a simulation rather than
by making assertions. (The simulation should only count hands where
dummy has a 3-card fit or better for one of declarer's suits. That
is, it should average how many tricks are available in spades when
dummy has 3+ spades, and how many tricks are available in diamonds
when dummy has 3+ diamonds; I don't know whether hands where dummy has
a fit for both should be separated out, but that average would also be
interesting.)
-- Adam
boblipton
Jon, the issue is not absolute beginners. Really, it's amazing how
the basic Work count works so well on its own and how little of the
add-a-point and subtract-a-point is needed to make it reasonably
accurate.
However, in order to learn to play this game at all well past the
beginner's level, there must come a moment at which the player stops
counting the points and adding and subtracting bits and pieces and
suddenly sees the gestalt.... how the hands fit together, where the
honors can do the most good... and all too soon the point count system
becomes an impediment.
Bob
PriorKnowledge
>
> - Show quoted text -
A pro once told me, "If I was teaching a parrot to play bridge, I
would teach them the 'Rule of 20.'"
Barry Crane started destroying the MP world in the 70's and 80's. And
one of the reasons was that he was regularly opening 11 hcp hands.
Ignore quick tricks, ignore rule of 20. Meckstroth's advice: If you
are considering whether to bid or not: BID! He said that since he
would overcall at the 1-level on KQJxx and out, his convention lists
6+ for 1-level overcalls with the "Sometimes light" box checked.
I don't remember the exact hand, but it was similar to J10xxxx KJx AJx
x (6s to the J10, a singleton and scattered 10 hcp) and it was given
to a panel of pros in a magazine and asked what they would do as
dealer. The overwhelming majority bid 1S. A few bid 2S and almost no
one passed. One panelist said, "There is no hand too strong for 2, but
not good enough for 1." Most panelists said they did not want to open
2S because the hand did not *look* like a preempt and it was too good
to pass.
I think the sayings of 2 generals are appropos:
a) The best defense is a good offense
b) Get there firstest with the mostest
Will in New Haven
wrote:
I find that it's generally a bidder's game. On the other hand, Lee
broke the Army of Northern Virginia at Gettysburgh and that was not
the army he wanted to break. Maybe he should have stood on the
defensive for once.
And Bedford Forrest, while a racist and several other bad things, was
not illiterate. He said "Get there first with the most men."
--
Will in New Haven
KWSchneider
I can assure you that control of the trump suit is far more important
than control of an offsuit. As for this example, let us assume that
one of the opps has a singleton spade. Which contract do you prefer?
In diamonds, your spade honors are being ruffed and you haven't the
ability or timing to pull trump.
Then let's assume that one of the opps has a singleton diamond. Which
contract do you prefer? In diamonds, you have the dilemma of dealing
with a bad trump split missing the honors. Again, you cannot pull
trump succesfully and the opps may be able to score their honors
separately by ruffing spades.
Whether you believe my methods or not, SD assures me that the spade
contract is almost 1 trick sounder. Feel free to run a DD on the hand
in both denominations and see what the results show.
Kurt
KWSchneider
>
> - Show quoted text -
This was a beginner question with a beginner oriented answer. Since
you need no help in hand evaluation, I would suspect that responding
to this posting was a waste of your time.
Kurt
Adam Beneschan
> Barry Crane started destroying the MP world in the 70's and 80's. And
> one of the reasons was that he was regularly opening 11 hcp hands.
>
> Ignore quick tricks, ignore rule of 20. Meckstroth's advice: If you
> are considering whether to bid or not: BID! He said that since he
> would overcall at the 1-level on KQJxx and out, his convention lists
> 6+ for 1-level overcalls with the "Sometimes light" box checked.
6+??? What a wimp! I've heard that Crane marked his card "1+" and
also checked "occasionally light".
-- Adam
jonathan23
wrote:
> A pro once told me, "If I was teaching a parrot to play bridge, I
> would teach them the 'Rule of 20.'"
Well, you have to teach them _something_ they can just get on with
doing. Rule of 20, Goren approach, just add up to 12 or 13...they all
have something going for them.
>
> Barry Crane started destroying the MP world in the 70's and 80's. And
> one of the reasons was that he was regularly opening 11 hcp hands.
>
Counterpoint: Al Roth and Tobias Stone (and other pairs involving
either of those two) were a fearsome partnership, particularly at
pairs, playing very sound openings in first and second seat. Like
Crane's style, Roth-Stone also required the user to be good to
succeed.
From what Crane's sometime opponents and kibitzers who have posted
here (search the Google Group for the stories) I think that opening 11
hcp hands worked for him because he could play the spots off the cards
and steal his way out of trouble without ever letting his opponents
know he was in it often enough to avoid disasters. If you can play
that way, you can bid light to advantage. If not...
But I don't intend to debate this issue or say you're wrong, style is
highly personal. Just pointing out the other side of the coin.
