On Sun, 4 May 2008 05:26:28 -0700 (PDT), henrysun909@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>On May 4, 4:03 am, Stig Holmquist <stigfjor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 May 2008 18:31:57 -0700 (PDT), Andrew <agump...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >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
>>
>> Since you have read the BW account of the Roth metod you must have
>> noticed the absurd statements made about quick tricks.
>>
>> Rubens claims quick tricks were abandined in the late 1940. That is
>> when Ch.Goren introduced quick tricks, which he adopted from
>> Culbertson's honor trick, which thus became obsolete. Rubens evidently
>> does not know basic terminology and seems to have rejected quick
>> tricks because they invole half point values. Perhaps Rubens should
>> take a clue from Mike Lawrence, who together with A.Medley have
>> rewised "Idiot's Guid ti Bridge". In it one will find that quick
>> tricks are alive and well on p.31-32, whick features a full table of
>> them with the statement: "A general rule of thumb is to consider
>> opening a hand if it contains three quick tricks, even though it might
>> not meet the other requirements for an opening bid.".
>>
>> Stig
>
>Having rather more faith in the Roth-Rubens' ability to recount bridge
>history than in Stig's ability to re****t what they are saying, I went
>to the BW website to read the snippet written by Roth and Rubens.
>Sure enough, here is what they wrote:
>
>One possible method for evaluating hands is to count the number of
>sure (or "quick") tricks. For example, an ace would count as one
>trick, a holding of ace-king in the same suit as two tricks, a holding
>of king-three as one-half trick (half the time the finesse will win
>and you will score one trick; half the time the finesse will lose and
>you will get nothing), and so forth. This method was used extensively
>in the 1930s and 1940s, but it passed out of existence because using
>fractions is both difficult and unpleasant.
>
Goren had no problem teaching quick tricks, which includes 0.5
points.
Also, you should have gone back to their original book. On p.13 in a
foot note they state: "Experience has shown that 10 HCP will usually
produce at least two defensive tricks. We are therefore simplifying
this traditional requirement by expressing it entirely in terms of
HCP."
No doubt they based their opinion on a very limited survey of 10 HCP
hands. Martin Ambuhl posted a complete table of stats for 10million
deals in which he counted the QT frequencies for every HCP level.
In short, h found 52.5% of all such hands had 2 or 2.5 QT, and thus
47.5 lacked it. For 11 HCP the result was that 27.2 % lacked two or
more QT and for 12 HCP it showed that 13 % lacked two or more QT.
Thus I conclude that dismissing QT is not justified by the facts.
Stig
> In the late 1940s, the quick-trick method was replaced by a far
>simpler and more accurate method: point-count. Under this technique,
>hands are evaluated by assigning points to various holdings. More
>points are assigned to more valuable possessions, and the total number
>of points gives an indication of the strength of the hand.
>
>************
>
>Note that this re****t is right, and Stig's re****t of it is wrong, when
>Roth and Rubens claim that the use of quick tricks as a method of
>evaluating hands was in fact "extensively used in the 1930s and 1940s"
>where it operated as part of Culbertson's methods. (We can quibble
>about whether they should have used honor tricks or quick tricks but
>for the most part the honor tricks table and the quick tricks table
>are the same. To this extent one could concede that Stig has a point
>and that Roth-Rubens should have used honor tricks to be clear. I
>suspect that this 'confusion' back in 1968 reflects the fact that
>Goren's quick tricks = Culbertson's honor tricks and that the term
>'honor tricks' was even then virtually out of existence and, and that
>in order not to confuse people who didn't know the difference anyway,
>Roth-Rubens used a term of convenience that was not 100%
>scientifically correct. They would not be the first nor will they be
>the last to take this shortcut.)
>
>Roth and Rubens are also entirely correct when they say that the use
>of honor tricks as a means of evaluating hands was replaced in the
>1940's by the Milton Work HCP scale. The snippet actually goes on to
>state that hand evalution was the combination of HCPs and shortness
>points (3-2-1) which is also true. Whether one adds points for length
>or for shortness, the basic reality of adding points for distribution
>is to reflect the basic truth that the more unbalanced the hand, the
>stronger it is offensively. 5431 hands (2 shortness points) will
>usually play better (= take more tricks) than a 4432 hand (1 shortness
>point). Or, put another way,
>
>AKxxxxx
>QJxxxx
>VOID
>VOID
>
>is likely to be a more appealing '10 point hand' than
>
>AKx
>QJx
>xxx
>xxxx
>
>Good heavens, Stig, you've made clear your point that the old masters
>like Goren et al, who use quick tricks as part of their hand
>evaluation are right and that those, like Roth and Rubens, who do not
>use it or discount it, are wrong. Are you really going to go through
>EVERY beginning bridge book and complain that it doesn't use quick
>tricks?
>
>Henrysun909
|
