BBO Discussion Forums: Rule of 7 and 17 - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Rule of 7 and 17 Ever hear of these rules? What are they

#21 User is offline   Mbodell 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,871
  • Joined: 2007-April-22
  • Location:Santa Clara, CA

Posted 2014-June-30, 15:57

View PostTrinidad, on 2014-June-30, 06:28, said:

So, some of these rules work quite well, also for those beyond beginner level. Other rules are simply bad rules (e.g. the rule of 1-2-3 for preempts) that only work in a field of beginners only.


I think of the preempting rules as 2-3-4, but maybe we have different meanings (this rule, which again is a guideline only, is that assuming partner has a misfitting balanced hand with very little, how many tricks do you expect to go down? 2 r v w, 3 equal, 4 w v r).
0

#22 User is online   mycroft 

  • Secretary Bird
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,126
  • Joined: 2003-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, Canada

Posted 2014-June-30, 17:31

I like the holdup rule of 7. As always, it's "if you can", "if they can't switch to something deadly", "if you won't go set on normal lines", "..."; but if you're sitting at the table wondering what to do, and trying to work out all the potential holdings that could be a problem, *and you're just concerned about tricks in that suit + obvious losers*, it works wonderfully, because it does exactly one thing, and does it well:

makes sure that if the safe hand gets in, they can't lead to partner's 5-card suit for -1 (four tricks and an entry) in 3NT.

Ben's hand fails the "if..." tests because there are two tricks to lose, and now, partner's 4-card suit is -1 in 3NT. If you rely on the rule without thinking, oh well. But if you rely on the rule without thinking, not having the rule and not thinking won't save you either.
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
0

#23 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,227
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2014-June-30, 18:31

If I'm not mistaken, Mel Colchamiro wrote a whole book full of "rules of n" for various values of n.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#24 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,663
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2014-July-01, 03:56

Bridgeguys has these:-

Rule of Eight - Rule of 8
The rule of eight was proposed by Mr. Mel Colchamiro and first published in The Bridge Bulletin of ACBL in October 2000, Page 85. When deciding to employ the rule of eight, the player first subtracts the number of Losing Tricks from the total number of cards contained in the two longest suits. The concept is based upon the result.

Rule of Eight or Rule of 8
This guideline or rule pertains to the suit quality when deciding to preempt. The player adds the number of cards in the longest suit and adds the number of honors in that suit. When the total equals eight, then the player should preempt on the two level. When the total equals nine, then the player should preempt on the three level. In evaluating the holding and deciding to make the preemptive bid or not, the player should evaluate the holding according to the following guidelines. When assessing suit quality, the Jack and the Ten are counted only if the suit also contains a higher honor such as an Ace, King, or Queen. The suit has to contain at least 6 cards. For example: J108643 has a suit quality of 6 since the suit does not contain any honor higher than the Jack. The holding of KJ8653 has a suit quality of 8, or 6 cards in length plus 2 honors. The Suit Quality Test is useful when the quality of a suit is relevant to your bidding decision. The suit quality should equal the number of tricks for which the player is bidding. Thus a weak two opening should have a suit quality of 8 or a 6-card suit plus at least 2 honors; a three level preempt should have a suit quality of 9 or a 7-card suit plus at least 2 honors or a 6-card suit plus at least 3 honors, and so on.

Rule of Eighteen - Rule of 18
Only if the number of high card points added to the total of the two longest suits equal 18 plus, then the bid is acceptable by the World Bridge Federation for all sponsored tournaments.

Rule of Eleven - Rule of 11
The rule of eleven is another mathematical calculation, equation, formula. Its application becomes active, only when the player is absolutely certain that the lead is the fourth down from the suit lead. Once the bridge player, either defender or declarer, has ascertained this partnership agreement, then the bridge player begins counting. The principle behind the rule of eleven is the same whether the contract is a suit contract or a No Trump contract.

