Mhoram

I'm new to the rule of 20, but isn't it just another way to count the same thing? A 10-point 5521 hand under Goren would get a point for the doubleton and two for the singleton for a total of 13, and be worth opening (as long as something else didn't knock it down a point under his system, like a lack of aces). Figuring a point for each long suit, the way I was taught it's done in Standard American, makes it 12 points and a possible opener today. So on this hand at least, the rule of 20 seems to say the same thing that the other methods say: it's a potential opener, but just barely, so use your head.

I'd guess that the complexity of bridge does draw many of the young people who play it today (it drew me, though I'm not that young at 43). (I played Texas Hold-em for a while, but online, that's just math.) But when bridge was the social game played in kitchens and living rooms everywhere, I suspect few of those people were after the complexity. On the two occasions that I've played rubber bridge with older social players, I think Stayman would have surprised them. They didn't discuss systems or conventions, and pretty much just told each other what their bids meant. It was kind of like people playing chess who know the basic movements but don't know castling or promotion, or that it's important to control the center of the board. They could have fun playing each other, but they'd get destroyed by serious players. So the complexity may continue to draw the geeky minority, but it won't bring back a majority playing for social reasons. My guess is that was lost when the 60s generation consciously discarded many of their parents' customs as being too square. Since bridge was their parents' favorite game, and it even had associations with country clubs and the like, it was rejected along with formal dress, hats, and the Charleston. I grew up playing lots of card games: euchre, pinochle, canasta, rummy, and more. I never learned bridge because my parents didn't know it. Most other games we could learn to play by reading Hoyle, but on bridge, the rules and the scoring don't even start to tell you how to play the game. I tried reading through it a few times over the years, but I'd get lost in the details and never get a feeling for what the game was about. That was the case until I picked up a couple of Goren's books at a library sale. He was entertaining enough to draw me into the game and convince me I wanted to learn it. Then I found the ACBL's tutorial program and discovered that a lot had changed since Goren's time. Oh well. They were still good reading. I've been playing against Bridge Baron for a few years now, and holding my own against it, but the thought of playing in a tournament is still daunting. I'm solid on SAYC, and even on some extras like Extended Stayman and RKCB, but I don't have a partner, so what if I get paired with someone who pays a strong club or a weak 1NT? I'll be lost. And there's all the stuff that doesn't happen on the computer: alerts, announcements, how to use the boards and bidding boxes and so on. It's like there's a whole new game to learn before taking that step. I'll do it one of these days, but I'm leery. Anyway, there's a lot to learn compared to most games, for the player coming to the game cold without the opportunity to grow up watching people play.