[pescetom]

When you are more or less balanced and think you have 25+ HCP between you and no major suit fit.

[jillybean]

And, between you and partner, you have controls, or length in the suit to stop the opponent's from running 5 tricks.

[Shugart23]

We would sometimes say " Why bid 5 of a minor when you can go down in 3NT".....meaning, if you are contemplating a choice between the two games, go for 3NT

[mw64ahw]

Try the rule of 16 versus a 15-17 notrump
hcp+number of cards above 8 >= 16

[jillybean]

Please don't teach players the rule of.....
It takes a long time to unlearn them.

[mw64ahw]

jillybean, on 2024-February-27, 16:38, said:

Please don't teach players the rule of.....
It takes a long time to unlearn them.

I came across this rule last week; it would be interesting to see what the Sims make of it

[nullve]

mw64ahw, on 2024-February-27, 12:54, said:

Try the rule of 16 versus a 15-17 notrump
hcp+number of cards above 8 >= 16

JT9
JT9
JT9
JT92

hcp + number of cards (strictly) above 8: 4 + 12 = 16

T98
J98
J98
JT98

hcp + numbers of cards (not necessarily strictly) above 8: 3 + 13 = 16

[DavidKok]

No rule is a good substitute for judgement, so of course these tricks aren't that great. I still think it is useful to have a bunch of these in your arsenal, so that on close decisions you have multiple different ways at your disposal of thinking about the decision.

Out of curiousity I compared this "rule of 16" against the more common "bid game with 9 HCP". Simulating 5000 hands double dummy, the "bid game with 9 HCP" rule scores approximately 7.9 points per deal more on average, with a standard deviation of 1.08 (not vulnerable). In other words, the rule of 16 performs statistically significantly worse than my proposed alternative. Of course neither shortcut is a reasonable substitute for actual hand evaluation.

I've mentioned this before but I think quite a few improving players are under the impression that having more complicated rules means they have better judgement, and therefore will score better. My own findings do not back this up at all, and I think the primary benefit of complicated rules is making players feel educated. More generally, hand evaluation is horribly underrated as a bridge skill, and I think quite a few players are making backwards progress in this area.

[nullve]

DavidKok, on 2024-February-28, 03:01, said:

No rule is a good substitute for judgement

Judgement: I did X because Y.
Rule: If Y, do X.

[mw64ahw]

nullve, on 2024-February-28, 02:55, said:

JT9
JT9
JT9
JT92

hcp + number of cards (strictly) above 8: 4 + 12 = 16

T98
J98
J98
JT98

hcp + numbers of cards (not necessarily strictly) above 8: 3 + 13 = 16

Very good - assume 1NT-2C-2NT so 8+hcp

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2024-February-28, 03:01, said:

No rule is a good substitute for judgement, so of course these tricks aren't that great. I still think it is useful to have a bunch of these in your arsenal, so that on close decisions you have multiple different ways at your disposal of thinking about the decision.

Out of curiousity I compared this "rule of 16" against the more common "bid game with 9 HCP". Simulating 5000 hands double dummy, the "bid game with 9 HCP" rule scores approximately 7.9 points per deal more on average, with a standard deviation of 1.08 (not vulnerable). In other words, the rule of 16 performs statistically significantly worse than my proposed alternative. Of course neither shortcut is a reasonable substitute for actual hand evaluation.

I've mentioned this before but I think quite a few improving players are under the impression that having more complicated rules means they have better judgement, and therefore will score better. My own findings do not back this up at all, and I think the primary benefit of complicated rules is making players feel educated. More generally, hand evaluation is horribly underrated as a bridge skill, and I think quite a few players are making backwards progress in this area.

Did the Sims floor the hcp at 8 or 7 and 1.5 quick tricks?

[DavidKok]

I did not floor anything. It is important to look at both the times when you bid game and the times when you stay low, to compare the results on all hands. I have only included the parts of your rule that you stated. I invite you to run your own simulation if you think some other aspect is important and should be included.

I've said this a few times before, and the childlike comments by nullve help illustrate the point. Hand evaluation is difficult. I believe the best way to evaluate a hand is to consider possible distributions of the cards around the table compatible with the information you have so far, project how you expect the auction and play to develop from there for each scenario, then take the action that you think will lead to the best result on average. If you include sufficiently varied hands within the ranges implied by the auction thus far this will let you make an informed decision. Any shortcut, e.g. collecting summary data such as total HCP, distribution of the hand, specific features like concentration of values or stoppers &c., are at best partial attempts at shortcutting this more difficult evaluation process. Attempting to then further simplify these bypasses into a short set of rules will throw out even more information. All this to say: hand evaluation is difficult, and any 'Rule of X', even with a dozen or so caveats about when (not) to apply it, is going to be so-so. It is nice to have multiple guides like this available, but relying too much on them, in mw64ahw's example the modified losing trick count, blunts your judgement and stunts growth. And in some specific cases they aren't even better than the advice they are meant to replace, which I think is happening here with the rule of 16 rather than bidding game with 9-counts.