Rule of 11, 12, 13
This is a method of evaluating the value of 13 cards and whether to open the auction, compete in the auction, or to pass. This method was promulgated and/or devised by Mr. Richard A. Miller, the author of the books Point Count Bidding, published 1946, and which contained an evaluation method based on the Work Count for suit bidding: Aces = 4; Kings = 3, Queens = 2, Jacks = 1. It counted long suits, playing tricks, in the opening hand, assigning one point for the fifth and one point for the sixth card of a long suit, usually the opened one. To this it added the high card count, honor tricks, and suggested opening the bidding with:

11 points and six-card suit.
12 points and five-card suit.
13 points and four-card suit.

As the shape of the hand flattens out, the high card requirements go up. In effect, the opening bid is made with 13 points each time with one point each being added for the fifth and sixth card of the long suit. Shape, or distribution plays an important part in suit evaluation and the published article suggested that an opening bid may be made with 10 points in high cards when holding two 5-card suits provided that at least 8 of the points are located within the long suits. In evaluating the potential of the combined hands, partner will always assume that opener holds a minimum of 13 points, of which no more than three can be credited to the distributional factor.

Rule of Five or The Five Level Belongs to the Opponents
The origin of this particular guideline or rule is attributed to Mr. Grant Baze. This is a general guideline adopted by many bridge players and which states that if the opponents, in a competitive auction, have reached the level of five, then the conclusion is that it is better to defend. This conclusion is based on studies, experience and mathematical percentages of the average results. The same principle can also be applied to low-level contracts at the three level. It is a rule or guideline, which is based on the law of averages.

Rule of Five and Five
During the 1980s the ACBL issued a policy governing the rules and regulations of ACBL sanctioned bridge events, generally sectional and regional tournaments, that Weak Two Bids should not contain less than 5 high card points and that the suit should be a holding of five cards or more, but no less than 5 cards. This has become known as the Rule of Five and Five.

Rule of Fifteen - Rule of 15
The Rule of 15 allows the bridge player, following three consecutive passes, in the fourth seat to better determine whether or not to open the auction by bidding.

Rule of Fifteen
This is a general rule applied by the Australian Bridge Federation to govern the opening of Weak Two bids. The guideline is that the Rule of 15 allegedly requires that the total of high card points and the number of cards in the two longest suits must equal 15 or more. This guideline is more fully explained by the ABF in their following clarifying statement:

The important issue is that ABF System Regulations apply to ABF Events. State Associations and individual clubs are not obligated to impose these regulations on their club members, although many choose to do so. ABF System Regulations are not esoteric. They are posted for players at all ABF events and are available for viewing on the ABF Website. Notification of System Regulations are the responsibility of sponsoring organizations.

At club level, it is the club which should undertake this responsibility and directors should be familiar with the regulations in force for events which they are called upon to direct. The specific bid which is cited above is not in breach of any regulations if it is registered with the director as a “Yellow System”. However the use of Yellow Systems is in itself subject to regulation but no restriction would have applied in the ANOT final, which was the subject of the article. In most ABF Tournaments, the lower half of the field is protected against Yellow Systems and, in any case, the legitimacy of opponents’ bidding agreements can be raised with the director, thereby providing added protection.

Note that directors have a responsibility to ensure that players have agreements which conform to the System Regulations but are powerless if non-offenders choose not to call their attention to breaches of these regulations.

Rule of Four
This is an overall general acceptance of the belief that it is always better to play in a 4-4 fit rather than in a 5-3 fit, since the percentages of the possibility of being able to sluff several losers are higher. This also affects the bidding auction. Examples have been given to show that, when holding: S: AQ5, H: KJ74, D: A863, C: 62, and the partner opens with: 1 Spade, it is more prudent if the first response is: 2 Diamonds, instead of immediately raising partner in Spades. The possibility that the partner rebids: 2 Hearts, is present and would offer the partnership a preferable 4-4 split in Hearts with a known 5-3 split in Spades.

Rule of Fourteen - Rule of 14
This particular Rule of 14 is presented by Mr. Harold Schogger. It states that if the responder wants to reply at the two level in a lower ranking suit, i.e. 2 Clubs or 2 Diamonds over the opening 1 Spade bid of partner with very minimum hands, then the responder should use the Rule of 14 to justify responding on as few as 8 high card points. Note: a YouTube video is also included.

Rule of Fourteen - Rule of 14
In the words of the author the Rule of 14 does not assist the declarer to determine whether the conditions necessary for the squeeze to succeed exist, nor does the Rule of 14 indicate the proper technique for the execution of the squeeze. The Rule of 14 simply indicates that a squeeze is possible.

