OldGranton

. It looks as if the dust has settled on the minor jousting between Zelandach and Tramticket. So, here's my new plan for 4441, based on this compromise by Zelandach: and this acceptance by Tramticket: So, my new rule for 4441 hands is now: With 12-14 points, open Diamonds if you have them - otherwise open Clubs. With 15+ points, open Clubs if you have them - otherwise open Diamonds. Thanks. .

. Based on the pros and cons provided in this thread by generous volunteers, I've arrived at the following scheme: * Follow the strict rules relating to NT bids and rebids. This includes bidding NT with rubbish doubletons and 3-card suits. * With 4441 and four diamonds, open 1D - otherwise open 1C. The second item is recommended in the book "Acol from Scratch". The author says: * If responder bids a major, raise. * If responder bids 1NT, Pass. ( !! ) * If responder bids 2C, rebid 2D. Responder will pass only with exactly 10 points and therefore has no 4-card major. So responder will nearly always hold three diamonds. I don't understand the third item, but I'll go along with it and blame him for any disasters :) Thanks for all the help. .

. Thanks for all the responses :) I think everyone is saying that 5 hearts and 4 diamonds in the OP sequence is based on inference and elimination. That sounds fine by me. Each of the four sources in my OP all make terse dogmatic statements, as if the subject had been fully discussed earlier and they were simply repeating the statement. For example, No Fear Bridge makes the following statement: "This shows 5+ cards in the first suit and 4+ cards in the second suit." I worked out all the possible combinations that would produce the OP sequence. I agree that, except for some 4441 hands, all sequences will show 5+ hearts and 4+ diamonds. For 4441, it depends on which rule is used to open (the four sources have three rules). But some legal sequences will be the same as in the OP, which means that some hands will be 4-4 in hearts and diamonds. However, I think I read somewhere that responder should always assume that opener is 5-4 - even with some ambiguous 4441 hands. They claimed that the assumption would gain more than they lost, because (a) 4441 hands only account for 3% of opening bids, and (b) some of that 3% might clearly NOT be 5-4 because of the sequence and the rule. But even that source didn't mention that the 5-4 is based on negative inferences. Thanks. .

. Consider this Acol sequence, where opener does not plan to rebid NT: . .S . . . . .N . 1♥ . . . .1♠ . 2♦ Here are four sources that I use frequently: No Fear Bridge siteBid And Made siteEBU siteAcol from Scratch book All four sources say that with 4-4, open the higher-ranking suit. All four sources say that the above sequence shows 5 hearts and 4 diamonds. Question: Why is that? Why does the sequence not show 4-4? (I apologize for the title. The post itself is correct. It's "....5 hearts and 4 diamonds") .

. That must be the only 5432 hand on the internet - apart from the hand in this thread :-) For the benefit of readers who will never see it again, here's the full hand: South S 5 4 3 2 H 6 D A 8 5 C K Q J 7 2 .

. At my level, I try to carefully avoid expressing opinions. But I think I'm allowed to quote other people's opinions :-) Here are selected recommended responses to an opening bid of one of a suit. I try to use their EXACT wording, where possible. Otherwise, I would simply be giving my own interpretation of their exact wording. My interpretation is 84.37% likely to be wrong :-) NoFearBridge: Bid 4+ card suit at the one level (plus all other possible responses to one of a suit) If none of the above, bid 1NT (need not be balanced hand) BidAndMade: Bid 1 of a 4+ card suit (plus all other possible responses to one of a suit) Bid NT if none of the above. (Note that BidAndMade describe a 1NT response as a "dustbin" response.) EBU: A 1NT response may be something of a "dustbin" bid when there is no other appropriate response, e.g. weak unbalanced hands not suitable for a response at the two level. Always prefer to respond in a major suit at the one level if you can. .

. Here's the page that prompted my question: http://www.bidandmade.com/bridge_bid_and_play/Bridge_Bid_0018_The_skip_over_principle.php Here's the key quote: When the opener misses out a rebid that he could have made, it's because he doesn't have this suit. For example, after 1D-1H, an opener's re-bid of 2C means he does not have a 4-card spade suit. BTW 1: There's an old forum post here (2003): http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/515-biddable-suits-in-acol/ However, I don't think any of the posters mention the "deniability" aspect. In other words, if I "skip over" a 4-card suit, does it DENY 4 cards in that suit?" BTW 2: I don't think there's any need to discuss "suit-oriented" bids, such as Weak Twos, Strong Twos, preempts, etc. The sites that I've seen all recommend some kind of "minimum suit quality" for such bids. THanks. .

. Good point :) followed by :( Following on from your previous point, IMHO the advantage of such a simple rule (for a beginner) is that it narrows the criteria to only HCP and length. So it would allow me to make a quick bidding decision on partner's bid or opponent's bid - for a few months anyway. .

