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

On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:53:00 -0700 (PDT), Andrew <agumperz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>On May 2, 12:12 pm, Martin Ambuhl <mamb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>> > On May 1, 10:07 pm, Martin Ambuhl <mamb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> Andrew wrote:
>> >>> On May 1, 4:42 pm, Stig Holmquist <stigfjor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >>>> On Thu, 1 May 2008 14:49:25 -0700 (PDT), Andrew
<agump...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>> 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.
>> >>> Actual in R+R wouldn't you add 5 points for that shape? 2 for the
>> >>> singleton, 1 for the doubleton and 1 for the 5th card in each
minor?
>> >>> But yes, when you think of your goal as getting to a game contract,
>> >>> then adding 5 distribution points seems excessive.
>> >> It is clear from the above that Andrew's previously posted
objections to
>> >> R-R were based on nothing more than ignorance.
>>
>> > It should be clear by now that Martin is interested only in ad
hominem
>> > attacks rather than debating issues.
>>
>> No, Andrew.  I responded to your earlier criticisms as if you were
>> making informed criticisms.  No longer is there any doubt:  you have
>> posted critisms of something that you know nothing of.  I repent my
>> earlier treatment of you as a rational, informed person who had made
>> some ill-judged criticisms.  The previous lack of any substantive
>> critique should have warned me:  your later post to which I replied
>> above shows that you have absolutely no grasp of R-R evaluation.  Since
>> you are criticizing something you created out of your own ignorance,
>> having nothing to do with what you claimed to criticize, it is clear
>> that you have _no_ rational content to your criticism of R-R.  It is
not
>> an ad hominem attack to point out that your criticism is completely
vacuous.
>
>Since you failed to respond to my rebuttal of your criticisms, I can
>only conclude that you agree that you stand corrected. Regarding your
>churlish and childish manners, either a Dale Carnegie course or
>preferably a psychiatric institution might be a good solution.
>
>
>Andrew

If you go to the Bridge World website you can download the
introduction to the Roth point count. It is parrt of "Introduction
to...". Then there is no need to disagree on what it says.

Stig