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

On May 2, 5:19 am, Stig Holmquist <stigfjor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

By freak deals I mean hands with less
than 1 per 10 000 frequecies. As a player of modest ability I would
probably apply the Bergen count of 20(22) to that hand and open 1D.
By std. ACBL valuation the hand is worth 13 points and is an  opener.

By the Roth count is is worth 15 points, 10 HCP + 1 for length +2x2
 for singletons and would seem to be fit for an opening bid. Thus 1/3
of the total point value is in distribution, which seems excessive.

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

Would you fail to open

AKJxxxxxx
xx
xx
VOID

because of its excessive distributional count (2 for the spades, 1
each for the doubletons, and 3 for the void = 7) and because it fails
to meet the Bergen rule of 20 (8 HCPs plus 9 spades plus a doubleton =
19)?

Is it so hard to understand that applying point count formulas to
freak hands is unproductive as a means of justifying which bids are or
are not opening bids?

Obviously, some might decide to open this hand with 4S, and that is
certainly not a wrong bid.  Since a hand like

xx
AKJx
Axxx
xxx

might be enough for slam, some of us would consider a hand with 2
quick tricks and 2 first round controls to be too strong for a 4S
preempt and would open it 1S.  (I would open it 1S, myself).  Those
who use Namyats might consider this an excellent example of a 4d
opening bid showing a strong 4s preempt.  I couldn't argue with that
either.

Of course, one might pass this hand (only 8 points, partner!) since it
could well be that a sound hand with long clubs cannot make game
anywhere:

VOID
KJx
KJx
AQTxxxx

with voids in both black suits and vulnerable tenaces in both red
suits, there is every possibility that no game makes at all.

Surely it cannot be this difficult to understand that the whole
enterprise of counting points with freaks is a waste of time.

Henrysun909