henrysun909@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On May 3, 9:43 pm, Chris <chriswigg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On May 1, 7:35 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
>> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> It an interesting thing to recall that in the 1958 edition of 'Bridge
> is a Partner****p Game,' there are so-called Roth-Stone-isms (around a
> couple dozen, if I remember it right) where in the R-S experience
> point count did not apply. One of them that I remember went along the
> lines, if you have a 5-5 two suiter and partner has 4 cards in one of
> your 5-baggers, you should assume he has at most a doubleton in your
> second suit.
>
> I never ran a simulation on this, but my experience is that for the
> most part, Roth and Stone were right on the money on this, aside from
> the occasional 4333 opp 5521 shapes that we all run into from time to
> time.
>
> I remember having a copy of those few pages some years ago but then
> losing them in the mists of time.
>
> If someone has them, it might be worthwhile just to post the 'isms'
> without any expanding text or examples (that way, Matt Granovetter
> won't be able to go after someone for copyright infringement rofl).
>
I've never given this much thought, but since my partner and I play
Capelletti, I well know the effect when partner overcalls 2C, which show
a single-suited hand (six cards or more). I usually have only to look
to my singleton. Once I held a void in diamonds and was put through an
inquisition by lefty, whose annoyance seemed to center on the fact that
the only way to discover the suit was to bid 2 diamonds/ On further
probing I admitted that I could take an dedicated guess by looking at my
hand, but I was under no obligation to reveal my hand. Disgruntled, he
passed, then I passed and the fireworks began.
Just once i though they had bid to game in my partner's suit -- we've
done it twice against similar methods and of course it turned out we had
a ten-card fit!
Bob
|
