On Sat, 3 May 2008 22:49:56 -0700 (PDT), 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).
>
>Henrysun909
I'll make one last effort to demonstrate the absudity of Rubens claim
that quick trick passed out of existence in the 1940s.
Read 'Winning Contract Bridge Complete' by E.Kaplan (1964) and look at
p.168-170. Here he tells you about the value of the quick trick table
and gives specific examples of when itmakes a difference in bidding.
He writes: The point count, even when corrected for distribution, does
not take into acount all the features which make a hand valuable.
Quick tricks are particularly im****tant when deciding to open the
bidding. I myself rarely open with less than 2 quick tricks , and the
certainly not with only 13 points.
He also states he would open a hand with just three Aces.He writes:
Be reluctant to open with fewer than 2 quick tricks, do so only wit 14
points or more, and even then do not bebsurprised if you get a poor
result.
The go to "5 Weeks to winning Bridge" by A. Sheiwold( 1959) and start
reading on p.9-14. He starts by saying: Wne making a strong bid you
should always guarantee a reasonable number of Aces and Kings.
A convenient way to count your values in Aces and Kings is in th Quick
Trick Table..... A normal opening bid promises at least 2 Quick
tricks" He the gives various examples of how to use the table.
I hope this will cur your ignorance and do***ent that of Rubens.
I don't find your name in the ACBL Encylopedia so I guess you never
won any national or higher level game. Nor did I,but at least I can
read and apply what the old masters wrote and help students to play
good bridge. A.Grant is a writer with no playing credentials.
Don't twist yourself into a pretzel to justify and excuse what Rubens
wrote. Don't become a mental contortionist. You'l get a warped mind.
Stig Holmquist
|
