Rule of 7 and 17

[Mbodell]

I don't know for certain, but it sure looks like it ought to be.

 

It is for finessing the K. For finessing the Q consider:

 

AKT2 opposite J943. Rule of 12 would say 8 cards + 3 (for J T 9) means it isn't safe to start with the J or the 9 on the first round. But actually it is. Really you just need to worry "If stiff honor is onside, will I take all the tricks". Rule of 12 answers this for us when the K is the missing card.

[Zelandakh]

So unreliable then, since even if you were to count A-K as sequential cards it does not work on the hands without the 9. How about a generalisation of fit + equals >= pip of missing card? Or a further generalisation covering multiple missing cards?

[mikestar13]

Agree totally with Larry Cohen that the "rule of thinking" will get it right more often than the "rule of 7" (or for that matter, the "law of total tricks", or the methods in Lawrence's I Fought the Law.). Rules are useful to let you play at the game when you can't yet think, normal for beginners (and for some folks with 2000 master points). Face it, the "rule of 7" works more often than "grab the ace at the first trick" or "always hold up as long as possible" work, though any of these might be correct on a particular hand. Similarly, the "rule of 20" gets it right more often than "an opening bid requires 12 high-card points".

[Fluffy]

My advice is to forget ALL of these "Rules of X" and make a habit of looking at your cards and thinking about the hand.

 

Nonsense you are applying the Rule of 1. Make the 1 play that is best. I try to apply this rle on each trick but it is not as easy as it sounds.

[Liversidge]

Like "The Code" in Pirates of the Caribbean, these Rules are more like guidelines.

 

I used to teach, and devices such as these rules are excellent scaffolds for beginners, such as in learning a language or how to write an essay. You don't go far wrong too often. And as you develop you start to understand the thinking behind the rules and can deviate with confidence. Reminds me of the quote "Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools"

[Mefisto500]

Hi all, I am an absolutely novice, so maybe I should not post here… <_<

Just for fun , but also to remember, I collected a VERY long list of “rules”, taken from internet.

Some are very useful, some just a guideline, but for beginners like me, could be a good starting point to “learn to think about”.

I also have a website :unsure: and here is the link to the post plenty of “rules”.

It’s in Italian (sorry for my bad english).

 

About the “rule of 12” read this link (also in English), from an expert player.

[p697g8]

[siz :angry: e="4"][/size]

[thepossum]

My advice is to forget ALL of these "Rules of X" and make a habit of looking at your cards and thinking about the hand.

 

You cannot possibly encourage thinking Tyler

[thepossum]

Bridgeguys has these:-

 

Rule of Eight - Rule of 8

---

 

[Millions of rules edited out]

 

Edit: I also just found this Rule of 12, which I had not seen before. Anyone know if it is generally reliable?

 

:lol:

 

I know I am joining in the general mocking of rules, but with some provisos and a bit of thinking (as per Tyler's suggestion) the most useful "rule" I have found over recent years is the Losing Trick Count

 

GiB sometimes plays the rule of 3 which is the number of key cards required for slam

 

Surely guidelines is a more appropriate term

[Cyberyeti]

Hmmm, would you look for a heart game, especially NV or at MP, with a 4333 14 count Ben? Coming from an Acol background I have a different thought perspective - holding a normal weak 2 in a major after partner opens 1NT (weak) I transfer and pass (unless there is a super-accept); so holding a normal weak NT opposite a weak 2, why would I want to do anything other than pass?

 

Depends what my weak 2s look like, If KQJxxx and an ace is a weak 2, then I definitely explore with that hand, particularly if it's pure. Opposite one of mine I pass like a shot.

[nige1]

The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them

Rules are useful to let you play at the game when you can't yet think, normal for beginners (and for some folks with 2000 master points).

• MikeStar13 is right. For example, I'm often guilty of optimistic or mistaken thinking.
• Luckily, instead of trusting intuition, I usually fall back on a crude rule of thumb (like the WTC).
• These rough yardsticks save ordinary players much embarrassment.
• Even more fortunately, some of my partners adopt a similar approach.
• After a failure, instead of casting futile aspersions on each others' judgement, we can have a constructive logical dialogue, about who, if anybody, is to blame.
• Frequently one of us has failed to apply a rule correctly.
• Sometimes, we decide it's just rub of the green.
• Rarely, we blame a rule and attempt to refine it.