Rule of Fourteen Spade Guide - Rule of 14 Spade Guide
The origin of this guideline is unknown. When the player in Fourth Seat, following three passes, does not possess control of the Spade suit, then this guideline can be used to determine whether the holding should be opener or not.

Rule of Nine - Rule of 9
The Rule of Nine is a concept employed by the responder after a certain and specific bidding situation. It is a guideline, which assists the player in deciding whether to continue to compete in the auction.

Rule of Nine - Rule of 9
The origin of this rule is unknwon. In certain auctions the opening bidder must determine whether to continue to compete after a low-level overcall has been made, which is then followed by two passes. The rule of nine allows the opening bidder to judge better the possibility of continuing to compete or whether to defend.

Rule of Nine - Rule of 9
The origin of this rule is unknown, but it has been attributed to Mr. Ray Depue. The source of this information is no longer available online. Any additional information would be grealy appreciated. In certain auctions the opening bidder must determine whether to continue to compete after a low-level overcall has been made, which is then followed by two passes. The rule of nine allows the opening bidder to judge better the possibility of continuing to compete or whether to defend.

Rule of 9s and 10s
The origin of this rule has been lost in bridge history and can not longer be attributed to any one bridge player or bridge author. It simple developed as a method and was included in partnership agreements as a form of defense. It is sometimes referred to as Coded 9s and 10s.

Rule of Nineteen
A rule, similar to the Rule of Eighteen as applied by the World Bridge Federation, but generally used in England to govern the limits of light opening bid and Highly Unusual Methods.

Rule of Nineteen
Also designated as the Rule of 18, 22, 23, 25 or separately as the Rule of 18, the Rule of 22, the Rule of 23, the Rule of 25 in the Orange Book 1998, updated to September 2002, which is the Handbook Of EBU (English Bridge Union) Directives And Permitted Conventions, under section 9, Permitted Conventions And Agreements. This definition was somewhat altered in the Handbook Of EBU (English Bridge Union) Directives And Permitted Conventions, under section 10, OVERALL RULES FOR AGREEMENTS. In both Handbooks of the EBU it is the method of hand evaluation, which is addressed.

Rule Of N-Minus-One
This rule for squeezes was first published by Mr. Ely Culbertson in the book Red Book On Play. His definition of this rule states that the player should count the number of busy cards in the plain suits held by one opponent. This number is represented by the symbol N. Therefore, N minus 1 equals the number of uninterrupted winners the declarer needs for a squeeze.

Rule of Seven - Rule of 7
The rule of seven was created and implemented separately by two bridge personalities. One is Mr. Robert Berthe of France, who is a published author of bridge book(s). Mr. Gerald Fox of Napa, California, United States, bridge expert, teacher, and author, also independently devised the rule of seven.

Rule of Seventeen or Rule of 17
If the partner opens the auction with a Weak Two bid, the responder should add the number of high card points to the number of trumps in the holding, trumps being the suit of the Weak Two opener. If the total is at least 17 or higher, then the responder should bid game in the suit of the partner. Attributed to Mr. Zeke Jabbour.

Rule of 6-4-2 and Rule of 4-2-1
In his publication entitled More Bridge Brilliance and Blunders, 1975, Mr. Richard A. Miller published the following describing a method of Counting Ruffing Tricks in the Responding Hand. The following is an excerpt from that published work:

When partner opens the bidding and a trump suit has been established, the responder must evaluate his hand by combining his high card strength with his ruffing trick strength. Such strength may be expressed with the formula of Rule of 6-4-2 and Rule 4-2-1:

Short Suit 4 Trumps 3 Trumps
Void 6 points 4 points
Singleton 4 points 2 points
Doubleton 2 points 1 point

An additional point may be added for each trump over four. With two short suits, count only one, the shorter. The additional short suit is already counted in assigning one point to any length in the trump suit over four.

Ruffing or trumping values as shown in this table are counted by the responder only on the assumption that partner will become the declarer and his bid suit will be trump. Should subsequent bidding place the contract in No Trump, count assigned to ruffing tricks must be deleted and replaced with high card count and long suit count.

