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

On May 1, 7:35=A0am, 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 =A0point 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 =A0of 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 =A0

I have used the Roth Point count for several years.  As time has gone
on, I've added other valuation methods to supplement it: the losing
trick count, cover cards from Rosenkranz, and Lawrence-Wirgen's short
suit total and working points.  I will also try hand visualization:
generating two or three hands based on what you know about partner's
hands.

I heartily agree with the comment below that hand valuation techniques
must be simple enough to use at the table.  As with all other human
activities, a range of capabilities exist.  Some persons can use very
complex techniques with fractional valuations.  Most can't.

Also, "judgment" seems to be the refuge of lazy persons.  Many times
I've heard persons say they are using "judgment" when what they were
really saying was that they hadn't used quantitative valuations and
guides, many of which would indicate that their judgment was off.

I would add the following corrections to the others already mentioned.

Insofar that the Roth Point count encourages opening light, shapely
hands, that would seem to be a direct antecedent of "Rule of 20"
openings which are standard in my neck of the woods.

The footnote on page 13 does not say that 10 HCP assures 2 quick
tricks.  It says "Experience has shown that 10 HCP will usually
produce at least two defensive tricks."

Roth Rubens tell you that the Roth Point count is not sacrosance.  In
the chapter titled "When Not to Count Roth Points," they say "[I]t is
only fitting that we conclude this book with a discussion of when not
to count your Roth Points.   There are certain times when you can
decide the proper action simply on the basis of logical inference, and
counting your points will confuse the issue."

In short, if someone is going to use only one (simple) valuation
technique, I've felt comfortable teaching them the Roth Point count.
Encouraging light openings with shape and requiring opener and
responder to adjust the value of their hands as the auction develops
are good things from my point of view.