On May 4, 2:44 am, Stig Holmquist <stigfjor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 May 2008 17:02:32 -0700 (PDT), Histriadogsilver
>
>
>
> <andjelka.rich...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >On May 4, 1:28 am, Stig Holmquist <stigfjor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 3 May 2008 10:53:59 -0700 (PDT), Histriadogsilver
>
> >> <andjelka.rich...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >On May 3, 2:06 am, OldPalooka <ashut...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> On May 2, 5:19 am, Stig Holmquist <stigfjor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Thu, 1 May 2008 18:30:36 -0700 (PDT), Andrew
<agump...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> >> > 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:
>
> >> >> > >> >On May 1, 4:35 am, 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
>
> >> >> > >> >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
>
> >> >> > >> >2. The system pretends that high cards have the same value
in suits
> >> >> > >> >and in no trumps
>
> >> >> > >> >3. The distributional values used are inaccurate
>
> >> >> > >> >4. The system pretends that length in any suit is of equal
value, when
> >> >> > >> >major suit length is worth more than minor suit length
>
> >> >> > >> Yes, you focused on the most glaring shortcoming of short
suit counts.
> >> >> > >> The primary goal of bidding is to locate an 8-fit in a major
suit. Thus
> >> >> > >> I can see no value in shortness in the majors.
>
> >> >> > >Amend that to "little" or "significantly less" value and I
agree with
> >> >> > >you.
>
> >> >> > >> 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.
>
> >> >> > >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.
> >> >> > >When teaching bridge to beginners, which is my main concern
here, I don't worrry about freak deals,
>
> >> >> > such as your 1-1-6-5 hand above. 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.
>
> >> >> > Stig.
>
> >> >> > >But in more normal cases, counting for major suit shortness
seems
> >> >> > >dubious. With borderline opening values like this: x, Kxx,
Kxxx, AJxxx
> >> >> > >game potential is relatively low and there will be rebid
problems--I
> >> >> > >would pass. Change the hand to this: AJxxx, Kxxx, Kxx, x and
its an
> >> >> > >automatic opener. You could represent that difference by
counting for
> >> >> > >the singleton in the second example but not in the first.
>
> >> >> > >However, I am not sure how to formulate when to count/not count
as a
> >> >> > >clear rule for students. Another way to describe a rule for
students
> >> >> > >is to set different thresholds for opening in a minor or a
major. For
> >> >> > >example, perhaps a major suit can be opened when the combined
HCP and
> >> >> > >DP is 13+, while a minor suit opening requires either an HCP of
13+
> >> >> > >HCP or a combined HCP + DP of 15+.
>
> >> >> > >Andrew
>
> >> >> After a diamond fit is revealed Goren would reevaluate opener to
17,
> >> >> and responder to 9. Yet it is almost a claimer for 5D with *more
than
> >> >> half the tricks won by x's*(normally requiring 28-9 combined Goren
> >> >> points for a ~50% play). What is a distributional count supposed
to
> >> >> do if not help you estimate what your x's are worth in trick
taking
> >> >> potential. The reason this hand is only worth 1/3 of its weight
in
> >> >> distribution points before any others have bid is that you
normally
> >> >> don't buy such a fine fit; you will only be able to take 3-4
tricks
> >> >> with x's instead of 6. But if you take 3 tricks with high cards
and 4
> >> >> tricks with x's, how much of your count should be reckoned as
> >> >> distributional?
> >> >> Yet you may end up defending with a shaky 2 QT, and partner may
never
> >> >> stop bidding majors, so the original count [estimate of value] has
> >> >> some built in conservatism, not excessive exuberance like you
would
> >> >> represent it.
>
> >> >> You hold S:AKQJT98765432. Perhaps you judge your suit is self
> >> >> sufficient in advance, so you get 10 HCP, 9 DP (3 voids), and 17
LP (1
> >> >> for 5th, 2 each for other 8) using Goren's count. Much more than
> >> >> Roth, n'est-ce-pas?. Do the 70% distributional points seem like
too
> >> >> many?
>
> >> >> == Bill Shutts
>
> >> >For the record, RP points are getting to the right estimation even
> >> >with this hand: AKQJT98765432 = 3+2+1+ ( 0.5 unnecessary) + 3 voids
or
> >> >9 points + 9 additional points for obviously working voids = 6.5 +
18
> >> >= 24.5 RP's or 13 tricks ( 24 RP's are enough for 13 tricks). It is
> >> >just amazing how a simple hand evaluation method can have a good
> >> >estimation on so many hands and yet not recognized.
>
> >> >Boris
>
> >> So the Roth method helps you when you don't need help. Big deal.
Maybe
> >> it also helps with other highly distributional hands since it counts
> >> point for shortness.
>
> >> But how does it help with balance hands, which make up 46.7 % of all
> >> hand patterns? Wher does it give you the needed 14 points? E.g. take
a
> >> 4-3-3-3 hand with thee Aces or a 5-3-3-2 hand with AK in one suit and
> >> A in a second suit. Where do you find 14 pts?
>
> >> I teach beginners to add HCP + QT +LP for a total point count and if
> >> it ccomes to 15 they have an opener. It works for every hand I can
> >> imagine. Is my imagination missing something?
>
> >> Stig
>
> >It looks like I will have to rename those once again in RiP points,
> >since no one seems to be interested really:-)
>
> >Boris
>
> I thought this post was about Roth point cont not Richert or whatever
> his name is. I've never heard of him. Stich to the subjedt at hand.
>
> Stig
:-) Tought the subject was hand evaluation. I was wrong, sorry:-)
Boris
|
