What's wrong with the Roth point count?
Stig Holmquist
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
Histriadogsilver
In my opinion, in the future only a point count method capable of
recognizing that a specific hand can suddenly grow from a relatively
weak hand to a big hand will be taken in consideration by serious
players.
Boris
paul...@infi.net
No, haven't used it, but I did read the book some years ago.
Obviously, this method is more aggressive at counting distribution --
Goren adds long suit points after a fit is found, Roth adds it in
advance. Opening light, shapely hands will get you to light, shapely
games, but makes your range uncomfortably wide when no fit is found,
and makes it harder for partner to judge when to penalize the
opponents. This latter objection can be partly offset by requiring ome
defensive strength (2 Quick Tricks or such) for a minimum opener.
Notice that, playing five card majors, partner already has the
information that you have a five card suit when you open 1H or 1S. If
you like opening majors aggressively, consider a forcing club system,
which make it easy to open light. I've played a style where we opened
most 9 hcp hands with a 5 card major, but I found the mental
adjustments this required wore me out. Currently I open most 11 hcp
hands when playing a forcing club. If either of us forgets overbids,
it isn't by much.
Otis Bricker
news:dq9j14pkh249j8vr0...@4ax.com:
I always preferred the KS method, at least that was where I first rememeber
seeing it, of counting long suit points (6=1 or 7=2) and valuing short
suits for less( 0 for doubleton, 1 for singleton, 2 for void) UNTIL a fit
was found. At that point the values increased to 1,3,5.
Otis
henry...@yahoo.com
At the risk of adding fuel to Stig's ongoing diatribe against anything
related to hand evaluation that does not include quick tricks, I will
note that Modern Bridge Bidding Complete was one of the first books I
read after 5 Weeks To Winning Bridge. My level of bridge expertise at
that level can be demonstrated by the laughs I got at the 40/8
duplicate when I took a backwards finesse by leading the A from the AQ
in my hand towards dummy's Jxxx in a game contract where we had 36
points between us. (We were using weak2s, but I hadn't yet learned
how to handle balanced 26 counts, so I opened 2nt and my father raised
me to 3mt with his 10 count)
I didn't understand much of MBBC at that time, but I went back to it
from time to time as I got more experience at the game.
For the most part, I found the initial evaluation techniques to be
sound, over the years. 6 card majors of any quality are worth extras
because of the greatly enhanced chance of an 8 card major suit fit,
and the length will go far to eviserating lack of strength because of
the length, so that
xx
opposite
J9xxxx
is still a likely 3 loser trump suit only.
the additional requirement of 2 of the top 3 honors for adding minor
suit length is also a good one because of the likelihood that such
hands are going to play in 3nt. (One small correction I'd make is
that if AQxxxx = 1 extra point, then surely Axxxxxx should be worth 1
extra point as well as Kx opposite either holding gives you a chance
to run the suit).
The irony of the book is that it labels opening bids (14+ total points
plus at least 10 HCPs) hands that Roth would never in a million years
have opened, e.g.
Jxxxxx
Qxx
VOID
AKxx
10 hcps + 1 length point + 3 shortness points.
As an aside, I recommend Jon Drabble's book on hand evaluation and the
MIDMAC system. Of all the hand evaluation things I've read, his
strikes me as being both the easiest to use and the most accurate
overall, nothwithstanding some hands which strike me as double dummy
bidding, e.g., when he manages to stay in 1nt with
Qxxx
Axx
Kxx
xxx
opposite
x
KQxx
AQxx
AQxx
on the sequence 1c 1s 1nt (showing a minimum [!] opening bid due to
the severe reduction caused by the singleton in responder's suit).
Still, his system ideas are interesting and his hand evaluation
discussion is excellent.
By the way, he substitutes controls for quick tricks. I hope that's
not too much of a problem for you Stig, rofl.
Henrysun909
OldPalooka
I had that auction last night [playing ks'ish methods]. I agree with
responder's pass at matchpoints. Unforunately the opps led a heart
from 3, flew with the K from KX when I led a small club from hand at
trick 2, and then on the run of hearts [quite reasonably] decided I
did not hold 4 diamonds. Making 4 for darn few points.... Oh is that
MY alarm clock.
== Bill Shutts
henry...@yahoo.com
I had that auction last night [playing ks'ish methods]. I agree with
responder's pass at matchpoints. Unforunately the opps led a heart
from 3, flew with the K from KX when I led a small club from hand at
trick 2, and then on the run of hearts [quite reasonably] decided I
did not hold 4 diamonds. Making 4 for darn few points.... Oh is that
MY alarm clock.
== Bill Shutts
******************
Cleverly, Drabble's MIDMAC system admits of no natural 1nt opening bid
(it shows a hand worth at least an Acol 2-bid; 2c is the negative,
after which 2d = GF and 2H+ = one trick less than a GF hand), and the
1c opening bid is artificial, promising at least 1 four card major.
So the sequence in MIDMAC (1c 1s 1nt) shows a minimum hand with 4
hearts and no 5m, therefore either balanced or 1=4=4=4.
