rmnka447

Bring'em on. I could use the opportunity to pad my results.

The crux of the matter is how often you expect to go for only 500 vs. 800. After a 2 ♠ raise, it is less clear whether they have a 9+ card fit or not. Even with ♥ A that probability goes up with a flat hand no other asset hand. It is still low enough to sac? Pay your money, take your choice.

Nope, but some good guidance in hand evaluation doesn't hurt. Suggesting months of study is a gross exaggeration AND a disservice. I suggest "Hand Evaluation" by Marty Bergen, 64 pages, readable in a couple hours at most. It's excellent. It even includes a couple of comments about the Rule of 20 of which Marty has been a huge proponent.

I was going to suggest earlier possibly obtaining "Hand Evaluation" by Marty Bergen to help answer some of your questions. I thought I had a copy, but, alas, I didn't. So I had one rushed to me and got it today. It's an easily readable 64 pages and excellent, so I heartily recommend it. It was available on Amazon for about $10.

+1 for gszes. How are you playing 1 ♦-(1 ♠)-2 ♠? If limit+ in ♦, then 2 ♦ ought to be exactly the hand gszes suggests.

+1 for manudude I agree you can't bid the Grand not knowing if the 4 ♥ cue is the a 1st or a 2nd round control. So West should either just bid 6 ♦ or continue control bidding by bidding 5 ♠. 5 ♠ is better because it should focus East's attention on the ♥ suit. West must have high ♦ to bypass 5 ♦ without the ♥ A (else 5 ♥).

2 NT for me also. If one spot card from one of the other suits were a ♦, you'd bid 2 NT in a flash. So you're telling the truth about your strength, but making only a small fib about your shape. Also, if you bid 2 NT, you're unlikely to lose any major fit because partner is likely to use Stayman or transfer with a major holding.

+1 for cyberyeti.

I pretty much agree with the comments so far. I'd like to add a couple additional thoughts. Bidding 4 ♠ after bidding 2 ♠ gives the opponents a "fielder's choice". They have the option to double you, bid on, or pass after having exchanged more information. Reasonably competent opponents are much more likely to make a better decision with the additional info they've gained than if you immediately bid as high as you're willing to go on the first round. Additionally, your hand is relatively flat even though you have a big ♠ fit. That makes it less likely that you will be able to increase the number of tricks you side can take when declaring. I'm sure that plays into other poster's comments about choosing 3 ♠ rather than 4 ♠ as you initial raise. The time to push is when you have some features that enhance your side's ability to take tricks -- either complementary shortness (i.e. shortness partner is unlikely to have) or a source of tricks like ♠ xxxxx ♥ xx ♦ AJ10x ♣ xx or ♠ xxxxx ♥ Ax ♦ J10xxx ♣ x.

There should be no problem passing out this hand. As others have mentioned, ♠ should be a concern. How would you like to open 1 ♥ and allow the opponents to compete to 2 ♠ making when you could have passed out the hand. Something you might do is see which pairs opened the hand. If it's more modestly talented players, don't worry about it. If it's mostly really good players maybe you could ask them about the hand. It might also be that the pairs getting to 4 ♥ opened your partner's hand. I didn't see anything in what you said about how you analyzed the hand that was unreasonable. In 4th seat, use your best judgment about whether to open the hand and don't worry about the results too much. If you've been reasonable in your approach, you're likely to get about average on these boards in the long run. Only consider changing what you do if you find you're consistently getting bad results.