P.S.: Also, given the forum this is in, I think "bid game with 9 HCP" merits serious consideration.

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2024-February-28, 05:21, said:

I did not floor anything. It is important to look at both the times when you bid game and the times when you stay low, to compare the results on all hands. I have only included the parts of your rule that you stated. I invite you to run your own simulation if you think some other aspect is important and should be included.

I've said this a few times before, and the childlike comments by nullve help illustrate the point. Hand evaluation is difficult. I believe the best way to evaluate a hand is to consider possible distributions of the cards around the table compatible with the information you have so far, project how you expect the auction and play to develop from there for each scenario, then take the action that you think will lead to the best result on average. If you include sufficiently varied hands within the ranges implied by the auction thus far this will let you make an informed decision. Any shortcut, e.g. collecting summary data such as total HCP, distribution of the hand, specific features like concentration of values or stoppers &c., are at best partial attempts at shortcutting this more difficult evaluation process. Attempting to then further simplify these bypasses into a short set of rules will throw out even more information. All this to say: hand evaluation is difficult, and any 'Rule of X', even with a dozen or so caveats about when (not) to apply it, is going to be so-so. It is nice to have multiple guides like this available, but relying too much on them, in mw64ahw's example the modified losing trick count, blunts your judgement and stunts growth. And in some specific cases they aren't even better than the advice they are meant to replace, which I think is happening here with the rule of 16 rather than bidding game with 9-counts.

P.S.: Also, given the forum this is in, I think "bid game with 9 HCP" merits serious consideration.

Whether it's the Rule of 16, losers, modified losers or any other 'rule of thumb' a statistical analysis needs to be done to verify validity.

It wouldn't surprise me that results would be better by applying the rule of Rule of 16 together with 9 hcp. After all this is instinctively the judgment made when responders consider intermediates as a factor in whether to raise or not.

[thepossum]

I can't really compare notes, even though I tried to find if the rule made any difference at all

In browsing the web though I found out about the Trump Suit Unbid Rule which states it is hard to bid and make slam in a suit never bid

[thepossum]

I can't really compare notes, even though I seemed to find if(EDIT that?) the rule made any (EDIT no) difference at all (EDIT life is too short)
There appears a marginal improvement that the stronger hand plays the 3nT

In browsing the web though I found out about the Trump Suit Unbid Rule which states it is hard to bid and make slam in a suit never bid

bridge rules are funny things

I presume the rule of 16 only applies on hands with 8 or 9 points, not if you have 20

[mw64ahw]

thepossum, on 2024-February-28, 07:19, said:

I can't really compare notes, even though I seemed to find if the rule made any difference at all
There appears a marginal improvement that the stronger hand plays the 3nT

In browsing the web though I found out about the Trump Suit Unbid Rule which states it is hard to bid and make slam in a suit never bid

bridge rules are funny things

I presume the rule of 16 only applies on hands with 8 or 9 points, not if you have 20

I was contemplating a similar sort of thing over a weak NT; When do you invite with 10? possibly a rule of 18? Time to run some more Sims.

[fuzzyquack]

Assuming you are a relative novice, bid enough of them so as to go down playing imps in around 70% of contracts if vulnerable, 65% if not vulnerable. If you wish, subtract 5% from both figures at mps. There is no other way to learn bridge but the hard way.

[shyams]

Am I the only one who can't see OP's text?

To me, the title shows up as posted by Knurdler, followed by first post by pescetom.

[pescetom]

shyams, on 2024-February-28, 11:57, said:

Am I the only one who can't see OP's text?

To me, the title shows up as posted by Knurdler, followed by first post by pescetom.

My post was intended as a gentle reprimand to Knurdler who posted an empty thread.
I imagine he will catch up sooner or later

[smerriman]

shyams, on 2024-February-28, 11:57, said:

Am I the only one who can't see OP's text?

To me, the title shows up as posted by Knurdler, followed by first post by pescetom.

Thus is the same bug that BBO continues to not fix; his post contained a funny character which means everything he wrote got totally erased. Knurdler doesn't deserve a reprimand in the slightest..