The issue for me isn't responder's pass, which if clear in a KS/weak
1nt context must be obvious when opener shows a minimum. The issue is
the super severe downgrade of opener's 17 count to a minimum opening
bid.
That's what strikes me as double dummy bidding.
Henrysun909
Stig Holmquist
One reason for calling attention to the Roth count is its use of
shortness points. In "Bridge for Dummies" Eddie Kantar says:
'Some bridge players fall in love with singletons and voids. They love
them so much that they count extra points for them right off the bat.
Do everything you can to avoid becomming one of these players. They
are a tragedy waiting to happen because they fail to appreciate that a
short suit is good only when you have support for partner's suit"
Who here is willing to argue with Kantar?
Roth also states in a footnote that 10 HCP assures 2 quick tricks,
which is far from correct, as has been demonstrated at r.g.b.
Stig
StevieTee
Has anyone on RGB given any thought to publishing a book entitled,
"The Many and Varied Topics That Are Of Interest To Stig Holmquist"?
Hmmm, I didn't think so.....
Steve Sun
Stig Holmquist
wrote:
Has anyone here thought of publishing a collection of stupid comments
by Sevie Tee?
Stig
Kevin Podsiadlik
wrote:
Actually, if you continue on to the second half of Roth's book, he
does go into quite a fair amount of detail about promoting and
demoting holdings based on how the bidding proceeds.
One should also note that the book more than compensates for the
effective double-counting of distribution by declaring 14 "Roth
points" as the threshold for a (first or second seat) opening bid.
Andrew
The same things that are wrong with all the antiquated point count
methods you have brought up here:
1. The HCP values used are inaccurate
2. The system pretends that high cards have the same value in suits
and in no trumps
3. The distributional values used are inaccurate
4. The system pretends that length in any suit is of equal value, when
major suit length is worth more than minor suit length
All that being said, its a reasonable way to teach beginners, which is
all it was ever intended to be.
Andrew
Martin Ambuhl
telling objections to the Roth-Rubens point-count.
I have objections of two kinds to the R-R method:
1) The general assumption that the right kind of evaluation method can
solve all bidding questions, and
2) Many details about evaluation in various situations leading to
misleading over- and under-valuations.
Still, I must respond to the points Andrew raises, since they seem
almost completely wrong-headed. And it is worth keeping in mind that
this technique is designed for learners who, among other things, are not
keeping a calculator on the table.
> The same things that are wrong with all the antiquated point count
> methods you have brought up here:
>
> 1. The HCP values used are inaccurate
Accuracy of HCP values is never right for any method that attempts to
reduce valuation to a single number (or several numbers, depending on
the strains chosen). However, the R-R approach does not simply evaluate
honors on a 4-3-2-1 basis. It provides for honors in combination in
long suits which are weak, good, reliable, or self-sufficient. It
provides for the undervaluation of Aces by promoting for 4 aces and
demoting, for opening bids, no aces. It properly demotes short suit
holdings such as K, Q, J, KQ, KJ, Qx, Jx for suit bidding.
> 2. The system pretends that high cards have the same value in suits
> and in no trumps
This is not true. The different treatment of honors in short suits and
of honor combinations in suits of 5+ cards shows that no such pretense
in to be found.
> 3. The distributional values used are inaccurate
Without offering a useful and usable alternative this statement is less
than helpful. In fact, all methods leading to a simple integer value
for distributional values in a particular strain _must_ be inaccurate.
But it is unlikely that any "accurate" method (a chimera, to be sure)
will not be more complex than the R-R one, and it is sufficiently
complex to overwhelm many of the people in the target audience for this
book.
> 4. The system pretends that length in any suit is of equal value, when
> major suit length is worth more than minor suit length
This is wrong in many ways. First, your claim about relative values:
1) For the purposes of playing in NT, there is no difference between
minor and major length
2) In most cases, for the purposes of playing in a major, major length
is more useful than minor length; for the purposes of playing in a
minor, minor length is more useful.
But the R-R method _does_ distinguish between major and minor length.
1) For the purposes of opening the bidding, minor suit length to be
counted must be in stronger suits than is required for major suits.
2) In many sequences, the revaluation depends on having found a playble
8+ card fit. Auctions for which major suit 8-card fits are known are
much more common than auctions for which minor suit 8-card fits are
known. That means that minor length is discounted much more often.
> All that being said, its a reasonable way to teach beginners, which is
> all it was ever intended to be.
All that being said, the method is too complicated to teach beginners,
overstates the value of the method in solving the problems of bidders,
and has many details in which it leads to misleading evaluations. It
is better suited to awaking advancing players to the kinds of
adjustments which the auction and particular holdings call for. Having
been awakened, those players should have sufficient experience to make
adjustments that seem to them more appropriate.
Histriadogsilver
Re-evaluation is where things fall apart. There is no aggressive hand
evaluation that can cope with huge negative adjustments, fortunately
this happens rarely and much more often being aggressive pays off in a
way of reaching distributional games and slams.
http://dna-view.com/reese.htm
Terence Reese had a way of writing things here and there that seem to
have stuck in our various memories – apparently again and again the
same quotes seem memorable to each of us: "It is in general not a good
policy to double the opponents before having bid the limit of our own
cards."