Aside to Wesley C - I think that 3 ♠ would have to show a partial or potential partial stopper something like ♠ Qxx or possibly ♠ 109x. With good ♥ and ♠ stoppers, responder could have bid 3 NT directly over 3 ♣. Since opener denies 4 in a major with a 3 ♣ rebid, 3 ♥ shows a ♥ stopper and tends to deny a ♠ stopper but is still searching for 3 NT. If opener has the ♠ stopper 3 NT could be bid over 3 ♥. So 3 ♠ would seem to suggest to responder to bid 3 NT with a partial stopper. Back to main topic -- In discussing the actual bidding sequence, there is an inference that I think was missed. It's often valuable in any bidding sequence to consider the things that your partner bid AND the things that were not bid. For opener, after responder bids 3 ♥ and 4 ♠ over 4 ♣, the question should be "Why with a ♠ control and a ♥ stopper didn't responder bid 3 NT?" It might be possible, though not likely, with something like stiff ♠ A that responder might bid 3 ♥ to find if opener has some additional help in ♠ for NT. Certainly with something like ♠ AQ or ♠ AK and a ♥ stopper, responder could bid 3 NT directly. The inference being a possible ♠ loser may exist if responder holds ♠ Kx or ♠ Ax. If so, then responder needs to have cards that insure either opener or responder can make enough pitches to make the ♠ loser go away. ♥ KQJx or doubleton ♠ with ♦ KQ tight might do. But opener can never know if these cards exist, so jumping to slam is a bit aggressive. BTW, I'd be likely to bid 3 NT over 3 ♣ with responder's hand because of the bias toward NT games vs. minor games at MPs. At IMPs, 3 ♥ is right where getting to the best game is more important.

Thanks, Zel! I suspect quite a few of us if faced with these sequences might not be sure which way we were playing it unless playing within a long established partnership. Over a period of time, agreement about such sequences is achieved and understood. It's one of the big advantages that such partnerships have. If they don't have an explicit agreement, they each also pretty well know their partner would think or bid when anything unfamiliar comes up.

Agree that there are "different schools" for follow ups. You suggest that 3 ♠ has to be bid if 3 ♣ doesn't necessarily show extras. Does that mean that after ....3 ♥, that -- 3 ♠ - 3 NT 4 ♣ shows a minimum hand not suitable for NT, 3 ♠ - 3 NT Pass says yes, I was looking for a partial spade stopper so we could play NT, and, 4 ♣ directly over 3 ♥ shows extras and no interest in no trump?

I agree. With the major unknown, I'm assuming partner will "correct" if not holding ♥ since I may hold ♥ and ♠ and not want to bypass 4 ♥ if that's leaping michaeler's suit. There's no way to know if partner has a ♣ control or the other appropriate As if he/she does have the ♣ control. Better to try to go to a good versus perfect spot.

2 ♣ is probably a bit overaggressive. But the problem is making the wild jump immediately. There's no problem with letting partner in on your hand. 2 ♣ - 3 ♣ (positive) 3 ♠ - 5 ♣ Now opener with 5 sure cover cards ought to have an easy 6 ♣ bid. Likewise, you might do something similar after a 1 ♠ opener. 1 ♠ - 2 ♣ 3 ♥ - ? Opener's values are in suits you hold, but your ♣ might not be any use for partner in a major contract. Opener doesn't guarantee more than 4 ♥ and, at times, may be on 3. So what's your next bid? 4 ♣ followed by 5 ♣ probably is an underbid. You can't be certain 4 ♥ is right. So, maybe you jump to 5 ♣. I think it sends the message -- "I've heard what you said and don't care what ♣ you hold I willing to play 5 ♣ opposite your bids so far." Both 5 ♣ bids create what I've been taught is called a "momentum auction". Opener looks at all the primes and thinks "Partner must have solid ♣. If he/she has the right hand to bid 5 ♣ then with all these primes I must have enough to bid on and bid 6 ♣." These type of auctions do come up on a somewhat frequent basis.

Good comments, especially the last sentence.

