Rule-of-13

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Rule-of-13:

 

To be used when you have one of those distributional hands with less than 22 points, and you are not sure whether to open one of a suit or 2C.

 

Add up your defensive tricks (A=1, AK=2, KQ=1, Kx=1/2, QJx=1/2). Multiply the total by 2. Add all length cards of more than 3 in a suit. If the total is 13 or more, open 2C.

 

Last night I held this 20 hcp hand:

A K 10 x x

A K Q J

K x

x x

 

And I opened 1S

 

Partner held the following 6 hcp:

Q 9 8 x x

x x

A 10 x x x

x

 

and he bid 4S ..... all pass.... making 12 tricks.

 

Had I opened 2C:

2C - 2D! ( not a bust )

2S - 4C! ( splinter )

4NT - 5D ( 1 key )

5H ( ♠ Q-ask ) - 6S ( ♠Q but NO outside Kings )

all pass

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If I calculated the "Rule" correctly : 2 + 2 + 1/2 + 1/2 = 5 x 2 = 10 added to the "extra length" of 2 + 1 = 13.

I should have opened 2C.

 

I realize 1 hand doesn't make-a-rule, but we had 2 others this week-- one 21 hcp unbalanced calculated 14 . 1S open in 3rd seat was passed out. Partner had ♠ support and only 3 hcp ( a working outside K ) and 11 tricks were there for the taking.

[manudude03]

You don't need this rule, partner is way too good for 4S. What partner should bid is an interesting question, 3S feels like the value bid but an artificial raise would be really nice to avoid playing in a partscore. Over 3S, the bidding can go 1S-3S-4D(cue)-4H(last train)-4NT-5D-5H-6S. You might even get there over a simple 2S raise! (a resulting auction might be 1S-2S-3D-4D-4H-4NT-5C-6S)

 

Also note that the slam is excellent even if North doesn't have ♥QJ, and I don't think anyone is opening 2C with AKTxx AKxx Kx xx

[TWO4BRIDGE]

.... but an artificial raise would be really nice to avoid playing in a partscore.

We do play Bergen Raises. So, we discussed 3C! ( Lower Bergen ) ... and we might get there :

[Zelandakh]

Are you not playing the splinter gadget Don? Here you can bid

1♠ - 2NT = mini-splinter or in-between splinter

3♣ = relay

... - 3♠ = club mini-splinter

4♣ = club ask

... - 4♠ = singleton

4NT = RKCB

... - 5♣ = 1

5♦ = Q ask

... - 6♠ = yes, no king

 

As for the Rule of 13, you will have to call me an unbeliever at this point. It makes alot more sense to me to either count (playing) tricks in combination with some minimum standard, or just to think about how we think the auction might develop and make the bid that seems to be best. For what it is worth I think this hand is worth a strong 2 but not a game force.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

@ Zel......

 

Sadly , no on your splinter gadget....( or at least I hadn't introduced it to that particular partner ).

 

One thing I have noticed in my limited examples, though, is that on the hands where the "rule" has worked, the Responders had trump support..... I tend to agree with you about the GF aspect .

[jwccsllc]

We do play Bergen Raises. So, we discussed 3C! ( Lower Bergen ) ... and we might get there :

 

First, that hand evaluates to a limit raise using Bergen's hand evaluation with two five card suits, a singleton, and a doubleton.

 

A bid of 3♥ then can be used to show a hidden splinter:

 

1♠ 3♥ (Responder has a short suit)

3N (Where? Some recommend 3♠ here)

4♣ (singleton or void clubs)

4N (keycard asking)

5♣ (one keycard)

6♠

[Mbodell]

I must admit that I thought the rule of 13 was count your cards. If you have 13 of them, then open the bidding (often with 1nt).

[Zelandakh]

I must admit that I thought the rule of 13 was count your cards. If you have 13 of them, then open the bidding (often with 1nt).

That sounds like a good rule for opening in third seat... :P

[han]

How can one seriously suggest a rule that does not distinguish between a Axxx suit and a AQJx suit? Or between AKxx and AKQx? Without even thinking about what the rule says, such an extreme simplification seems pretty silly to me.

