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

On Thu, 1 May 2008 14:49:25 -0700 (PDT), Andrew <agumperz@[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
>
>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
>
>2. The system pretends that high cards have the same value in suits
>and in no trumps
>
>3. The distributional values used are inaccurate
>
>4. The system pretends that length in any suit is of equal value, when
>major suit length is worth more than minor suit length

Yes, you focused on the most glaring shortcoming of short suit counts.
The primary goal of bidding is to locate an 8-fit in a mjor suit. Thus
I can see no value in shortness in the majors. If anything it is a
deficit and should not be used to add value to a hand. I would go as
far as saying count no length points for minor suits for opening bids.
Depend solely on HCPs when opening a minor suit bid. Your HCP is the
only asset you have. E.g. holding 5-5 in the minors would today  add 2
points to the HCP count but seems to be an overvaluation.

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