Cheers
Boris
Stig Holmquist
wrote:
Yes, you focused on the most glaring shortcoming of short suit counts.
The primary goal of bidding is to locate an 8-fit in a mjor suit. Thus
I can see no value in shortness in the majors. 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.
Stig
henry...@yahoo.com
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.
****************
I can't believe I just read this.
Do you mean to say that this 9 point hand
xxx
xxx
VOID
AKQxxxx
is worth less than this 12 point hand
QJx
QJx
QJx
QJxx
because the former has only 9 points but the latter has 12?
Roth, Rubens, and others may have their micro-calibrators misaligned,
but assuming that quality length counts for nothing is just plain
dopey.
Henrysun909
gea...@anz.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Publish them together on the back of a postage stamp, methinks ...
Bob Lipton
> On May 1, 1:35 pm, Stig Holmquist <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> 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
>
> Re-evaluation is where things fall apart. There is no aggressive hand
> evaluation that can cope with huge negative adjustments, fortunately
> this happens rarely and much more often being aggressive pays off in a
> way of reaching distributional games and slams.
I
I sort of disagree with this statement. If you mean that people rarely
revise their hands downward in the light of the bidding, I agree. If
you mean they rarely have the opportunity, I strongly disagree.
I can't count the number of times I have seen righty deal and with, say,
- AJTxxx x AQxxxx open a heart, thinking that if only partner has a bit
of a fit, he may be in a slam. He has a four-loser hand, after all and
if it weren't a 2-suiter, could be opened 2C, but he's a sound player.
So he opens 1 Heart and what happens next?
Partner holds something like AJTxxx - KQ9xxx x and is very happy. he
has a 4-loser hand too, which means that he is mere inches from a grand
slam. Does it occur to him that partner has promised at least five
hearts and that, therefore, about five of partner's putative points
will be worthless to him? -- I should note that altough he would open
this hand light in first seat and expects his partner to open light,
somehow, when partner opens, he never visualizes a hand like this. He
sees, in his mind's eye, KQxx 65432 AJx Ax. So, in order to give
partner a chance to show his magnificent spade support, and because they
aren't playing a variation that forces him to bid 1NT with a spade suit,
he bids a nice, moderate 1 Spade. Perhaps his next call will be 4NT,
asking for aces -- might want to be in 7NT after all -- and perhaps it
will be a shocking 6 Clubs.
Now opener is happy. Partner has enough to respond -- it never, like
Mr. Smug, occurs to him to visualize a void until he sees it -- Instead,
he is busy stuffing useful honors into partner's hand and tryjing to
figure out whether to bid 2 clubs or three clubs. Eventually he decides
to bid 2 clubs, since it allows him to show his powerful shape. True,
partner will not hold 4 hearts, most likely, but he might hold KJX Or
four clubs! Or even five! It's clear he must hold a lot of points:
the opponents haven't said anything but pass. The old farts.
Now responder comes back into the picture. Opener has shown where nine
of his thirteen -- or, on RGB, 14 -- cards are. This leave a shortage
of cards in his suits, but he remains hopeful. He doesn't do anything
foolish like start devaluing his hand -- a nice invitational 2 Spades
wouldn't be right. Instead he has to choose between 2 and 3 diamonds.
And since 2 diamonds would be FSF, he chooses 3 diamonds.
Let us return to opener. He is starting to get worried, but consoles
himself: partner is about to bid the three-card support in whichever of
opener's suit he has -- a nice, lively hand. Should he bid blackwood
and try for the slam or be conservative? No matter: he has an easy bid
of 3 hearts.
Now responder is starting to get worried. Eventually, they make their
way to a nice, conservative contract of 3NT -- there's a bit of a
misfit, but things will turn out ok.
At least until the old idiot to the 3NT caller's right doubles. And you
start rescuing each other to the sounds of endless doubles. Or you
don't. Anyway, you drift down a comfortable 1100, -- somehow partner
didn't respect your takeout of his club takeout and so you wound up in
5Dx, and you could have been -500, but the hook didn't work and neither
did the endplay -- dummy was squeezed -- and comfort yourself with the
sage observation that it's just another 0.
Now, all of these problems could be solved by simply revaling your hand
downward when you begin to catch sight of a misfit -- but somehow, you
never do. Which is why I disagree with you somewhat.
Bob
Bill Jacobs
> Forty years ago two oustanding bridge players, Alvin Roth and Jeff
I haven't. In fact I've never graduated beyond 4 for an ace etc.
From the system cards I've seen of world champion players, they do the
same. Essentially, count the high-card points and then make the necessary
adjustments intuitively based on their experience.
Essentially, I think most top players have a mental qualitative equivalent
of Kaplan's computer count and use it to judge their hand.
I've never talked to an expert player who has said: "I had 17 ZAR points"
or "you have 15 Roth points". They say: "that's a crap 12 count and you
should just bid 2S", or "nice 8 count - I'd splinter".