On the other hand, if the responder should originate a suit and become the declarer, the long cards are counted and the opener, who now is dummy, will count his ruffing tricks.

Notice that this count is the only one now in use that differentiates specifically between holding four trumps as against three trumps. That one trump, the fourth, can mean maximum efficiency in ruffing power and optimum contracts. The loss of the fourth trump can and does reduce the ruffing potential of the dummy hand and therefore the difference must be acknowledged in the basic formula.

The Rosetta stone from which these evaluation tables were derived is Charles H. Goren's The Standard Book of Bidding, published in 1944.

Rule Of Sixteen or Rule of 16
The rule of sixteen is similar to the rule of fifteen. The player in fourth seat after three passes should count his high card points and add them to the number of Spades in his hand, and if the total is 16 or more, then he should open, even with less than a normal opening.

Rule of Sixteen or Rule of 16
This guideline or rule is employed by bridge partnerships in determining whether to raise a 1 No Trump opening to 3 No Trump. The responder counts the number of high card points and the number of cards beginning with the 8 and higher. If the sum of the high card points and the number of cards 8 and higher equals the number 16 or higher, then the responder should raise immediately to 3 No Trump or after employment of the Stayman and/or Jacoby Transfer conventional methods. As a result of this, the natural response of 2 No Trump by the responder may be employed for other purposes by the partnership.

Rule of Ten - Rule of 10
This mathematical concept originated back in the days of the game of Whist. This rule allows the partner, who leads the first card, to determine the distribution of that suit among all four players. The name of the originator is lost to history.

Rule of Ten - Rule of 10
This particular guideline, called also the rule of ten, applies to a competitive auction when one player contemplates to employ a penalty double even though the opponents have not bid a game contract.

Rule of Three Queens
In the Bridge World magazine issue of March, 2003, Mr. Danny Kleinman expressed the Rule of Three Kings, which states that the bridge player "be alert to the possibility of playing in No Trump when a suit contract seems obvious and to let the possession of Queens sway the bridge player in close cases. Or, when the bridge player has 3 (or 4) Queens, make an extra effort to play in No Trump".

Rule of Thirteen or Rule of 13
This guideline or rule is applied when considering opening with a strong, artificial 2 bid, when the high card points of the holding do not exceed 22 high card points and the question remains whether to open with one of a suit or with a strong, artificial 2 bid. The concept is based upon adding the number of total defensive tricks and multiply by two. Defensive tricks are determined according to the following:

Ace: 1
Ace/King: 2
King/Queen: 1
King/x: 1/2
Queen/Jack/x: 1/2

Once this tally has been accomplished, then the player should add all length cards of more than three in a suit to the result. If this final result is then 13 or more, then the player should open with a strong, artificial 2 bid.

Rule of Twelve - Rule of 12
The re-popularization of this lead from the era of Whist is attributed to Mr. Sven Welith and Mr. Seth Wenneberg, both from Sweden. Similar to the rule of eleven, which may determine the play of a card by partner, who knows that the lead card is the fourth highest card down as per partnership agreement, the rule of twelve is a mathematical calculation from the days of playing Whist when the lead card is the third highest card.

Rule of Twenty - Rule of 20
This guideline or method, named the Rule of 20, is a method in determining whether a holding containing fewer than the standard 12 plus high card points is, despite this fact, worthy of an opening bid.

Rule Of Twenty-Two
The Rule of 22 is based on the Rule of 18 of the World Bridge Federation, for a player determining whether to open light. The player should add the combined length of the two longest suits to the high card point count. The player should always open if the total is 22 or more. If the total is 20 or 21, the hand should have at least 2 defensive tricks. Opening with a total of 19 or less is not allowed.

Rule of Twenty-Six
Devised by Mr. Harold Schogger as a concept to explore strongly for slam contracts after a Splinter bid by the partner as a first response.

Rule of Two
This is a guideline, which states that if the declarer is missing two touching honors, then it is preferable to finesse first for the lower honor. The possibility that there could be individual and special circumstances where this action would be incorrect is present. However, the mathematical percentages offer a higher success rate, as in the following examples:

Dummy: AQ10

Declarer: 542

The Rule of Two states that the declarer should first The Rule of Two states that thee the Ten for the maximum number of possible tricks.