BTW, Crane seems to have been a force to be reckoned with long before
the 70s. He had high placements in national events starting in the
early 50s and won his first McKenney (yet to be named after him) soon
after. But his real fame may have started later on (in the 60s maybe)
when he had risen high enough in the TV production world that he could
arrange his work schedule to make more time for bridge tournaments (at
least I heard he did that).
> Ignore quick tricks, ignore rule of 20. Meckstroth's advice: If you
> are considering whether to bid or not: BID! He said that since he
> would overcall at the 1-level on KQJxx and out, his convention lists
> 6+ for 1-level overcalls with the "Sometimes light" box checked.
>
There's certainly something in what he says, but I'd be willing to bet
that one doesn't often overhear Meckstroth or his partners saying,
"But I only overcalled, partner!".
Fred.
> open a hand below 13 points.
>
> Currently, I am using articles by David Lindop as a guide for bidding.
> You add the HCP + length of your
> 2 longest suits. If the total is 20+, you open, otherwise pass
> (Obviously with 13 points, you total will always be 20+, so always open).
>
> I wanted to check what do people here use as a guide for hands with
> less than 13 points.
> If it's quick tricks, do you have different amount of quick tricks
> requirement for 10,11,12 points or is it the same?
>
>
> On her website, I found these articles by David Lindop which covers
> a lot of bidding and I have found it very useful for a beginner. I have gone
> through 4-5 of the articles on balanced hands & responses & I found it
> to be an excellent guide at my level.
> Here is the link to all the articles for any beginner who may be interestedhttp://audreygrant.com/articles/newsBASICS.html
There are really two questions you are dealing with here. One whether
you want to play a light or a sound style. The other is, how to
evealuate once you pick a style.
My suggestion, if you are attempting a sound style, which is probably
what you have been learning, and may well be best until you have more
experience,is that you use a quick trick adjustment as suggested by
Edgar Kaplan. This approach takes a normal opening bid as holding
2QT. With 1.5 require a point more, and with 2.5 require a point
less, but always open with 3QT. This approach assures a reaonably
constant minimum in defense so that parner can safely base a double on
your opening.
However, there are hands which have so much playing strength you
should break the rules even when playing sound methods. Two examples
are:
xx
xx
xx
AKQxxxx, and
AJTxxx
x
Axxx
xx
Either of these hands can make a game facing the right balanced 10-11
HCP, which partner is presemably not going to open. The first hand
should begin one club and accept if partner invites in NT. The second
should open 1S and carry to 4S after a limit raise. Netiher hand
should dissappoint too much on defense.
If in the future you want to get started on a light style, and are
reasonably adept at mental arithmetic, I think you should look at the
evaluation method devised by Zar Petkov. I found a copy of his paper
at http://www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/ZarPoints.pdf. I warn you that the
ACBL does not permit you to open a few of the hands which qualify as
openings in ZP's methods.
Fred.
OldPalooka
Perhaps, but consider AKQJx Axxxx xx x opposite xxx xxx AKx xxxx. If
both majors split 3-2, you will take 10 tricks in hearts and 8 in
spades.
Fred.
And, if Meckstroth's overcalls are "disciplined" then how do we adapt
the terminology to cover the rest of the world? :-)
Fred,
derek
Absolutely not. But as we can see, Stig's still obsessing over them...
(and so is Marty Bergen)
And fwiw, Quick tricks or "Losing Trick Count" aren't that precise
either. All these tools get you in the vicinity of where you want to
be, but after that it's up to your judgement.
derek
Well, that's taking the fun right out of it :-)
HoneyMonster
Firstly, the fact that Stig obsesses over them is, if anything, an
indication that their worth should likely be devalued.
Secondly, in answer to a somewhat Schneid remark earlier in the thread:
Yes, I realise that the question originally posed was at beginner level.
What I was driving at was that we should be passing along the beginnings
of judgement, rather than a number of complicated arithmetical formulae,
which are yet another burden on the memory.
To OP: just count 4321 for AKQJ, then ask yourself:
Are the points concentrated in the short suits, or the long suits?
Are the points Aces and Kings, or Queens and Jacks?
Do I have what looks like a couple of defensive tricks if we don't win
the auction?
What do the prospects look like if we find a fit?
What do the prospects look like if we don't?
Do I have an easy rebid?
KWSchneider
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are the points concentrated irrespective of suit length? - Axxx Kxx
Qxx Jxx is measurably weaker than AQxx KJx xxx xxx
Do you have fillers? - AT9x KTx Q98 JTx is significantly better than
Axxx Kxx Qxx Jxx
The purpose of "evaluation" math is to quantify the impact of all of
these aspects [and many others] on trick taking capability. You can
anecdotally stipulate "facts" or you can prove them. I choose to prove
them.
Cheers
The Schneid...
jogs
> Karen Walker's site uses Quick Tricks as a guide to whether you should
> open a hand below 13 points.
>
> Currently, I am using articles by David Lindop as a guide for bidding.