Cheers ... Bill
Histriadogsilver
I have never said that, you just find yourself in a 6-2 fit and your
partner, that holds only two trumps, is holding also a side singleton.
You are in a misfit, you don't hold a superfit and your opponent has
found the winning trump lead. Fortunately your partner devaluates his
hand in time but despite everything since your partner has minimum
values you are two off vulnerable. This does not happen very often but
it does happen, no matter how good your and your partner's hand
evaluation method is you will find nothing but a misfit in partner's
hand.
Cheers
Boris
raija d
"Bill Jacobs" <bill....@quest.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A9270AE6B2D7b...@210.8.230.24...
Voice of reason from Bill. Thank you.
Andrew
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 14:49:25 -0700 (PDT), Andrew <agump...@gmail.com>
> I can see no value in shortness in the majors.
Amend that to "little" or "significantly less" value and I agree with
you.
> 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.
Never counting for major suit shortness distribution would be too
much. For example as opener suppose you hold: x, x, AQxxxx, KJxxx. A
minor game is cold opposite a dull 7-count: xxx, xxxx, Kxxx, Ax. So
the distribution clearly should be counted.
But in more normal cases, counting for major suit shortness seems
dubious. With borderline opening values like this: x, Kxx, Kxxx, AJxxx
game potential is relatively low and there will be rebid problems--I
would pass. Change the hand to this: AJxxx, Kxxx, Kxx, x and its an
automatic opener. You could represent that difference by counting for
the singleton in the second example but not in the first.
However, I am not sure how to formulate when to count/not count as a
clear rule for students. Another way to describe a rule for students
is to set different thresholds for opening in a minor or a major. For
example, perhaps a major suit can be opened when the combined HCP and
DP is 13+, while a minor suit opening requires either an HCP of 13+
HCP or a combined HCP + DP of 15+.
Andrew
Andrew
> On Thu, 01 May 2008 07:35:30 -0400, Stig Holmquist
>
>
>
> <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> 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
>
> One reason for calling attention to the Roth count is its use of
> shortness points. In "Bridge for Dummies" Eddie Kantar says:
>
> 'Some bridge players fall in love with singletons and voids. They love
> them so much that they count extra points for them right off the bat.
> are a tragedy waiting to happen because they fail to appreciate that a
> short suit is good only when you have support for partner's suit"
>
> Who here is willing to argue with Kantar?
Tysen Streib would and so would Anders Wirgren. Take a look at his
website: http://www.newbridgelaw.com/
Andrew
> Andrew <agump...@gmail.com> presented what he apparently thinks are
> telling objections to the Roth-Rubens point-count.
Although Martin what he apparently thinks is humor and charm, I will
respond to Martin's factual arguments rather than his tone.
> I have objections of two kinds to the R-R method:
> 1) The general assumption that the right kind of evaluation method can
> solve all bidding questions, and
> 2) Many details about evaluation in various situations leading to
> misleading over- and under-valuations.
>
> Still, I must respond to the points Andrew raises, since they seem
> almost completely wrong-headed. And it is worth keeping in mind that
> this technique is designed for learners who, among other things, are not
> keeping a calculator on the table.
>
> > The same things that are wrong with all the antiquated point count
> > methods you have brought up here:
>
> > 1. The HCP values used are inaccurate
>
> Accuracy of HCP values is never right for any method that attempts to
> reduce valuation to a single number (or several numbers,
Undeniably true. But some numbers are a better approximation than
others.
> depending on
> the strains chosen). However, the R-R approach does not simply evaluate
> honors on a 4-3-2-1 basis. It provides for honors in combination in
> long suits which are weak, good, reliable, or self-sufficient. It
> provides for the undervaluation of Aces by promoting for 4 aces and
> demoting, for opening bids, no aces. It properly demotes short suit
> holdings such as K, Q, J, KQ, KJ, Qx, Jx for suit bidding.
Downward adjustment for honors in short suits was a valuable
contribution to hand evaluation theory. However, it is irrelevant to
the criticism I leveled.
My claim is that 4-3-2-1 point values are not the best blind estimates
of the values of high cards for suit play. 4.5, 3, 1.5 and .75 are
better. See Martelli or Andrews for detailed explanations.
http://bridge.thomasoandrews.com/valuations/
> > 2. The system pretends that high cards have the same value in suits
> > and in no trumps
>
> This is not true. The different treatment of honors in short suits and
> of honor combinations in suits of 5+ cards shows that no such pretense
> in to be found.
The treatment of honors in short suits is irrelevant to my point.
An ace is worth more when the final contract is a suit than in no
trump. Counting it as 4 for both purposes is a mistake. More accurate
card values (using a 40-point total) are:
Card Suit No Trump
A 4.5 4
K 3 2.8
Q 1.5 1.8
J 0.75 1
T 0.25 0.4
See Thomas Andrews for details. In suit contracts, a 4-3-2-1 count
undervalues aces and overvalues queens and jacks. For no trump
contracts, standard methods are better. The primary mistake in NT
valuation being the failure to count anything for tens.
> > 3. The distributional values used are inaccurate
>
> Without offering a useful and usable alternative this statement is less
> than helpful.
