Apollo81 Posted April 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 Did partner hold this hand (the limit raise)? Or did you? If you did, why did you not bid 1S? we play different methods (and had a different auction than what i posted) but the decision is identical to the one I posted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 As a nonexpert player, I find what is a "standard strength" opening hand quite confusing and undefined. That is the main reason for my discussing my opening hand style so often in my posts. Playing often on BBO in pick up partnerships, I see a huge variety of "standard" opening bids. maybe I can help. To give us some starting point:Rule of 20: add your HCP and 2 longest suit lengths. Standard is, IMO:---------------------18 or less: opening is a mistake19: normally pass20: normally open21: open almost all hands22+: not opening is a mistake Some examples of 19/21 hands where I would consider a "deviation" from normal appropriate (but I would understand if the normal action was taken)-------------------------AJ109xxx x Ax xxx open 1♠A1098x x AJ10xx xx open 1♠Qx Qxxxx AJ Kxxx passQJ KJxx QJx QJxx pass If your "bar" is set at:--------------------------19.5-20.5 you are playing standard strength openings19-19.5 you open a little light, but not enough to warn your opponents20.5-21 you open a little soundly, but not enough to warn your opponentsanything else: you are either making a mistake or playing something that I would call "non-standard" Hope this helps.While I completely agree that Mike777's Roth Stone type of valuation is at oods with all current standard approaches, I am as strongly opposed to the use of the Rule of 20. The only thing it has going for it is that it is easy to use. Not good to use... not effective to use... but definitely 'easy'... both to use and to teach. It certainly doesn't teach anyone anything worth learning about valuation, but that is just my opinion :P I have never seen an expert announce that he or she uses the Rule of 20 in actual play... but maybe some do. Any method that equates AK xxxxx xxxxx K with AKxxx Kxxxx xx x is more than a bit silly, and once you acknowledge that this sort of result obtains from the rule, it is pretty clear that the rule is dysfunctional... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bid_em_up Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 I have never seen an expert announce that he or she uses the Rule of 20 in actual play... but maybe some do. Any method that equates AK xxxxx xxxxx K with AKxxx Kxxxx xx x is more than a bit silly, and once you acknowledge that this sort of result obtains from the rule, it is pretty clear that the rule is dysfunctional... I have seen experts claim they use Rule of 20 (heck, Marty Bergen is one for certain, as much as I dislike his methods :P). The problem lies in the basic teaching and understandings of it. Beginners/intermediates get taught to add the number of cards in their two long suits plus HCP and think that hand #1 qualifies, because they (usually) don't get told that high card location is also a function of this decision. Or if they are told, they soon forget that part of the lesson. An accurate Rule of 20 opening based on the original definition would never open hand #1, but always hand #2. The Rule, when applied accurately as intended, isn't that dysfunctional. And... My understanding is, the Rule of 20 was originally intended for judging whether or not to open in 3rd or 4th seat, and not for 1st/2nd seat openings as it has migrated to these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted April 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 Any method that equates AK xxxxx xxxxx K with AKxxx Kxxxx xx x is more than a bit silly, and once you acknowledge that this sort of result obtains from the rule, it is pretty clear that the rule is dysfunctional... This isn't the A/E forum, the post was intended to help mike777 understand that xx Q1098x AJ AQxx is clearly an opening bid, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 I bid game.It will probably come down to finding the jack of trumps, unless partner puts it down in dummy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
temp3600 Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 Did partner hold this hand (the limit raise)? Or did you? If you did, why did you not bid 1S? we play different methods (and had a different auction than what i posted) but the decision is identical to the one I postedThe fact that responder cannot have 4+ spades for his 1NT bid is important. Here, that point is actually what - to me - tips the scale in favor of bidding 4♥. I would pass after 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♥. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nik1998 Posted April 14, 2007 Report Share Posted April 14, 2007 I bid 4 ♥ :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgtusi Posted April 19, 2007 Report Share Posted April 19, 2007 Well... 3♥ is an impossible bid after the 1NT response which denies a ♥ fit It can show only one hand :- a maxi NT response (10HCP)- a big club fit- Kx or Ax in ♥ Something like♠ Axx♥ Rx♦ xx♣ Rxxxxx Even with that nice hand, I bid........5♣ ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.