Rule of 20

[32519]

Is the Rule of 20 something else that needs to be dumped? I have had plenty of bad results of my own using this rule, for one very simple reason: How on earth is partner supposed to know that I have opened the bidding using it? Again, from my own experiences, I can add this –

1. Most of my gains from using this rule come when opener places the final contract.

2. Conversely, most of my losses from using this rule come when partner places the final contract.

 

The latest bad result occurred at our local club earlier this week. As the dealer, I held 10 cards in the black suits and exactly 10 HCP. So I duly opened the bidding with 1♠ using the Rule of 20. Partner held a big hand and blasted straight into 4NT RKCB. After 5♣ from me (1 keycard), partner placed the final contract in 6♠ with only 1 keycard missing. The contract failed by 1, the missing keycard and a second trick in one of the other suits, when my 10 count just didn’t hold that vital additional value that partner was expecting.

 

What sort of experiences have others had with this rule? Are your gains outweighing your losses?

[nigel_k]

With 10 HCP and 10 cards in two suits I would open most of the time. When something like this goes wrong, we really need to see the full hand before reaching any conclusion.

[mikeh]

I agree that one should not make decisions about the merits of a practice/rule/guide based on one hand. This is even more so when we don't even know the hand!

 

There are very few hands that warrant keycard in response to a 1-level opening. I wouldn't be the least surprised to see that few here would endorse the 4N call.

 

Having said that, I feel that the rule of 20 is truly horrible. Good players don't need it and bad players don't know how to cater to the fact that it simply isn't a rule of general application, because it ignores both honour location and the difference between, say, 2 Q's and an A.

 

It treats Jxxxx A Jxxxx Ax the same as AJxxx x AJxxx xx which is plainly silly to any beyond the beginner level. If you know enough to not use it on the 1st hand, why do you need it on the 2nd?

[32519]

Another big drawback that I have encountered using the Rule of 20 are those times when the partnership hands do not dovetail. You end up playing –

1. In a NT contract short on HCP

2. Playing in a suit contract 1-level too high.

In both 1 + 2 the contract ends up failing by at least 1 trick. The situation in 2 arises because the Rule of 20 is geared towards suit contracts. When the bidding goes e.g. 1♥-1♠-2♦-2NT-3♦, often you are now 1-level too high on a misfit hand short on HCP.

 

Anyway, these are some of my own experiences using this rule. I think its time to chuck it out.

[Vampyr]

 

Anyway, these are some of my own experiences using this rule. I think it's time to chuck it out.

 

Then go ahead and chuck it out. You don't need permission from this forum.

[akwoo]

You should only use rule of 20 with a partnership agreement. I think it is a good agreement for a partnership to open most 10hcp 5521 hands, but I wouldn't open most such hands with most of the little old ladies at my club.

[Cyberyeti]

As with many of these things, you need to discuss them with partner, and they need to be ready for that sort of opener. As somebody who opens most rule of 19 hands and has had this discussion, you learn to be a bit more selective about how you respond, and using Blackwood immediately is very very rare.

 

Post the hand that caused the problem, and you'll probably find that the opening bid was not the cause.

[manudude03]

The latest bad result occurred at our local club earlier this week. As the dealer, I held 10 cards in the black suits and exactly 10 HCP. So I duly opened the bidding with 1♠ using the Rule of 20. Partner held a big hand and blasted straight into 4NT RKCB.

 

I suspect that's your problem.

 

One of the first things I tell improvers is that "rules" such as rule of 20, second hand low, third hand high etc. are only general guidelines, and that they should think about the hand instead of woodenly following them. As Mike said, Jxxxx Ax Jxxxx A is very different from AJxxx xx AJxxx x even though they both satisfy the rule of 20. If nothing else, just ask yourself if it is worth as much as a typical balanced 12 count (or 11/13 depending on your opening requirements). If yes, then open it, if not, don't.

[ggwhiz]

Having said that, I feel that the rule of 20 is truly horrible.

 

I disagree with Mike on this (again) but do think that it's the most misused guidline on the planet.

 

Along the lines of those that play Kantar 2♣ instead of nmf, Kantar wrote 40 pages on it and most only read the first paragraph.

 

ie. if you use the rule of 20 on 10 counts with 2 5-card suits and one of them is spades you are wrong (pass then come in) but if you have short spades it's often now or never. Vulnerability, body cards etc. matter A LOT.