How about this one 5-3-1 for void, singleton and doubleton? See Tysen
Streib.
> In fact, all methods leading to a simple integer value
> for distributional values in a particular strain _must_ be inaccurate.
Agreed.
> But it is unlikely that any "accurate" method (a chimera, to be sure)
> will not be more complex than the R-R one, and it is sufficiently
> complex to overwhelm many of the people in the target audience for this
> book.
I was too quick to criticize their distributional valuation. Their
method of counting for distribution 3-2-1 for shortness plus extra for
length points is reasonable and certainly represents an improvement
over counting only 3-2-1 for shortness. However counting 5-3-1 for
shortness is simpler and nearly as accurate.
> > 4. The system pretends that length in any suit is of equal value, when
> > major suit length is worth more than minor suit length
>
> This is wrong in many ways.
See Tysen Streib. http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.games.bridge/2005-09/msg00488.html
It is right in the most important way, that all other things being
equal, holding length in one or more major suits greatly increases
your chance of making a game. Contrast these two distributions:
Chance of game in any strain
2-2-5=4 (5-4 either way in the minors) 24%
5=4-2-2 (5-4 either way in the majors) 31%
So your chances of making a game is about 20% higher with both majors
than with both minors. Check Tysen's article for details.
> First, your claim about relative values:
> 1) For the purposes of playing in NT, there is no difference between
> minor and major length
I made no such claim.
> 2) In most cases, for the purposes of playing in a major, major length
> is more useful than minor length; for the purposes of playing in a
> minor, minor length is more useful.
Minor suits games require on average an extra king, or an extra short
suit trick than major suit games. Consequently, they occur far less
often.
> But the R-R method _does_ distinguish between major and minor length.
> 1) For the purposes of opening the bidding, minor suit length to be
> counted must be in stronger suits than is required for major suits.
Regardless of concentration of values or number of high card points or
anything else, opening with a major-suit-oriented shape will earn you
more points total points or IMPs than opening with a minor-suit
oriented shape.
> 2) In many sequences, the revaluation depends on having found a playable
> 8+ card fit. Auctions for which major suit 8-card fits are known are
> much more common than auctions for which minor suit 8-card fits are
> known. That means that minor length is discounted much more often.
I was discussing blind evaluation, not reevaluation after a fit is
found.
henry...@yahoo.com
Never counting for major suit shortness distribution would be too
much. For example as opener suppose you hold: x, x, AQxxxx, KJxxx. A
minor game is cold opposite a dull 7-count: xxx, xxxx, Kxxx, Ax. So
the distribution clearly should be counted.
*****************
Indisputably true (and I note that with those two hands the opponents
have a reasonable shot at making 4 of a major).
Perhaps the real answer to these distributional freaks (in which class
I include my
xxx
xxx
VOID
AKQxxxxx
9-count as posted previously)
is that quantifying value by an arthimatic formula is doomed to fail.
Which would of course come back to the axiom that the more balanced
the hand, the accurate any high card point count is going to be, and
the less balanced the hand, the more likely that one can throw point
count out the window (or at least not rely on it too heavily).
Henrysun909
Martin Ambuhl
> On May 1, 4:42 pm, Stig Holmquist <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 May 2008 14:49:25 -0700 (PDT), Andrew <agump...@gmail.com>
>> 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. No, the R-R count does
not include any value at all for the fifth card in either minor for
opening purposes and with a proven fit in a minor _one_ supported 5-card
minor can be promoted. Before giving your list of what's wrong with an
evaluation method, find out what it is first.
Andrew
> Andrew wrote:
> > On May 1, 4:42 pm, Stig Holmquist <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 1 May 2008 14:49:25 -0700 (PDT), Andrew <agump...@gmail.com>
> >> 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.
Stig Holmquist
wrote:
>When teaching bridge to beginners, which is my main concern here, I don't worrry about freak deals,
such as your 1-1-6-5 hand above. By freak deals I mean hands with less
than 1 per 10 000 frequecies. As a player of modest ability I would
probably apply the Bergen count of 20(22) to that hand and open 1D.
By std. ACBL valuation the hand is worth 13 points and is an opener.
By the Roth count is is worth 15 points, 10 HCP + 1 for length +2x2
for singletons and would seem to be fit for an opening bid. Thus 1/3
of the total point value is in distribution, which seems excessive.
Stig.
raija d
<gea...@anz.com> wrote in message
news:e1071e5d-a7cb-4425...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
LOL, good one.
henry...@yahoo.com
By freak deals I mean hands with less
than 1 per 10 000 frequecies. As a player of modest ability I would
probably apply the Bergen count of 20(22) to that hand and open 1D.
By std. ACBL valuation the hand is worth 13 points and is an opener.
By the Roth count is is worth 15 points, 10 HCP + 1 for length +2x2
for singletons and would seem to be fit for an opening bid. Thus 1/3
of the total point value is in distribution, which seems excessive.
************
Would you fail to open
AKJxxxxxx
xx
xx
VOID
because of its excessive distributional count (2 for the spades, 1
each for the doubletons, and 3 for the void = 7) and because it fails
to meet the Bergen rule of 20 (8 HCPs plus 9 spades plus a doubleton =
19)?
