Re: What's wrong with the Roth point count?

On May 1, 9:39 am, henrysun...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> On May 1, 4:35 am, Stig Holmquist <stigfjor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Forty years ago two oustanding bridge players, Alvin Roth and Jeff
> > Rubens, wrote the book 'Modern Bridge Bidding Complete".
> > It featured the Roth Point count Method.
>
> > This method is similar to the British combination distributuin count.
> > It is based on the standard Work  point count for HCP plus Goren's
> > short suit count of 1,2 and 3 for ddoubletons, singletons and voids
> > resp. but also adds points for suits longer than five cards.
> > Specifically it counts 1 pt for each card over five for any major suit
> > but counts such length points only for "good" minor suits having at
> > least two  of the top three honor cards.
>
> > Has any r.g.b. member ever used this method and if so, what are its
> > shortcomngs? It specifically does not count quick tricks.Why is this
> > method never mentioned any more?
>
> > Stig Holmquist
>
> At the risk of adding fuel to Stig's ongoing diatribe against anything
> related to hand evaluation that does not include quick tricks, I will
> note that Modern Bridge Bidding Complete was one of the first books I
> read after 5 Weeks To Winning Bridge.  My level of bridge expertise at
> that level can be demonstrated by the laughs I got at the 40/8
> duplicate when I took a backwards finesse by leading the A from the AQ
> in my hand towards dummy's Jxxx in a game contract where we had 36
> points between us.  (We were using weak2s, but I hadn't yet learned
> how to handle balanced 26 counts, so I opened 2nt and my father raised
> me to 3mt with his 10 count)
>
> I didn't understand much of MBBC at that time, but I went back to it
> from time to time as I got more experience at the game.
>
> For the most part, I found the initial evaluation techniques to be
> sound, over the years.  6 card majors of any quality are worth extras
> because of the greatly enhanced chance of an 8 card major suit fit,
> and the length will go far to eviserating lack of strength because of
> the length, so that
>
> xx
>
> opposite
>
> J9xxxx
>
> is still a likely 3 loser trump suit only.
>
> the additional requirement of 2 of the top 3 honors for adding minor
> suit length is also a good one because of the likelihood that such
> hands are going to play in 3nt.  (One small correction I'd make is
> that if AQxxxx = 1 extra point, then surely Axxxxxx should be worth 1
> extra point as well as Kx opposite either holding gives you a chance
> to run the suit).
>
> The irony of the book is that it labels opening bids (14+ total points
> plus at least 10 HCPs) hands that Roth would never in a million years
> have opened, e.g.
>
> Jxxxxx
> Qxx
> VOID
> AKxx
>
> 10 hcps + 1 length point + 3 shortness points.
>
> As an aside, I recommend Jon Drabble's book on hand evaluation and the
> MIDMAC system.  Of all the hand evaluation things I've read, his
> strikes me as being both the easiest to use and the most accurate
> overall, nothwithstanding some hands which strike me as double dummy
> bidding, e.g., when he manages to stay in 1nt with
>
> Qxxx
> Axx
> Kxx
> xxx
>
> opposite
>
> x
> KQxx
> AQxx
> AQxx
>
> on the sequence 1c 1s 1nt (showing a minimum [!] opening bid due to
> the severe reduction caused by the singleton in responder's suit).
>
> Still, his system ideas are interesting and his hand evaluation
> discussion is excellent.
>
> By the way, he substitutes controls for quick tricks.  I hope that's
> not too much of a problem for you Stig, rofl.
>
> Henrysun909

I had that auction last night [playing ks'ish methods].  I agree with
responder's pass at matchpoints.  Unforunately the opps led a heart
from 3, flew with the K from KX when I led a small club from hand at
trick 2, and then on the run of hearts [quite reasonably] decided I
did not hold 4 diamonds.  Making 4 for darn few points....  Oh is that
MY alarm clock.

== Bill Shutts