Dummy: KJ1084

Declarer: 6432

The Rule of Two states that the declarer should first finesse the Jack.

Rule of Two and Three
The rule of two and three is a method of determining the better score. As proposed by Mr. Ely Culbertson for preemptive openings and overcalls, the partnership should be within two tricks of their contract, if vulnerable and deciding to sacrifice for the sake of a better score. If the partnership, however, loses three tricks while not vulnerable, then the partnership can also achieve a better score.

Rule of Two, Three and Four - Rule of 2,3,4
This concept expansion has been added to the concept of the Rule of Two and Three when deciding to preempt. The origin in unknown, but its effectiveness can prove advantageous under certain bidding circumstances.

Rule Of X-Plus One
This is a mathematical formula, devised by Mr. Ely Culbertson, to help in planning the play when the contract is No Trump. By an attempt to establish the long cards in a suit, estimate the number of losing tricks in the suit before it can be established and call it X. Add 1 to this number. The result is the number of stoppers in the opponent’s long suit needed to be able to turn the long cards into winning tricks.
--

There is also this lesson text, which contains a few additional ones not usually listed as Rules of N, and this file with a mix of serious rules and humour.

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

Happy New Year everyone!
1

#25 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,227
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2014-July-01, 18:34

View PostZelandakh, on 2014-July-01, 03:56, said:

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

I don't know for certain, but it sure looks like it ought to be.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#26 User is offline   Mbodell 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,871
  • Joined: 2007-April-22
  • Location:Santa Clara, CA

Posted 2014-July-03, 03:52

View Postblackshoe, on 2014-July-01, 18:34, said:

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.
0

#27 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,663
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2014-July-03, 05:01

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?
(-: Zel :-)

Happy New Year everyone!
0

#28 User is offline   mikestar13 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 636
  • Joined: 2010-October-27
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Bernardino, CA USA

Posted 2014-July-06, 18:49

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".
0

#29 User is offline   Fluffy 

  • World International Master without a clue
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,394
  • Joined: 2003-November-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:madrid

Posted 2014-July-15, 01:40

View PostTylerE, on 2014-June-29, 10:15, said:

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.
3

#30 User is offline   Liversidge 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 424
  • Joined: 2014-January-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sleaford, Lincolnshire
  • Interests:Bridge, Gardening, DIY, Travel

Posted 2014-July-19, 00:16

View PostBbradley62, on 2014-June-30, 14:55, said:

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"
0

#31 User is offline   Mefisto500 

  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 2015-May-18

Posted 2018-April-08, 04:06

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.
0

#32 User is offline   p697g8 

  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 2020-December-09

Posted 2020-December-09, 21:05

[siz :angry: e="4"]
[/size]
0

#33 User is offline   thepossum 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,277
  • Joined: 2018-July-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 2020-December-10, 03:50

View PostTylerE, on 2014-June-29, 10:15, said:

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
0

#34 User is offline   thepossum 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,277
  • Joined: 2018-July-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 2020-December-10, 03:55

View PostZelandakh, on 2014-July-01, 03:56, said:

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
0

#35 User is offline   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,507
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2020-December-10, 05:23

View PostZelandakh, on 2014-June-28, 13:18, said:

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.
0

#36 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,085
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2020-December-10, 08:19

Kieran Dyke, Cherdano, and others said:

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

View Postmikestar13, on 2014-July-06, 18:49, said:

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.

0

#37 User is online   mycroft 

  • Secretary Bird
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,126
  • Joined: 2003-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, Canada

Posted 2020-December-10, 10:32

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.
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
0

#38 User is offline   thepossum 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,277
  • Joined: 2018-July-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 2020-December-10, 12:31

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
0

#39 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,663
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2020-December-13, 06:43

View Postthepossum, on 2020-December-10, 12:31, said:

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.
(-: Zel :-)

Happy New Year everyone!
0

#40 User is offline   DavidKok 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 757
  • Joined: 2020-March-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2020-December-13, 07:20

View PostZelandakh, on 2020-December-13, 06:43, said:

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?
0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3


Fast Reply

  

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users