So far, it's sounds like you're doing fine with considering both HCP and defensive tricks in determining if you open. Also, your using defensive tricks again with Rule of 20 openers is very good also. 12 HCP and 2 defensive tricks is a pretty solid standard for opening 1 level suit bids. As the number of defensive tricks goes up, you can open with less HCP. As the number of defensive tricks goes down you open with more. Typically, most 11 HCP, 2 1/2 defensive trick hands and all 11 HCP 3 QT should be opened. (Caveat: 11 HCP, 3 defensive trick hands have to be AK in one suit and A in another suit. Some experts won't open 4-3-3-3 hands with only 11 HCP, 3 defensive tricks.) So if you hold, say something like ♠ AQJxx ♥ xxx ♦ Axx ♣ xx, you have 11 HCP, 2 1/2 defensive tricks. This adds to only 19 on a rule of 20 basis, but would be a hand most really good players would open 1 ♠. But you could take and rearrange the honors in that hand to have only 11 HCP, 2 defensive tricks and opening or not becomes less clear. Which way you would fall on each of those possible hands gets into principles of hand evaluation which can be a lot to cover. Let me say that there are a number of factors to consider -- honors in long suits (positive) versus honors in short suits (negative, honors working together (positive) versus honors being alone (negative), number of intermediate cards, intermediates working with honors (positive) or not (positive), AKs (positive) versus QJs (negative), unguarded honors (negative), etc. The more positive factors you have, the more you value the hand. The more negative factors you have, the less you value the hand. So some possible hands in order of value best to worst would be: ♠ QJ109x ♥ A10x ♦ A10x ♣ xx (1) ♠ QJxxx ♥ Axx ♦ Axx ♣ xx (2) ♠ Q109xx ♥ Jxx ♦ Axx ♣ Ax (3) ♠ Jxxxx ♥ Axx ♦ Axx ♣ Qx (4) Probably, quite a few players would open the first 2 hands, less the third, and not too many the fourth hand.

High ♦ to look at dummy and see partner's potential signal. After partner's TOx, the concern is they may have a running ♣ suit as a source of tricks. Will determine how to continue from what I see at tirck 1.

Amen!! If you want to become a really good bridge player, you've got to continually read about and study the game. Even if you're a newer player who just hopes to play solid bridge, there's some study necessary to learn the fundamentals of the game. That study should be combined with playing the game, so you can learn when and how to use them. Our district newsletter posted an article by Larry Cohen that essentially said that newer players are better served and improve faster by thoroughly learning the fundamentals of the game than trying to add a lot of gadgets. If I recall correctly, the example he used was the Stayman convention. He asserted that learning the meaning of the various Stayman bidding sequences and understanding when and how to use them would result in a far larger improvement than adding a lot of gimmicks. Recently, there was unit business meeting/buffet between sessions of a sectional tournament. My local partner and I were joined by two women players, one a newer player, and the other a good more experienced player trying to help the newer player improve. She asked what advice I had for the newer player. My answer was to first and foremost learn the fundamentals of bidding and play well so they became almost second nature to execute. Then, you would be a player that would be difficult to play against and start becoming a winner.

I presented 2 hands which satisfy the rule of 20. One is a reasonable opener and one isn't. A new player is unlikely to know the difference between the two hands. So just giving this newer person the rule of 20 as a handy dandy tool to use for openers is a disservice. Without some idea about when or how to use it, the newer player is likely to get into bad bidding habits using it. Then, it's harder to unlearn those habits in order to improve. Certainly, we've all seen hands posted on the BBO forums that were defended vigorously as rule of 20 openers, but in reality weren't close to being openers. The proponents of opening these hands were so imbued with the rule of 20 that getting them to see why they shouldn't open those hands was impossible. Sad to say, but many of these were likely to become and remain part of the group of players defined as hopeless. IMO, it's more important to impart some sound bidding habits to start. As players get to understand how to bid and develop bidding judgment, then adding a supplementary tool like the rule of 20 becomes a good addition to round out their bidding repertoire.

I'm willing to bid to 3 ♠ with this hand, but I see no reason for not patterning out the hand. So I'm choosing 2 ♥ as my rebid. If partner takes a further bid or LHO makes a call, I'm still likely to be able to bid 3 ♠ and complete telling my story. There's no way partner can describe his/her hand, so here describing my hand gives us the best chance to get to a good spot. Usually ♥ won't bring much interest from partner because doubler will often have 4 ♥. But there will be occasions where PARTNER does indeed have 4 ♥ and may be interested in a ♥ contract. Also, the ♥ rebid might be just what partner needs to know so no reason not to bid it.

