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

On May 1, 6:30=A0pm, Andrew <agump...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

Never counting for major suit shortness distribution would be too
much. For example as opener suppose you hold: x, x, AQxxxx, KJxxx. A
minor game is cold opposite a dull 7-count: xxx, xxxx, Kxxx, Ax. So
the distribution clearly should be counted.

*****************

Indisputably true (and I note that with those two hands the opponents
have a reasonable shot at making 4 of a major).

Perhaps the real answer to these distributional freaks (in which class
I include my

xxx
xxx
VOID
AKQxxxxx

9-count as posted previously)

is that quantifying value by an arthimatic formula is doomed to fail.

Which would of course come back to the axiom that the more balanced
the hand, the accurate any high card point count is going to be, and
the less balanced the hand, the more likely that one can throw point
count out the window (or at least not rely on it too heavily).

Henrysun909