 

Those that stop thinking after counting to 20 aren't likely to do much better regardless and jumping to 4nt after a 1 bid is a failure to efficiently use system too that could well be the real culprit.

[aguahombre]

ie. if you use the rule of 20 on 10 counts with 2 5-card suits and one of them is spades you are wrong (pass then come in) but if you have short spades it's often now or never. Vulnerability, body cards etc. matter A LOT.

IMO, it is more about whether it looks like an opening bid than whether we have spades or not.

[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.

[ggwhiz]

It's similar but under Audrey Grant you don't count points for shortness until AFTER you find a trump fit. She uses length points for opening and plus 1 for each of the 5-card suits brings you to 12 and just short of an opening. The rule of 20 is that close but you have to move on to the next few paragraphs on various factors like suit quality, honour distribution and quite a few more.

 

IMO, the rule of 20 opens the door to devloping sound judgement so you can forget about it and play like mikeh and the aquaman. None of these good players use it anymore but they certainly don't go by Audreys or Gorens evaluation. I just think it's a better stepping stone if used as intended.

 

ps. I bet a buck that the culprit in the op's hand is the leap to 4nt instead of "system", not the opening bid. Although Mikeh hates the rule of 20, he is quite capable of opening light on shape for his own reasons. Better ones gained through experience but you gotta start somewhere.

[paua]

Is the Rule of 20 something else that needs to be dumped? I have had plenty of bad results of my own using this rule, for one very simple reason: How on earth is partner supposed to know that I have opened the bidding using it? Again, from my own experiences, I can add this –

1. Most of my gains from using this rule come when opener places the final contract.

2. Conversely, most of my losses from using this rule come when partner places the final contract.

 

The latest bad result occurred at our local club earlier this week. As the dealer, I held 10 cards in the black suits and exactly 10 HCP. So I duly opened the bidding with 1♠ using the Rule of 20. Partner held a big hand and blasted straight into 4NT RKCB. After 5♣ from me (1 keycard), partner placed the final contract in 6♠ with only 1 keycard missing. The contract failed by 1, the missing keycard and a second trick in one of the other suits, when my 10 count just didn’t hold that vital additional value that partner was expecting.

 

What sort of experiences have others had with this rule? Are your gains outweighing your losses?

 

Use the Rule of 22 instead, also including quick tricks.

[rduran1216]

I'm a fairly strong adherent to this rule in general, but like all rules, like LOTT, losing trick count, etc. You use the rule with some discretion. I'm also a strong adherent to pearson point openers in 4th chair with solid results. It just depends, and that's a good guideline for most bridge rules.

[cargobeep]

In all cases of using the rule, logical evaluation of your hand always tends to prevail in my opinion.

 

One other trick I like is the idea of voids during the rule of 20.

 

QJT976♠

JT9♥

KQ87♣

 

On this hand, I only have 9 HCP, but I do have 2 10's. In theory, that's about 25% of the HCP in the deck, hardly too good. But I really own 50% of the deck. The A♦,K♦,Q♦ and J♦ are really all owned by me. Any positive spade response and I am raising to game without question.

[aguahombre]

Everything I read thereafter seems to validate the statements of MikeH in post #3.

[blackshoe]

In all cases of using the rule, logical evaluation of your hand always tends to prevail in my opinion.

 

One other trick I like is the idea of voids during the rule of 20.

 

QJT9765♠

JT9♥

KQ87♣

 

On this hand, I only have 9 HCP, but I do have 2 10's. In theory, that's about 25% of the HCP in the deck, hardly too good. But I really own 50% of the deck. The A♦,K♦,Q♦ and J♦ are really all owned by me. Any positive spade response and I am raising to game without question.

With that hand, you ought to be calling the director.

[CarlRitner]

That hand doesn't have 0 diamonds, it has -0 diamonds.

Ergo, the extra spade.

[ggwhiz]

Everything I read thereafter seems to validate the statements of MikeH in post #3.

 

Which includes this:

 

It treats Jxxxx A Jxxxx Ax the same as AJxxx x AJxxx xx

 

That statement is just REALLY wrong if you scratch below the surface. If you disagree with it so strongly it would be more helpful if you told us why.

[barmar]

On this hand, I only have 9 HCP, but I do have 2 10's. In theory, that's about 25% of the HCP in the deck, hardly too good. But I really own 50% of the deck. The A♦,K♦,Q♦ and J♦ are really all owned by me. Any positive spade response and I am raising to game without question.

