[mikeh]

ggwhiz, on 2012-October-28, 18:57, said:

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]

mikeh, on 2012-October-28, 21:23, said:

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]

ggwhiz, on 2012-October-28, 21:32, said:

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]

mikeh, on 2012-October-28, 21:49, said:

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.

[Vampyr]

ggwhiz, on 2012-October-28, 22:18, said:

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.

It's also sometimes necessary for the post-mortem: "But it was Rule of 20, partner!" Substitute 19, 18 etc as required.

[VM1973]

cargobeep, on 2012-October-28, 14:08, said:

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.

Aside from what has already been mentioned by others (too many cards in the hand, for example) I would like to say this: Although it's true that your void permits you to trump the ♦AKQJ it would be unwise to count the void as worth 10 HCPs. If we assume that your partner has 13 HCP and a 2-3-5-3 shape chances are that 5 of his 13 HCPs will be in diamonds and will be wasted opposite your hand.

[DrMunk]

32519, on 2012-October-26, 22:48, said:

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?

Clearly this was a very difficult hand for the system. After 32519 opened 1♠, his partner was in a difficult spot. Remember that Jacoby 2nt had recently been dumped from their system

(See this link)

So what should he do? He choose the practical bid, and went straight to RKCB. Unlucky for him, the slam failed. If only he could have figured out that his partner had a twosuiter with spades and clubs and minimum hcp’s, the slam could have been avoided. But clearly there were no way to figure this out, so it was a very unlucky hand. Don’t blame the rule of 20..
PS: How long will it be before we have the thread: “ Is it time to dump RKCB?”

[aguahombre]

Observations about indiscriminant use of the rule of 20 might well apply to RKCB, to many other rules, and to many other conventions. Dumping them because they are misused is not always the best solution. Learning to use them more appropriately might be better. Dumping them UNTIL we learn how they should be applied could be a good plan; but, first we have to recognize a method or rule isn't working out well.