Is it so hard to understand that applying point count formulas to
freak hands is unproductive as a means of justifying which bids are or
are not opening bids?
Obviously, some might decide to open this hand with 4S, and that is
certainly not a wrong bid. Since a hand like
xx
AKJx
Axxx
xxx
might be enough for slam, some of us would consider a hand with 2
quick tricks and 2 first round controls to be too strong for a 4S
preempt and would open it 1S. (I would open it 1S, myself). Those
who use Namyats might consider this an excellent example of a 4d
opening bid showing a strong 4s preempt. I couldn't argue with that
either.
Of course, one might pass this hand (only 8 points, partner!) since it
could well be that a sound hand with long clubs cannot make game
anywhere:
VOID
KJx
KJx
AQTxxxx
with voids in both black suits and vulnerable tenaces in both red
suits, there is every possibility that no game makes at all.
Surely it cannot be this difficult to understand that the whole
enterprise of counting points with freaks is a waste of time.
Henrysun909
Martin Ambuhl
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.
Andrew
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
Martin Ambuhl
> 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.
Since you know nothing of the method you "criticize", there is no need
to respond to your vacuity. Had I the anti-gmail filters in this
newsgroup that I have in others, I would have never seen your ignorance
masquerading as knowledge. Nor would I have seen your whining that I
have not responded to your ignorant vacuity. Or your ad hominem attack,
of which you seem to be the master while falsely accusing others of it.
That can be fixed for you: *PLONK*
OldPalooka
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 18:30:36 -0700 (PDT), Andrew <agump...@gmail.com>
After a diamond fit is revealed Goren would reevaluate opener to 17,
and responder to 9. Yet it is almost a claimer for 5D with *more than
half the tricks won by x's*(normally requiring 28-9 combined Goren
points for a ~50% play). What is a distributional count supposed to
do if not help you estimate what your x's are worth in trick taking
potential. The reason this hand is only worth 1/3 of its weight in
distribution points before any others have bid is that you normally
don't buy such a fine fit; you will only be able to take 3-4 tricks
with x's instead of 6. But if you take 3 tricks with high cards and 4
tricks with x's, how much of your count should be reckoned as
distributional?
Yet you may end up defending with a shaky 2 QT, and partner may never
stop bidding majors, so the original count [estimate of value] has
some built in conservatism, not excessive exuberance like you would
represent it.
You hold S:AKQJT98765432. Perhaps you judge your suit is self
sufficient in advance, so you get 10 HCP, 9 DP (3 voids), and 17 LP (1
for 5th, 2 each for other 8) using Goren's count. Much more than
Roth, n'est-ce-pas?. Do the 70% distributional points seem like too
many?
== Bill Shutts
Stig Holmquist
wrote:
>On May 2, 12:12 pm, Martin Ambuhl <mamb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
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
Martin Ambuhl
>
> 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.
Unfortunately, that is only a very beginning of the Roth-Rubens point
count. It does not even address the full method with respect to opening
bids, and doesn't give any indication of the large changes that occur in
evaluation for responder and for rebids (chapter 4A: "The Heart of the
Matter" in the text). No, if you want to know what the Roth-Rubens
method is, find a copy of
Roth, Alvin and Jeff Rubens, _Modern Bridge Bidding Complete,
Introducing the Roth Point Count, with a Foreward by Edgar Kaplan_,
(Funk & Wagnalls, 1968). LoC 58-21644.
Histriadogsilver
For the record, RP points are getting to the right estimation even
with this hand: AKQJT98765432 = 3+2+1+ ( 0.5 unnecessary) + 3 voids or
9 points + 9 additional points for obviously working voids = 6.5 + 18
= 24.5 RP's or 13 tricks ( 24 RP's are enough for 13 tricks). It is
just amazing how a simple hand evaluation method can have a good
estimation on so many hands and yet not recognized.
Boris
Stig Holmquist
So the Roth method helps you when you don't need help. Big deal. Maybe
it also helps with other highly distributional hands since it counts
point for shortness.
But how does it help with balance hands, which make up 46.7 % of all
hand patterns? Wher does it give you the needed 14 points? E.g. take a
4-3-3-3 hand with thee Aces or a 5-3-3-2 hand with AK in one suit and
A in a second suit. Where do you find 14 pts?
I teach beginners to add HCP + QT +LP for a total point count and if
it ccomes to 15 they have an opener. It works for every hand I can
imagine. Is my imagination missing something?
Stig
Histriadogsilver
RP is not the Roth's method. And anyway in RP you need to have 3 aces
for the 4333 hand to be opened or 9 RP, 3 points for each ace or void
etc.etc.as already stated elsewhere, with 11-12 RP you have a hand of
approximately 15-17 hcps and so on. I am talking here of Richter's
Points not Roth's:-)
Cheers
R.Boris
Histriadogsilver
It looks like I will have to rename those once again in RiP points,
since no one seems to be interested really:-)
Boris
Stig Holmquist
I thought this post was about Roth point cont not Richert or whatever
his name is. I've never heard of him. Stich to the subjedt at hand.
