On May 2, 2:58 am, Bob Lipton <boblip...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Histriadogsilver wrote:
> > On May 1, 1:35 pm, 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
>
> > Re-evaluation is where things fall apart. There is no aggressive hand
> > evaluation that can cope with huge negative adjustments, fortunately
> > this happens rarely and much more often being aggressive pays off in a
> > way of reaching distributional games and slams.
>
> I
>
> I sort of disagree with this statement. If you mean that people rarely
> revise their hands downward in the light of the bidding, I agree. If
> you mean they rarely have the op****tunity, I strongly disagree.
>
> I can't count the number of times I have seen righty deal and with, say,
> - AJTxxx x AQxxxx open a heart, thinking that if only partner has a bit
> of a fit, he may be in a slam. He has a four-loser hand, after all and
> if it weren't a 2-suiter, could be opened 2C, but he's a sound player.
> So he opens 1 Heart and what happens next?
>
> Partner holds something like AJTxxx - KQ9xxx x and is very happy. he
> has a 4-loser hand too, which means that he is mere inches from a grand
> slam. Does it occur to him that partner has promised at least five
> hearts and that, therefore, about five of partner's putative points
> will be worthless to him? -- I should note that altough he would open
> this hand light in first seat and expects his partner to open light,
> somehow, when partner opens, he never visualizes a hand like this. He
> sees, in his mind's eye, KQxx 65432 AJx Ax. So, in order to give
> partner a chance to show his magnificent spade sup****t, and because they
> aren't playing a variation that forces him to bid 1NT with a spade suit,
> he bids a nice, moderate 1 Spade. Perhaps his next call will be 4NT,
> asking for aces -- might want to be in 7NT after all -- and perhaps it
> will be a shocking 6 Clubs.
>
> Now opener is happy. Partner has enough to respond -- it never, like
> Mr. Smug, occurs to him to visualize a void until he sees it -- Instead,
> he is busy stuffing useful honors into partner's hand and tryjing to
> figure out whether to bid 2 clubs or three clubs. Eventually he decides
> to bid 2 clubs, since it allows him to show his powerful shape. True,
> partner will not hold 4 hearts, most likely, but he might hold KJX Or
> four clubs! Or even five! It's clear he must hold a lot of points:
> the opponents haven't said anything but pass. The old farts.
>
> Now responder comes back into the picture. Opener has shown where nine
> of his thirteen -- or, on RGB, 14 -- cards are. This leave a shortage
> of cards in his suits, but he remains hopeful. He doesn't do anything
> foolish like start devaluing his hand -- a nice invitational 2 Spades
> wouldn't be right. Instead he has to choose between 2 and 3 diamonds.
> And since 2 diamonds would be FSF, he chooses 3 diamonds.
>
> Let us return to opener. He is starting to get worried, but consoles
> himself: partner is about to bid the three-card sup****t in whichever of
> opener's suit he has -- a nice, lively hand. Should he bid blackwood
> and try for the slam or be conservative? No matter: he has an easy bid
> of 3 hearts.
>
> Now responder is starting to get worried. Eventually, they make their
> way to a nice, conservative contract of 3NT -- there's a bit of a
> misfit, but things will turn out ok.
>
> At least until the old idiot to the 3NT caller's right doubles. And you
> start rescuing each other to the sounds of endless doubles. Or you
> don't. Anyway, you drift down a comfortable 1100, -- somehow partner
> didn't respect your takeout of his club takeout and so you wound up in
> 5Dx, and you could have been -500, but the hook didn't work and neither
> did the endplay -- dummy was squeezed -- and comfort yourself with the
> sage observation that it's just another 0.
>
> Now, all of these problems could be solved by simply revaling your hand
> downward when you begin to catch sight of a misfit -- but somehow, you
> never do. Which is why I disagree with you somewhat.
>
> Bob
"I sort of disagree with this statement. If you mean that people
rarely
revise their hands downward in the light of the bidding, I agree. If
you mean they rarely have the op****tunity, I strongly disagree."
I have never said that, you just find yourself in a 6-2 fit and your
partner, that holds only two trumps, is holding also a side singleton.
You are in a misfit, you don't hold a superfit and your opponent has
found the winning trump lead. Fortunately your partner devaluates his
hand in time but despite everything since your partner has minimum
values you are two off vulnerable. This does not happen very often but
it does happen, no matter how good your and your partner's hand
evaluation method is you will find nothing but a misfit in partner's
hand.
Cheers
Boris
|
