"Marston's Rule" ?

[hrothgar]

A few times in the past I've made reference to "Burgess' Rule".

 

Burgess' rule is simple extension of the the old BOLS bridge tip that "Swan's play best in their long suit". (If you're dealt a 7-4 hand, you probably want to be playing in your seven card suit even with a 4-4 fit in a side suit). Burgess advocated that if you got dealt a 7-4 hand, you should probably just bash and bid game immediately. You'll occasionally over-bid (or underbid for that matter), but a long delicate auction is more likely to benefit your opponents more than your own partnership.

 

I've always liked this theory and subscribe to it. Thus, I was quite amused to see the following hand from one of the Oz-One maches versus Cayne.

 

♠ Void

♥ QJ652

♦ AKQJT87

♣ 8

 

Paul Marston decided to open 5♦ in second seat. (He ended up losing 7 when Peter Gill made 4♥X at the other table). I' not necessarily claiming that the bid worked out perfectly, however, I does illustrate a different view towards preempts than we typically hear about in the States.

[glen]

I thought the Marston's rule was "whatever Marston invents, they will ban"

[Free]

I wonder if he would bid 4♥ with his red suits reversed. The preemptive value against 4♠ is a lot less, and preempting such hand may throw a slam away...

[EricK]

The rule seems odd to me. Why should a 74 hand be worth the four level if the 7 carder is a major, but be worth an extra trick if the long suit is a minor?

 

Now if the rule said that 74 hands should open at the 4 level then it would make more sense. As an aside, 4m is in many ways a better pre-empt than 5m as the opponents are less likely to want to double you (and you go off one fewer trick if they do!) but they have no room to sort out which major they should be playing in.

[pbleighton]

"The rule seems odd to me. Why should a 74 hand be worth the four level if the 7 carder is a major, but be worth an extra trick if the long suit is a minor?"

 

The issue is not what it's "worth". 4m is typically a bad hand. Why would you bid 4m with Richard's example hand, when you could in fact be missing game.

 

In general, I like Burgess' rule, but if I have a bad hand/suit and am vulnerable, I would tend to open 4m rather than 5m.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

I thought Marston was the ghost who haunted Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol". :)

[Gerardo]

That was Jacob Marley, I think.

[EricK]

"The rule seems odd to me. Why should a 74 hand be worth the four level if the 7 carder is a major, but be worth an extra trick if the long suit is a minor?"

 

The issue is not what it's "worth". 4m is typically a bad hand. Why would you bid 4m with Richard's example hand, when you could in fact be missing game.

 

In general, I like Burgess' rule, but if I have a bad hand/suit and am vulnerable, I would tend to open 4m rather than 5m.

 

Peter

I wouldn't bid 4m with the example hand in this thread. I was referring to the rule about bidding game on 7-4 hands.

 

Obviously, some 74 (or longer) hands are worth a bid at the 5 level, and it makes sense to bid them at the 4 level if you are bidding a major. But surely, The suggestion isn't that all 7-4 hands are good enough to bid at the 5 level?

[neilkaz]

Now Paul Marston is a better bridge player than I most likely could ever hope to be, but with one opp allready passed I really don't care for his 5♦ bid since I think it misses too many slams. However, I'd like to know what his partnerships require to advance these blasts to game !

 

... neilkaz ...

[jdeegan]

:) The reasoning behind these 'folk sayings' is pretty simple. When you have 12 or 13 cards in two suits, the opponents are almost a sure bet to own one of the other two. This means they can play a forcing game right from the start, so you need plenty of trump length to counter this.

 

For example, with any 7-5 hand, you are usually better off in the 7-0 fit than the 5-3 fit since the odds are about 50-50 for a 4-1 (or worse) trump split in the 5-3 suit (this is because of the conditional probabilities associated with the condition that you have 12 or 13 cards in two other suits - you can use Pavliceks (sic) probability generator to check this) and you figure to get tapped right away. (a 5-4 fit is OK, though).

 

:( It takes a few years of experience to get the picture because these hands only come up a few times a year, and that's if you play a lot. Even my few encounters with 7-6 hands have convinced me to treat them like 7-5's.

[Winstonm]

That was Jacob Marley, I think.

I didn't realize he played bridge - but I guess that explains why he is haunting his partner - punishment for a lifetime of bad bids. :P

[Winstonm]

Burgess' rule is simple extension of the the old BOLS bridge tip that "Swan's play best in their long suit". (If you're dealt a 7-4 hand, you probably want to be playing in your seven card suit even with a 4-4 fit in a side suit).

 

Terrence Reese also commented in his books on these hand types, saying they typically played better in the long suit.

[awm]

If you hold a 5710 hand, and partner has 3-card support for your 5-card suit, then the odds of a 3-2 break are roughly 67.9%. If you hold a 5332 hand and partner has 3-card support for your 5-card suit, then the odds of a 3-2 break are roughly 67.9%.

 

In other words, there is no difference. I believe at some point Pavlicek acknowledged a problem with conditional probabilities in his hand generator.

 

In any case, this may not have much bearing on the relative merits of playing in the 7-card or 5-card suit.

[Guest Jlall]

If you hold a 5710 hand, and partner has 3-card support for your 5-card suit, then the odds of a 3-2 break are roughly 67.9%. If you hold a 5332 hand and partner has 3-card support for your 5-card suit, then the odds of a 3-2 break are roughly 67.9%.

amen brotha...

 

slightly off topic but for similar reasons the rule that says if theres a stiff in one of your hands to play for a 3-1 split with AKxxx opp JT9x is also fictional...

[jdeegan]

If you hold a 5710 hand, and partner has 3-card support for your 5-card suit, then the odds of a 3-2 break are roughly 67.9%. If you hold a 5332 hand and partner has 3-card support for your 5-card suit, then the odds of a 3-2 break are roughly 67.9%.

 

In other words, there is no difference. I believe at some point Pavlicek acknowledged a problem with conditional probabilities in his hand generator.

 

In any case, this may not have much bearing on the relative merits of playing in the 7-card or 5-card suit.

:P buy'em books and buy'em books and all they do is eat the covers.

Try a few experiments with RP's odds generator, assuming you can understand it, and see what happens.

[cherdano]

If you hold a 5710 hand, and partner has 3-card support for your 5-card suit, then the odds of a 3-2 break are roughly 67.9%. If you hold a 5332 hand and partner has 3-card support for your 5-card suit, then the odds of a 3-2 break are roughly 67.9%.

 

In other words, there is no difference. I believe at some point Pavlicek acknowledged a problem with conditional probabilities in his hand generator.

 

In any case, this may not have much bearing on the relative merits of playing in the 7-card or 5-card suit.

<_< buy'em books and buy'em books and all they do is eat the covers.

Try a few experiments with RP's odds generator, assuming you can understand it, and see what happens.

Apparently you misunderstand Pavlicek's suit break calculator (which unlike his random dealer, has no problems with conditional probabilities unless you misuse it).

 

If you don't believe Adam's statements above, you really have a basic misunderstanding about probabilities.