[mycroft]

Rules are also useful when you're not yet at the point where you can think about everything for 24 boards a session, two sessions a day. It means that you automate some things to allow you to think about 2 more things that are not automated, or be awake enough to not make one or two "mindless" plays later.

 

Absolutely, they are not alternatives to thinking - and as I said years ago, you need to check if they apply before using them - but they are useful.

[thepossum]

I haven't got the right brain for rules. I need to work things out. More processing power than memory :)

 

Its funny how many people continually dis the LTC. Maybe they dont use it properly. I've found it remarkably useful for quickly assessing what kind of contract we are looking at

[Zelandakh]

Its funny how many people continually dis the LTC. Maybe they dont use it properly. I've found it remarkably useful for quickly assessing what kind of contract we are looking at

My issue with the LTC is that it is simply a normal point count method pretending to be something else. And when you look at the equivalent numbers for various features within a comparative framework, it is obvious that it is a substandard point count method. For players that only look at their Milton Work count figure and do not consider distribution or the different value of aces and quacks in a suit contract compared to their face values, the MLTC is an improvement over MWC. That does not make it a good method though.

[DavidKok]

My issue with the LTC is that it is simply a normal point count method pretending to be something else. And when you look at the equivalent numbers for various features within a comparative framework, it is obvious that it is a substandard point count method. For players that only look at their Milton Work count figure and do not consider distribution or the different value of aces and quacks in a suit contract compared to their face values, the MLTC is an improvement over MWC. That does not make it a good method though.

I have not run into the fact the LTC 'pretends to be something else', but I guess that is simply a blessing. Pretentiousness aside, why is it substandard? Which alternatives have it beat, as a quick-and-dirty guideline similar to the MWC?

[Zelandakh]

I have not run into the fact the LTC 'pretends to be something else', but I guess that is simply a blessing. Pretentiousness aside, why is it substandard? Which alternatives have it beat, as a quick-and-dirty guideline similar to the MWC?

Here is (I think) my first BBF post on the subject back in 2012. I have posted similar in more detail since if you run a search.

 

The reason the MLTC works (the original LTC is genuinely just bad) is because of the 3-2-1 counting for aces, kings and queens. Studies suggest that pretty much every point count method that uses this in some form outperforms simple MWC for suit contract evaluation. Some examples are AKQ control points (3-2-1) and Zar points (6-4-2). Thus the way to make MWC competitive is to add half a point for aces and subtract half a point for queens, giving 4.5-3-1.5. This puts MWC and MLTC on the same footing for most honour holdings so the differences come from shortages.

 

As I point out in the linked post, if you do the scaling MLTC effectively uses values of 9-4.5-1.5 for voids-singletons-doubletons. Studies suggest that more accurate figures are closer to Goren's 5-3-1 and Zar's 2(2a+b-d)/3 (where a is the longest suit; b the second longest; and d the shortest) also turns out to be generally accurate, if not exactly matching the required simplicity. Finally, MLTC values K, Q and Qx as zero. It is surely correct to devalue these holdings from their normal values but MWC offers the possibility of coming in somewhere between full value and zero.

 

The main point here is that most players undervalue shortages. MLTC compensates by overvaluing them, which is a useful learning tool for many players. Once you get it though, it is (imho) easier and much more accurate just to go back to MWC and make the appropriate adjustments - upgrade aces, downgrade quacks (particularly unsupported quacks), downgrade honours in short suits and give full value to shortages. In the end though, it is the 3-2-1 / 4.5-3-1.5 / 6-4-2 values that work as the basis for all of these suit-based evaluations, so as long as you use a method starting from there, the rest is just fine-tuning and judgement.

[thepossum]

I don't know about you but I'm happy to consider any system or method proposed by a world expert on Bridge rather than a group of unknowns on a discussion forum 🙂

 

First discovered LTC a few years ago via debate on here, read Klinger and I think my bidding improved almost overnight, especially on decisions over part score, game, slam exploration. Also use similar loser count to decide on borderline opening bids