[jillybean]

rules of 8!, 2 and 3,5,7, 9, 10, 11, 17, 15, 20, rule of X plus 1, rule of Boston (bottom of stuff, top of nothing)....
What ever happened to bidding judgement.

[mtvesuvius]

jillybean, on 2011-March-04, 13:37, said:

rules of 8!, 2 and 3,5,7, 9, 10, 11, 17, 15, 20, rule of X plus 1, rule of Boston (bottom of stuff, top of nothing)....
What ever happened to bidding judgement.

OK, I give this post as many upvotes as legally possible. Well said Kathryn.

EDIT: Don't forget the rules of 22 and 1100.

[JLOGIC]

Rule of 12 goes with the rule of 10 AFAIK

[jh51]

The late Dave Treadwell once mentioned the rule of 160: If the ages of your opponents total more than 160, do not underestimate them.

(I might add that this is especially true if these are short people of the feminine gender.)

[tolvyrj]

They`ll learn, through tears and agony like the rest of us . Reading books is good for u soul, just dont believe everything they say .

[VM1973]

Double. What's the problem? You know what you're going to lead if they sit for it and you know what suit to scramble out to if they redouble you.

[awm]

If you play double = penalty or cards, then you should double. This hand has plenty of points and an easy lead. If you're not doubling on this hand, it is stupid to play double this way!

With that said, I'm not convinced that this is necessarily the best meaning for double. It doesn't come up all that often, and while I'd expect to do well on average when it comes up, there are some disasters too (like opponents manage to run from 1NT going down to a making partial on a 4-4 fit, or partner's broke and opponents score it up, etc). Usually I don't play penalty doubles of strong notrump. In this case I actually like to bid 2♦ (natural) here. All too often my LHO is going to transfer to a major if I pass, and we could miss an easy diamond contract. My 2♦ bid also tends to put the strong hand on the table (one way or another) and/or might take away their "weak stayman" option over my pass.

[fromageGB]

Bidding judgement says "pass".
In my view, the double is best used as a 2 suited takeout - I like it to be either a 4 card major and a 5 card minor, or both majors. Then partner ...
2♣ = denies a 4 card major (so pass or correct to diamonds)
2♦ = 4 spades but not hearts (so bid spades or pass your diamonds, bidding hearts tells him you have 5 clubs)
2♥ = 4 hearts, may have spades (if no hearts bid spades and let partner bid 3♣ for pass or correct if he wants to)

On this hand I would like 2♦ natural, but I can't. so pass.

[VM1973]

awm, on 2011-May-24, 18:04, said:

If you play double = penalty or cards, then you should double. This hand has plenty of points and an easy lead. If you're not doubling on this hand, it is stupid to play double this way!

With that said, I'm not convinced that this is necessarily the best meaning for double. It doesn't come up all that often, and while I'd expect to do well on average when it comes up, there are some disasters too (like opponents manage to run from 1NT going down to a making partial on a 4-4 fit, or partner's broke and opponents score it up, etc). Usually I don't play penalty doubles of strong notrump. In this case I actually like to bid 2♦ (natural) here. All too often my LHO is going to transfer to a major if I pass, and we could miss an easy diamond contract. My 2♦ bid also tends to put the strong hand on the table (one way or another) and/or might take away their "weak stayman" option over my pass.

Well for sure bidding 2♦ is out because most people play some kind of system (like Hamilton or DONT) so if you're playing DONT, for example, you have to pass and quietly take your Avg- writing it off as the price you pay for being able to disturb the opponents NT more often and at lower levels.

But playing DONT over 1NT 10-13 or 12-14 is just silly. At the very least you should change DBL to some undefined big hand and use 2♣ for the one suiter, 2♦ for diamonds and a higher suit (with clubs as the highest).

[phil_20686]

This is one of those strange situations when the equity of a penalty double is low provided rho actually has a 15-17 NT, but is probably a reasonable strategy nevertheless or people start to open 1NT on all kinds of crap especially in 3rd seat to prevent you from bidding your games.

[jh51]

jillybean, on 2011-March-04, 13:37, said:

rules of 8!, 2 and 3,5,7, 9, 10, 11, 17, 15, 20, rule of X plus 1, rule of Boston (bottom of stuff, top of nothing)....
What ever happened to bidding judgement.

Bidding judgement, as with any other form of good judgment in life, comes from experience. Rules are created to help those without experience. You give a small child a rule not to touch a hot stove. Sooner or later, the child will come to realize that touching a hot stove will hurt and judgement will replace the rule. There may be times when it is correct to touch a hot stove, but that is judgement that comes from experience.

[jillybean]

jh51, on 2011-May-27, 14:10, said:

Bidding judgement, as with any other form of good judgment in life, comes from experience. Rules are created to help those without experience. You give a small child a rule not to touch a hot stove. Sooner or later, the child will come to realize that touching a hot stove will hurt and judgement will replace the rule. There may be times when it is correct to touch a hot stove, but that is judgement that comes from experience.

I'm not 3. I still say please don't quote rules, I'd rather you help improve my bidding judgement.

[han]

If you want judgement, you can look at the rules and try to figure out the thoughts behind them. Often good judgement lies there.

[jh51]

jh51, on 2011-March-03, 12:24, said:

Colchimano's rule of 8 says pass. (I probably spelled his name wrong.)

The rule of 8 says that you bid in the immediate seat only if you have at least 6 HCP and at least 2 distributional points. This hand lacks the distributional points.

I just reread Mel's discussion of his rules of 8 and 2, and I had his rule of 8 wrong. 6 HCP and at least 2 more cards in the 2 longest suits than the losing trick count. Based upon this criteria, Mel's rule of 8 says to bid.

ArtK78, on 2011-March-03, 16:48, said:

So, if you had, for example,

AKQ
AKQ
AKQ
AKQJ

You would have to pass?

(with all due respect to Mel)

With my corrected recollection of the rule of 8, this clearly calls for a bid!

[jh51]

han, on 2011-May-28, 11:50, said:

If you want judgement, you can look at the rules and try to figure out the thoughts behind them. Often good judgement lies there.

Or read the author's book if (as Mel does) he explains the thoughts behind the rules. I certainly don't have the ability here to quote the entirety of the chapter on the rule of 8. I even have trouble quoting the rule correctly! I confused part of it with the rule of 2!

[Vampyr]

VM1973, on 2011-May-25, 09:50, said:

Well for sure bidding 2♦ is out because most people play some kind of system (like Hamilton or DONT) so if you're playing DONT, for example, you have to pass and quietly take your Avg- writing it off as the price you pay for being able to disturb the opponents NT more often and at lower levels.

It's not impossible to get to 2♦, though, with good methods. Over a strong NT, my favourite method is to play that X=majors, minors or diamonds.