[han]

You are saying that you should open 2C with

 

AKxxx

AKxx

Ax

xx

 

(13)

 

but not with

 

AKQJx

KQJx

AQJx

-

 

(12)

 

Guess what, I'd open 2C with the 5440, 2-loser 23-count but not with the 5422 18-count.

[ArtK78]

The rule of 13 that I know is much simpler.

 

There are 13 cards in each player's hand.

 

There are 13 cards in each suit.

 

Should the rule of 13 be violated on any hand, you have redress.

 

:)

[DrMunk]

Rule-of-13:

 

To be used when you have one of those distributional hands with less than 22 points, and you are not sure whether to open one of a suit or 2C.

 

Add up your defensive tricks (A=1, AK=2, KQ=1, Kx=1/2, QJx=1/2). Multiply the total by 2. Add all length cards of more than 3 in a suit. If the total is 13 or more, open 2C.

 

Last night I held this 20 hcp hand:

A K 10 x x

A K Q J

K x

x x

 

And I opened 1S

 

Partner held the following 6 hcp:

Q 9 8 x x

x x

A 10 x x x

x

 

and he bid 4S ..... all pass.... making 12 tricks.

 

Had I opened 2C:

2C - 2D! ( not a bust )

2S - 4C! ( splinter )

4NT - 5D ( 1 key )

5H ( ♠ Q-ask ) - 6S ( ♠Q but NO outside Kings )

all pass

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If I calculated the "Rule" correctly : 2 + 2 + 1/2 + 1/2 = 5 x 2 = 10 added to the "extra length" of 2 + 1 = 13.

I should have opened 2C.

 

I realize 1 hand doesn't make-a-rule, but we had 2 others this week-- one 21 hcp unbalanced calculated 14 . 1S open in 3rd seat was passed out. Partner had ♠ support and only 3 hcp ( a working outside K ) and 11 tricks were there for the taking.

 

Seems like a bad rule to me.

Clearly these hands should not be valued equally:

 

Hand 1:

A K 10 x x

A K Q J

K x

x x

 

Hand 2:

A K 10 x x

A K Q J

K x x

x

 

 

Hand 3:

K x

x x

A K 10 x x

A K Q J

 

Hand 4:

A K 10 x x

Q J x x

K x

A K

[jdeegan]

:P I can best offer you an historical perspective. The original strong two bid offers two things: four quick tricks and nine plus playing tricks. There were some exceptions at the margin at both ends. At the one end: AKxxxxxx and another ace was OK. At the other, a close decision with two suits might warrant a one bid. Better to find the proper suit fit even if we risked getting passed out in a one bid.

 

Your example hand is imho a one bid. It isn't really a two suiter, but 4♥ or more might be the right spot. Over 4♠ (imo clearly the right bid), I would try 4NT to see if pard has an ace. If he does, 6♠ should be a laydown (or at the very worst have a 50% play). Otherwise, we can play 5♠.

[fromageGB]

Don't like the rule. I like a simple "no more than a trick short of game (given not abnormal distributions) and this falls short.

Don't think this responder hand is 4♠ or a Bergen.

If not playing fancy splinters, surely you must be playing ordinary splinters : 1♠ 4♣ looks automatic, and ace asking gives 6♠. If you have a void showing method it gives you the chance of 7♠.

[neilkaz]

We do play Bergen Raises. So, we discussed 3C! ( Lower Bergen ) ... and we might get there :

For sure I think PD should make some kind of Bergen raise. Bidding 4♠ just asks to be missing a slam.

[Zelandakh]

I can best offer you an historical perspective. The original strong two bid offers two things: four quick tricks and nine plus playing tricks.

The original strong twos were used instead of a strong (artificial) 2♣ opening. Even in Culbertson's day the requirements were lower than you state, still without an artificial 2♣ opener. For the last 40 years or so, when someone talks about a strong two opening they typically mean something akin to an Acol 2 opening, either 8 tricks in a suit or a hand too strong to risk being passed out and not strong enough to force to game. When I suggested the hand qualified for a strong two but not as a game-force I was obviously not referring to a pre-Culbertson definition of "strong two".

[Statto]

The original strong two bid offers two things: four quick tricks and nine plus playing tricks. There were some exceptions at the margin at both ends. At the one end: AKxxxxxx and another ace was OK. ...

That sounds like a better rule of 13 - add quick tricks to playing tricks... B-)