Culbertson’s Rule of Hand Evaluation #4

Culbertson’s Rule of Hand Evaluation is as follows (imported from a previous blog entry on the subject):

“Many methods of hand evaluation abound: Law of Total Tricks (LOTT), the counter to LOTT in Lawrence-Wirgren book, Losing Trick Count (LTC), and, of course, point count.

I think all of those methods pale in comparison to Culbertson’s Rule, which I had read many, many years ago in Jeff Rubens’ great book The Secrets of Winning Bridge.  Rubens defines the Rule as “your hand is worth an invitation to game (or slam) if a perfect minimum holding from partner will make it a laydown”.

What makes Culbertson’s Rule better, IMHO, than alternatives is that it gets the bidder to be thinking about integrating the play into the bidding: what cards do I need from partner (that are consistent with the auction as a whole) to make the contract I am aiming for laydown?  The “perfect minimum” aspect of the Rule keeps a player from getting too ambitious: if you are counting on partner to have a perfect maximum, you will frequently be disappointed; and if are counting on partner to have a hugely imperfect minimum, you are going to miss too many good games or slams.”

Apply Culbertson’s Rule to this hand (Board 14 of yesterday’s club Swiss), held opposite a partner who has opened a 12-14 1NT: ♠KT642  ♥AJ8  ♦QT  ♣T53.  Do you try for game?

Well, a perfect fit will have four trumps, will promote your ♦Q, and will have two small clubs to limit your losers there.  Let’s “place” these cards in partner’s hand: ♠QJxx  ♥Qxxx  ♦AKx  ♣xx.  That’s a twelve count and thus satisfies the rule that the perfect fit must be in a minimum hand.  Opposite that hand, however, we are still off a trump and two clubs and must therefore pick up the heart suit for no losers.  That’s far from a laydown game and so the Rule would answer the question that game should not be invited.  Responder can choose either to pass (my choice at IMPs, because the ten HCP should be enough to bring home 1NT, while 2♠ might be set by a bad trump fit and a bad split) or to bid 2♠ (my choice at matchpoints because it is likely to score higher.)

Now, apply Culbertson’s Rule to this hand (Board 15 from the same game), also held opposite a partner who has opened a 12-14 1NT: ♠AJT843  ♥7  ♦8  ♣AQ654.  Do you try for slam?

Assuredly, yes!  The right ten count from partner (Kxxx of one black suit and Kx of the other black suit, and one red ace) can make for a near laydown slam, and partner is nowhere near his 12 point minimum.  Your partnership agreements will dictate how you try for slam, but you should strive to communicate your black suit lengths and your slam invitational values.

Here’s a third hand from the same event (Board 22), where an attribute of Culbertson’s Rule – the attribute of “placing” cards in partner’s hand – should lead you to make a move toward slam.  You hold ♠KJT4  ♥AKJT843  ♦J  ♣T.  You open 1♥ (assume you are not playing Namyats, if you wish) and partner bids 2/1 game forcing 2♣.  What do you call next?

Well, whatever you do, do not bid just 2♥!  So little opposite this hand as three small hearts and the ♠Q makes game near laydown, so you can hardly afford to make a minimum rebid.  Your partnership agreements will dictate what you bid next, but now is not the time to be “saving space” by rebidding only 2♥; you need to let partner in on the slam potential of this hand.