Unless some of those diamonds are also owned by your partner, in which case you have duplication of values. If he has the top ones you may be able to use them for pitches, but if he only owns the lower ones they're almost totally wasted.

 

This is why we tend to downgrade hands that have shortness in suits that partner has bid. When making opening bids based on distribution, we're hoping that our shortness isn't duplicating partner's values, since we don't have any information about his hand yet.

[mikeh]

Which includes this:

 

It treats Jxxxx A Jxxxx Ax the same as AJxxx x AJxxx xx

 

That statement is just REALLY wrong if you scratch below the surface. If you disagree with it so strongly it would be more helpful if you told us why.

Bergen seems to have a simplistic rule: add the number of cards in the two longest suits plus the hcp and if the total is 20, open. He has suggested that one needs 2 quick tricks to use the rule in 1st and 2nd, but the Jxxxx A Jxxxx Ax appears to meet his definition precisely. Of course, the examples he and others use look more like AQxxx A10xxx xx x, but so what?

 

And indeed that is my point. A hand that meets the rule of 20 may be an opening bid or it may not be. The 'rule' is irrelevant. AQxxx A10xxx is an opening bid to me because it has 4 controls, a ltc of 6 and no rebid problem. How tough is that set of criteria to teach anyone?

 

So if you think that I am mistaken in my criticism, tell me the version of the Rule that describes why Jxxxx A Jxxxx Ax isn't an opening bid.

[ggwhiz]

 

So if you think that I am mistaken in my criticism, tell me the version of the Rule that describes why Jxxxx A Jxxxx Ax isn't an opening bid.

 

I don't think you are mistaken given the way the rule is applied by most. BUT

 

Bergen aimed his material at a target audience, the same ones taught in the Club Series that 2 4-card suits and 12 hcp's is not enough to open, period. Even the Diamond Series doesn't cover balancing to any degree so these hands remain silent

 

My reading of the rule of 20 is that if you have it you MAY open and the players that will progress to develop judgement will read further as to why or why not.

 

It gives clear reasons why your example is NOT an opening bid but I can't site the source and it has been ignored anyway. It may never have been fleshed out in detail but less experienced players coming out of the club series would have a serious handicap without something like it in any level of competition.

 

Being buried in your first few attempts to compete is something nobody wants and also happened when rookies with a Club Series background came out to the club playing 16-18 nt's but that has been corrected.

 

ps. If you feel that Bergen is crazed you will get no argument here.

[mikeh]

I don't think you are given the way the rule is applied by most. BUT

 

Bergen aimed his material at a target audience, the same ones taught in the Club Series that 2 4-card suits and 12 hcp's is not enough to open.

 

My reading of the rule of 20 is that if you have it you MAY open and the players that will progress to develop judgement will read further as to why or why not.

 

It gives clear reasons why your example is NOT an opening bid but I can't site the source and it has been ignored anyway.

I think that what you are saying is that the way I described the rule is the way the rule is written, but it is so silly and unplayable that those who adopted it, and had any trace of understanding the game, began modifying it by adding all kinds of more nuanced criteria.

 

I suspect that if you are a user of it, you begin with it and then add/subtract various factors/modifiers. I respectfully suggest that you just admit it is a silly 'rule' never intended for use by serious players and stop even pretending to use it. By the time you've made all your adjustments, you have spent more energy and done more mental contortions than I ever need to make...I don't start with a misleading, simplistic rule that I then have to decide whether it applies or not:)

[barmar]

There are no magic formulas that replace judgement. The way "rules" like this should be used is to help you with borderline hands -- if you're on the fence, they can push you one way or the other.

 

But a hand like the above example doesn't look anyting like an opening hand. When I notice that it meets the rules of 20 and 22 (and it's also only 7 losers, another opening hand guideline), I'm surprised, but that still doesn't force me to open it.

 

One way to figure this out is that honors in short suits are not as valuable as those in long suits, so you should not give the A and Ax their full 4 HCP. Once you downgrade them, it's not really worth 10 HCP, so it doesn't really meet the rule of 20.

 

It's kind of like the Law of Total Tricks. It's a useful guideline, too, but it's not a "law", and shouldn't be obeyed blindly. But that doesn't mean that we throw these things out entirely -- we learn when and how to use them properly.

[ggwhiz]

I suspect that if you are a user of it,

 

I admit I don't use it very often but I damn well teach it and it works well to develop aggression and confidence, very necessary in todays game.