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

Andrew <agumperz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> presented what he apparently thinks are 
telling objections to the Roth-Rubens point-count.

I have objections of two kinds to the R-R method:
1) The general assumption that the right kind of evaluation method can 
solve all bidding questions, and
2) Many details about evaluation in various situations leading to 
misleading over- and under-valuations.

Still, I must respond to the points Andrew raises, since they seem 
almost completely wrong-headed. And it is worth keeping in mind that 
this technique is designed for learners who, among other things, are not 
keeping a calculator on the table.

> The same things that are wrong with all the antiquated point count
> methods you have brought up here:
> 
> 1. The HCP values used are inaccurate

Accuracy of HCP values is never right for any method that attempts to 
reduce valuation to a single number (or several numbers, depending on 
the strains chosen).  However, the R-R approach does not simply evaluate 
honors on a 4-3-2-1 basis.  It provides for honors in combination in 
long suits which are weak, good, reliable, or self-sufficient.  It 
provides for the undervaluation of Aces by promoting for 4 aces and 
demoting, for opening bids, no aces.  It properly demotes short suit 
holdings such as K, Q, J, KQ, KJ, Qx, Jx for suit bidding.

> 2. The system pretends that high cards have the same value in suits
> and in no trumps

This is not true.  The different treatment of honors in short suits and 
of honor combinations in suits of 5+ cards shows that no such pretense 
in to be found.

> 3. The distributional values used are inaccurate

Without offering a useful and usable alternative this statement is less 
than helpful.  In fact, all methods leading to a simple integer value 
for distributional values in a particular strain _must_ be inaccurate. 
But it is unlikely that any "accurate" method (a chimera, to be sure) 
will not be more complex than the R-R one, and it is sufficiently 
complex to overwhelm many of the people in the target audience for this 
book.

> 4. The system pretends that length in any suit is of equal value, when
> major suit length is worth more than minor suit length

This is wrong in many ways. First, your claim about relative values:
1) For the purposes of playing in NT, there is no difference between 
minor and major length
2) In most cases, for the purposes of playing in a major, major length 
is more useful than minor length; for the purposes of playing in a 
minor, minor length is more useful.

But the R-R method _does_ distinguish between major and minor length.
1) For the purposes of opening the bidding, minor suit length to be 
counted must be in stronger suits than is required for major suits.
2) In many sequences, the revaluation depends on having found a playble
8+ card fit.  Auctions for which major suit 8-card fits are known are 
much more common than auctions for which minor suit 8-card fits are 
known.  That means that minor length is discounted much more often.

> All that being said, its a reasonable way to teach beginners, which is
> all it was ever intended to be.

All that being said, the method is too complicated to teach beginners, 
overstates the value of the method in solving the problems of bidders, 
and has many details in which it leads to misleading evaluations.   It 
is better suited to awaking advancing players to the kinds of 
adjustments which the auction and particular holdings call for.  Having 
been awakened, those players should have sufficient experience to make 
adjustments that seem to them more appropriate.