. As usual on this forum, I must thank all the responders. Each response fills a gap in my knowledge. I found this PDF, entitled "HANDBOOK OF EBU PERMITTED UNDERSTANDINGS" http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/blue-book/blue-book.pdf On page 19, you see: ------------------------------- Clear-cut tricks are defined as tricks expected to make opposite a VOID in partner’s hand with the SECOND-BEST SUIT BREAK (my upper case) A K Q J x x x x x x x x x does count as 8 clear-cut tricks A K Q x x x x x x x x x x does not Hands conforming to the ‘Extended Rule of 25’ are described as ‘ER25’. Further examples: AKQxxxxx (7CCT), KQJxxxx (5), AQJ98xx (5), KQJTx (3), KQJTxxx (6), AKT9xxxxx (8), KJTxxx (2) ----------------------------- My OP query regarding "what are playing tricks", was based on another EBU PDF, dated 2014. The PDF related to "Basic Acol" or "Foundation Acol". AFAIK: "Basic" means no conventions except Stayman, BlackWood, Gerber. Strong Two's are described. However, based on FelicityR's comment "Acol strong two bids are an endangered species", I searched again, and found an updated (2017) "Foundation" PDF here: http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/convention-cards/Foundation_levelv2.pdf In the 2017 version, Strong Two's have been replaced by Weak Twos. So, it looks as if I can dump Strong Twos. As a footnote, I don't think I've ever made a Strong Two opening, and neither have any of my partners :-) .

. For Acol strong bids, I need to know how to count "playing tricks". In the following Wikipedia article, they give a definition of "playing trick": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_evaluation#Playing_Tricks - playing tricks are defined as the number of tricks expected, with no help from partner ----------------------------- The following site gives a different definition: http://www.acolbridge.co.uk/bidding.php - ...some strong hands are better count purely based on how many tricks you believe you can make, assuming an even distribution of the rest of the cards. This is known as the Playing Trick count. ---------------------------- I saw another site, but I can't find the link. The statement was something like: - assuming an even distribution of the remaining cards and HCP. --------------------------------------- Clearly, there's a difference between the following statements: - with no help from partner - assuming an even distribution of the rest of the cards - assuming an even distribution of the remaining cards and HCP. I would be grateful for any advice. Thanks. .

I'm sorry. I omitted a key statement in my OP. In fact, I only want to know how to devalue honours when I'm the OPENING bidder. I've edited the OP. Thanks.

. My normal practice on any forum is to give quick responses to the very generous volunteers. But the replies seem to continue coming. So I think I might delay my responses just in case there are more replies. Otherwise my no-value "shoot from the hip" just confuses things. At the moment, it looks as if the best way to play with any NEW partner is based on ahydra's comment: - ...the approach I (and I suspect many others) use is to treat honours as full value until told to do otherwise by the auction. So I now need to think about playing with a PREVIOUS partner, if they say: "What method shall we use to devalue honours?" (Yeah, right ! Is anyone ever actually going to ask me that? :) ) In that case, I think it's probably fair to say "The simpler the better". Thanks to all. .

. Good thinking :) .

. Thanks to both ahydra and The Abbess for valuable comments. Here's a very interesting comment from ahydra: ...the approach I (and I suspect many others) use is to treat honours as full value until told to do otherwise by the auction. So I think, in the meantime, I'll just go along with the full HCP. I can show this post to any partner who complains that I should have passed because of my unguarded honours :-) .

. As a beginner, I'm fine with the 4-3-2-1 valuation. But it would be nice to know how to adjust these values downwards for very short suits. For example, a singleton King. The clearest statement I've seen, which is immediately challenged, is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_evaluation in the section "Negative/positive features" - Samuel Stayman recommended deducting one HCP for K-Q, K-J, Q-J, Q-x, J-x Q-x-x, J-x-x holdings, this is now considered extreme. Well, even an idiot like myself can see that deducting a whole point from J-x-x would make it equal to x-x-x. Surely the J is worth more than an x? So here's my question: how about only deducting 0.5 points from Stayman's recommendations? In that case, one honour combination makes no difference to the HCP, since we can't open on 11 1/2 points (playing Acol, and ignoring the Rule of 20, 19, etc, for the moment). But two such honour combinations would reduce the HCP by 1 point in 4-4-3-2, and 5-4-2-2 hands. That one point now makes a difference in opening, responding, raising, etc. I would be grateful for any advice on how to handle the honour combinations mentioned by Stayman, and also the singleton K, Q, and J. BTW: things like LTC, Zar, Kaplan & Rubens, etc, are a bit over my head at the moment :-) Thanks. ----------------------------- Added: I should probably have been honest enough earlier to admit that there's a key message missing from my OP. I thought the replies were beginning to dry up, but they're still coming. The key message is that my entire OP should apply only to the OPENING bid. All the upward and downward re-evaluations that occur as a result of LATER bidding are very well documented here, in the section "Negative/positive features": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_evaluation So, the title of my OP should probably have been: How to devalue doubleton and singleton honours as the OPENING bidder? Sorry about that. It's embarrassing. Especially since this is only my second post :-( .