Stig
Histriadogsilver
:-) Tought the subject was hand evaluation. I was wrong, sorry:-)
Boris
Andrew
> On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:53:00 -0700 (PDT), Andrew <agump...@gmail.com>
On May 3, 3:32 am, Stig Holmquist <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:53:00 -0700 (PDT), Andrew <agump...@gmail.com>
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
Chris
> 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.
henry...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
It an interesting thing to recall that in the 1958 edition of 'Bridge
is a Partnership 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
Martin Ambuhl
> It an interesting thing to recall that in the 1958 edition of 'Bridge
> is a Partnership 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.
This is part a of sub-Rothism #1 of Rothism #13:
1. When a trump fit has been established, the laws of probability are
affected as follows:
a. If you have a side suit of five cards or longer, your partner is
likely to have no more than two of that suit.
b. If you have a singleton or doubleton, your partner is likely to
have three or more cards in that suit.
> 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).
Granovetter's copyright applies only to the his forward and the "Modern
Roth" appendix to his 1989 edition. Luckily, it applies to nothing in
my 1st edition copy.
[My personal favorite is #4, which some RGBers seem to not know. Some
of these have multiple subsections and do not yield their sense in the
list below, #8, for example. And some RGBers seem to think #14 applies
to _every_ hand. "R-S doubles" in #16 are negative doubles.]
1. Plan your second bid before making your first bid.
2. Plan different bidding sequences for hands of different strengths.
3. Don't lie about your point count.
4. Third position is not forcing.
5. A passed hand must not temporize.
6. A plus score (or even a small minus score) in an apparently bad
contract is better than a minus score in the best spot.
7. If you do not want partner to pass, be sure to make a forcing bid.
8. Handle your passes with care.
9. Describe your hand with one bid, whenever possible.
10. Too many bids spoil the broth.
11. A no-trump bid directly following a no-trump bid is never Blackwood.
12. Don't be slam-happy.
13. Pay no attention to point count on some hands.
14, Some hands require one-sided action.
15. Freaks require special strategy in competition.
16. Keep the big hand on opening lead.
17. Take-out doubles (including R-S and responsive doubles) are meant
for take-out.
18. Don't sell out too cheaply.
19. Stay fixed.
20. Sacrifice prematurely or not at all.
21. Team of four is a four-man partnership.
22. Don't worry if you have your values.
StevieTee
>
> I teach beginners to add HCP + QT +LP for a total point count and if
> it ccomes to 15 they have an opener. It works for every hand I can
> imagine. Is my imagination missing something?
Yes. At a certain point, every attempt to reduce bridge down to a set
of rules and requirements is an exercise in futility. IMHO, players
who are taught strictly to rely on rules and formulas have a much more
difficult time learning to develop the feel and "table presence"
necessary to become anything more than mediocre players. From what I
have read in your postings, I believe that you are doing your bridge
students a tremendous disservice.
Steve Sun
Stig Holmquist
wrote:
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
Stig Holmquist
wrote:
>On May 3, 4:28 pm, Stig Holmquist <stigfjor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm doing them no more disservice than did Ch.Goren. I teach his way.
Stig
>Steve Sun
Bob Lipton
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
henry...@yahoo.com
> On Sat, 3 May 2008 18:31:57 -0700 (PDT), Andrew <agump...@gmail.com>
Having rather more faith in the Roth-Rubens' ability to recount bridge
history than in Stig's ability to report 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.
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 report is right, and Stig's report 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
henry...@yahoo.com
I teach beginners to add HCP + QT +LP for a total point count and if
it ccomes to 15 they have an opener. It works for every hand I can
imagine. Is my imagination missing something?
**************
That depends. Do you think this hand is an opening bid?
Axx
Axx
Axx
xxxx
Even in a precision context, Belladonna and Garozzo passed it in first
seat in a bidding competition.
How about this?
AKT9xxx
Qxx
xx
x
9 HCPs + 2 q
henry...@yahoo.com
stupid computer.....
teach beginners to add HCP + QT +LP for a total point count and if
it ccomes to 15 they have an opener. It works for every hand I can
imagine. Is my imagination missing something?
**************
That depends. Do you think this hand is an opening bid?
Axx
Axx
Axx
xxxx
Even in a precision context, Belladonna and Garozzo passed it in first
seat in a bidding competition.
How about this?
AKT9xxx
Qxx
xx
x
9 HCPs + 2 quick tricks + 3 length points (? 1 for the 6th card and 2
for the 7th card?) = only 14 total points.
Stig, I don't know if you subscribe to the Bridge World or any other
magazine, but before you continue looking like an ass with respect to
hand evaluation and quick tricks, at least read reports of what
experts are doing instead of criticizing books designed to simplify
things for beginners. At the very least, pick up the last couple years
Bermuda Bowl or Olympiad reports and start analyzing whether your '15
hcps+QT+length points = opening bid' formula accurately reflects what
the top international experts are doing (of course, I assume they are
doing something right.) Forget about the special systems like the one
played by Fantoni and Nunes, where 2-level opening bids show 10-13
hcps and 1-level opening bids show 14+, are unlimited, and hence are
forcing for one round.