I'm bidding 4 ♠ as South on this auction. Partner shouldn't be overcalling on complete junk red vs. white. I've got 11 HCP, 2 1/2 QTs, and a ruffing value (even if they have a 10 card fit). With the distribution in ♥s, I'm not sitting for 4 ♥.

♠ 10. Might lead differently if 1 NT bidder can have 5 ♠. However, LHO presumably has not more than 3 ♠ and have 7+ minor cards. The 1 NT opener may have up to 4 ♠, so that marks partner with 4+ ♠ and 10-11 points I'm trying for his suit.

The problem with the rule of 20 is that it is one of the most misused devices there is. For example, if we make a minor change to one of billw55's example hands, you'll have a hand that meets the rule of 20 -- ♠ Kx ♥ Qxxx ♦ QJxxx ♣ Kx. It has 11 HCP and 9 cards in the longest two suits, but I'm confident that virtually none of the top notch players that I regularly play against would open that hand. Marty Bergen (world class player recognized as a foremost bidding expert), who developed the rule of 20, regularly cites hands in his books hands that meet the rule of 20, but shouldn't be opened. He also cites hands that don't meet the rule of 20, but which should always be opened. So saying or implying that the rule of 20 is a tool that can be used indiscriminately is just plain wrong. OTOH, change the example hand to ♠ xx ♥ KQxx ♦ KQJxx ♣ xx. I'm confident that virtually all those top notch players that passed the previous example would open this hand 1 ♦ in a flash. What's the difference? (Hint: Check the QT count.)

The advice you received about the amount needed to open was fine, especially for a beginner. I think the player who opened 7-10 high card points (HCP) because of a 5 card suit was quite a bit beyond the norm of what most good players would do. Since you say you watch other players bid and play to learn, I'd suggest you look for an "interesting table" with JEC as a player. JEC is Jim Cayne, a world class American player, who has won many national and international events. Watch what hands he and his partner open at the 1 level. I think you'll find that they rarely open hands with less than what you were advised to do unless it's a weak 2 bid or preempt. billw55 posed some good examples to show that there is more to hand evaluation than just HCP. They speak to how well the high cards work together to provide trick taking potential. One hand has them pretty much working together, while the other the high cards are dangling by themselves with reduced trick taking effectiveness. One way to measure this is by counting quick tricks (also called defensive tricks). Quick tricks (QT) are combinations of cards in each suit that provide trick taking potential. You count them for each suit individually and sum the individual suit QTs for an overall number for the hand. Quick tricks are assigned as follows: AK(x...) in suit are 2 QTs, AQ(x...) in a suit are 1 1/2 QTs, A(x...) in a suit is 1 QT, KQ(x...) in a suit is 1 QT, and Kx(x...) is 1/2 QT. You can think of HCP as providing a count of the overall size of a hand while QTs measure the strength of its foundation. Looking at billw55's examples - ♠ KQJxx ♥ Axxx ♦ x ♣ xxx - there's 1 QT in ♠ and 1 QT in ♥ for 2 QTs total for the hand. ♠ Kxx ♥ Qxx ♦ KJxxx ♣ Qx - there's 1/2 QT in ♠ and 1/2 QT in ♦ for 1 QT total for the hand. So you can see that although the second hand has more HCP, it has a weaker foundation. If it were instead ♠ KQx ♥ xxx ♦ KQJxx ♣ xx, it would have 2 QTs and be much better to bid on. One widely taught standard for opening 1 of a suit bids is 12 HCP and 2 QTs for an opening bid in 1st or 2nd seat. With 2 1/2 QTs opening with 11 HCP is OK. All 3 QT hands are normally be opened. If you have 1 1/2 QT, you need some extra HCP normally 13-14 to open. 1 QT hands are not usually opened. (Now some posters may want to differ about these requirements. That's OK if that's their style. But for a newer player, these standards are a good basis for building solid bidding habits which is important for progressing as a player.) Again, if you watch someone like JEC, I think you'll find that he doesn't vary much from what I'm suggesting.