> You add the HCP + length of your
> 2 longest suits. If the total is 20+, you open, otherwise pass
> (Obviously with 13 points, you total will always be 20+, so always open).
>
> I wanted to check what do people here use as a guide for hands with
> less than 13 points.
> If it's quick tricks, do you have different amount of quick tricks
> requirement for 10,11,12 points or is it the same?
>
>
> On her website, I found these articles by David Lindop which covers
> a lot of bidding and I have found it very useful for a beginner. I have gone
> through 4-5 of the articles on balanced hands & responses & I found it
> to be an excellent guide at my level.
> Here is the link to all the articles for any beginner who may be interestedhttp://audreygrant.com/articles/newsBASICS.html
All those methods are too complex. Just open
every 12 point hand. Accept QJ in 4 suits.
Pass that one. Also open most AK, A hands.
With 9 cards in two suits, open every hand
that you haven't already passed without counting
the points.
New
Point more or less than how many points?
derek
Surprisingly, I agree with you :-) Except that you meant "except" and
the last is a tautology. If you've already passed, you'll never get
another chance to open!
Fred.
> > ACBL does not permit you to open a few of the hands which qualify as
> > openings in ZP's methods.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Than whatever opening bid requirement that you are playing with your
partner. Let's assume, as many teach today that your are counting
length (1 legnth point each for the 5th and each additional card in
any suit) for opening and require 13 points to open in a suit.
Then the following hands are minimum 1S openings in the above sound
methods:
1. AJxxx QTx KQx xx = 12 HCP + 1 LP = 13 points with 2QT, a normal
minimum
2. Axxxx Kxx Axx xx = 11 HCP + 1 L P = 12 points, but with 2.5 QT you
open 1S.
3. AJxxx QJx QTx Kx = 13 HCP + 1 LP = 14 points, but with only 1.5 QT
is barely strong enough to open.
With only 1 QT, you don't have an opening bid. Pass
4. KQJxx QJx QJx QJ = 15 HCP + 1 LP = 16 points
Note that these adjustments are not appropriate in a truly light style
where you would open 1S with
5. AKxxxx - xxxxx Jx, and only require the jack to satisfy the ACBL
minimum on HCP.
then your opening bid promises playing strength, and doesn't promise
so much defense.
While I play a sound stryle where I would have to pass hand 5, I don't
like passing it. Imagine partner with another weakish hand and a
magic fit:
6. xxxxx Jxx AKQxx -
Here the hands, with a combined 18 HCP, are cold for 6S and only fail
in 7 when the diamonds are 3-0 and the opening leader has 3. Further
your side needs to get into the auction before the opponents find
their 10-card heart fit. This sort of thing doesn't' come up very
often, but when it does it can mean the match at IMP scoring, and a
game on 18 HCP is not so far fectched.
Fred.
Bertil
>
> - Show quoted text -
You say any 12 HCP hand qualifies for an opening bid except one with
QJ in
each suit. Let's examine this.
More than half a century ago Marchall Miles wrote this about "Problems
of the
Opebning Bider" : ..no player worth his salt would open in 1st or 2nd
seat
with this hand QJx-Kx-QJxxx-QJx. The decision is not even close".
Note that this hand has 12 HCP but is worth 13 pts by ACBL and Grant
standards
because they use the Karpin count. How has this hand increased in
value in the past half century? Let's look at a few alternative
valuations.
Kaplan would have counted it as worth only 8.9 pts by his 4C method.
The BUM-RAP count is 9.75. Goren would have deducted 1pt for no A.
Culbertson would have counted 2.5 honor tricks(HT) because he assigned
0.5 to QJx but stipulated that you must have a rebidable 5-card suit
with 2.5 HT.
Would this hand qualify for a 12-14 HCP NT opening bid?
Do you think we should include Culbertson's HT count of 0.5 for QJx as
part
of the QT count?
There is only one objective method of deciding if this hand should be
opened.
One must do a computer simulation of at least 1000 random deals with
DD
analysis to determine the chances of getting a positive outcome.
But nobody is likely to do this, so we are left with personal
opinions,
which are a dime a dozzen here at RGB.
I asked a number of good players at my local club and none of them
would open
Bertil
Bertil
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pardon the typo about 2.5 HT. Shoud be 2, which would require a 6-card
major
Bertil
Douglas
> There is only one objective method of deciding if this hand should be
> opened.
> One must do a computer simulation of at least 1000 random deals with
> DD
> analysis to determine the chances of getting a positive outcome.
> But nobody is likely to do this, so we are left with personal
> opinions,
> which are a dime a dozzen here at RGB.
>
> Bertil
I am too lazy to do a thousand, but I did a hundred. 60 negative DD
results for the opener of a pure quack hand with only 12 work points
versus 40 positive. This fits pretty well with my instinctive first
thought that it should break about 1/3 positive because there are
three other potential strength hands, and only one is partner's. Also
there is the "minor" issue of what partner expects from you if a
penalty double situation eventuates:)
Douglas