On May 3, 3:32 am, Stig Holmquist <stigfjor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:53:00 -0700 (PDT), Andrew <agump...@[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
On May 3, 3:32 am, Stig Holmquist <stigfjor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:53:00 -0700 (PDT), Andrew <agump...@[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
Thank you for the link. I did read it.
My primary point is that mining the past for hand evaluations
techniques will not find truly accurate evaluation methods. There is
little doubt that Thomas Andrews, Tysen Streib, Alex Martelli and
others who have worked with statistical analysis of large data sets
have discovered a few things that writers who did not have access to
their data did not emphasize.
This is not to say the Roth count is a bad method, It is a good method
and much better than many. Even compared to methods developed post
double-dummy analysis it is a good method for suit evaluation. But it
isn't perfect.
1. The base point values assigned by the Roth count (4-3-2-1) to honor
cards are weighted incorrectly for suit purposes. An ace is worth
approximately 3 queens, not two queens. A king is worth approximately
4 jacks, not 3 jacks. (Note that these are blind valuations and should
be downgraded when the honors are in short suits and upgraded when
honors--particularly secondary honors--are in suits bid by partner)
2. The distribution point values assigned are slightly conservative.
3. The Roth method does not acknowledge that valuation in NT and suits
are fundamentally different beasts. NT valuation requires a different
point count scale for honors (4-3-2-1 is pretty good for NT) and
counts little for distribution.
As Stig has pointed out in the past, evaluation techniques proposed by
Tysen and others are complex and almost unworkable at the table--
certainly they are not for players with a casual interest. It is messy
to be accurate.
Andrew
|
