On May 1, 3:42 pm, Martin Ambuhl <mamb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Andrew <agump...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> presented what he apparently thinks are
> telling objections to the Roth-Rubens point-count.
Although Martin what he apparently thinks is humor and charm, I will
respond to Martin's factual arguments rather than his tone.
> 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,
Undeniably true. But some numbers are a better approximation than
others.
> 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.
Downward adjustment for honors in short suits was a valuable
contribution to hand evaluation theory. However, it is irrelevant to
the criticism I leveled.
My claim is that 4-3-2-1 point values are not the best blind estimates
of the values of high cards for suit play. 4.5, 3, 1.5 and .75 are
better. See Martelli or Andrews for detailed explanations.
http://bridge.thomasoandrews.com/valuations/
> > 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.
The treatment of honors in short suits is irrelevant to my point.
An ace is worth more when the final contract is a suit than in no
trump. Counting it as 4 for both purposes is a mistake. More accurate
card values (using a 40-point total) are:
Card Suit No Trump
A 4.5 4
K 3 2.8
Q 1.5 1.8
J 0.75 1
T 0.25 0.4
See Thomas Andrews for details. In suit contracts, a 4-3-2-1 count
undervalues aces and overvalues queens and jacks. For no trump
contracts, standard methods are better. The primary mistake in NT
valuation being the failure to count anything for tens.
> > 3. The distributional values used are inaccurate
>
> Without offering a useful and usable alternative this statement is less
> than helpful.
How about this one 5-3-1 for void, singleton and doubleton? See Tysen
Streib.
> In fact, all methods leading to a simple integer value
> for distributional values in a particular strain _must_ be inaccurate.
Agreed.
> 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.
I was too quick to criticize their distributional valuation. Their
method of counting for distribution 3-2-1 for shortness plus extra for
length points is reasonable and certainly represents an improvement
over counting only 3-2-1 for shortness. However counting 5-3-1 for
shortness is simpler and nearly as accurate.
> > 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.
See Tysen Streib.
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.games.bridge/2005-09/msg00488.html
It is right in the most im****tant way, that all other things being
equal, holding length in one or more major suits greatly increases
your chance of making a game. Contrast these two distributions:
Chance of game in any strain
2-2-5=4 (5-4 either way in the minors) 24%
5=4-2-2 (5-4 either way in the majors) 31%
So your chances of making a game is about 20% higher with both majors
than with both minors. Check Tysen's article for details.
> First, your claim about relative values:
> 1) For the purposes of playing in NT, there is no difference between
> minor and major length
I made no such claim.
> 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.
Minor suits games require on average an extra king, or an extra short
suit trick than major suit games. Consequently, they occur far less
often.
> 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.
Regardless of concentration of values or number of high card points or
anything else, opening with a major-suit-oriented shape will earn you
more points total points or IMPs than opening with a minor-suit
oriented shape.
> 2) In many sequences, the revaluation depends on having found a playable
> 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.
I was discussing blind evaluation, not reevaluation after a fit is
found.
|