I guarantee you that the reports will show that these experts are
opening at least 30% more hands than your 15 points formula would
allow.
If you want to be safe and conservative and only open such hands, and
if that is what you teach your students, well that's your business.
Teaching beginners to be safe and conservative is probably a
reasonable pedagogical standard.
But flaunting a more conservative standard in the light of current
expert practice isn't good pedagogy or bad. It just makes you look
like an ass.
Henrysun909
Stig Holmquist
Yes, I look at as many new books as a can get my hands on by
interlibrary loan. Most are not available. So I'm left with what is in
print as additional material for my students to read. One of the very
best was "The Bridge Student Text" by Baron and Stewart. It is now
under consederation for reprinting. I hope it will be done.
I don't aspire to teach future world champions but to help seniors
learn a new and challenging game to keep their minds active. Last fall
I taught eight seniors and they now play twice a week and are asking
for more classes. I'll then make a few modifications to what they know
I tell them an opening one bid guarantees 10 HCP plus two quick tricks
and in addition 3 points from extra HCP, long points and or quick
tricks for a total of 15 points. I've abandoned the Goren short suit
count and instead teach 1 point for each card over four in majors but
only in minors if the suit has 5 HCP.It may seem consevative, but
that's what novices need, since they have no sound judgment. It helps
them to bid makable contracts. It also keeps them from opening with
junk, such as QJx-QJx-KJxxx-QJ, which has 14 points.
If you have a better method stick with it. Goren taught maybe millions
of people to play good bridge and some became world class players.
Why argue with success?
Stig
>Henrysun909
henry...@yahoo.com
I tell them an opening one bid guarantees 10 HCP plus two quick tricks
and in addition 3 points from extra HCP, long points and or quick
tricks for a total of 15 points. I've abandoned the Goren short suit
count and instead teach 1 point for each card over four in majors but
only in minors if the suit has 5 HCP.It may seem consevative, but
that's what novices need, since they have no sound judgment. It helps
them to bid makable contracts. It also keeps them from opening with
junk, such as QJx-QJx-KJxxx-QJ, which has 14 points.
****************
An opening 1-bid guarantees 10 hcps? So this hand, opened by both
Meckwell and Zia in the 1981 Bermuda Bowl, is not an opening bid:
JTxxx
VOID
AQTxxxx
x
1 length point for every card over 4 in the majors, but no length
points unless the suit has 5 hcps in a minor? so
AKx
VOID
KJT
KJTxxxx
gets zero length points, but
xxxxx
xxxxx
VOID
AKx
gets 2? Does that seem even close to being intuitively right to you?
Well, good luck teaching your students - I actually mean that, there
is much good to be done in teaching people to enjoy a great game. If
they buy it, then good for them.
Just please don't publish your findings lest they be ripped apart by
someone as anti-Stig as you are anti-Audrey.
Henrysun909
raija d
"Stig Holmquist" <stigf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:616r1457s2ns3li8h...@4ax.com...
Ooooohhhh........
Histriadogsilver
When choosing between two evils, the one being right this time is
Hevil:-) Even though I can't think of a hand with 3 aces not worth an
opening bid.
Boris
Histriadogsilver
wrote:
But theoretically speaking Henry is right 100% :-(
:-)
Boris
Stig Holmquist
>On May 4, 5:32 am, henrysun...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>stupid computer.....
>
> teach beginners to add HCP + QT +LP for a total point count and if
>it ccomes to 15 they have an opener. It works for every hand I can
>imagine. Is my imagination missing something?
>
>**************
>
>That depends. Do you think this hand is an opening bid?
>
>Axx
>Axx
>Axx
>xxxx
>
I'll enter this hand in a simulator and decide if opening 1C would
result in a poor contract. On average partner will have 9 HCP and thus
the pair will have 21 HCP. Why not bid?
>Even in a precision context, Belladonna and Garozzo passed it in first
>seat in a bidding competition.
>
>How about this?
>
>AKT9xxx
>Qxx
>xx
>x
>
>9 HCPs + 2 quick tricks + 3 length points (? 1 for the 6th card and 2
>for the 7th card?) = only 14 total points.
>
>Stig, I don't know if you subscribe to the Bridge World or any other
>magazine, but before you continue looking like an ass with respect to
>hand evaluation and quick tricks, at least read reports of what
>experts are doing instead of criticizing books designed to simplify
>things for beginners. At the very least, pick up the last couple years
>Bermuda Bowl or Olympiad reports and start analyzing whether your '15
>hcps+QT+length points = opening bid' formula accurately reflects what
>the top international experts are doing (of course, I assume they are
>doing something right.) Forget about the special systems like the one
>played by Fantoni and Nunes, where 2-level opening bids show 10-13
>hcps and 1-level opening bids show 14+, are unlimited, and hence are
>forcing for one round.
>My students will never play in the Bermuda Bowl nor will I, so it matters none how world class players bid.
My students are only going to play rubber bridge in the near future
and they need a bidding method that yields makable contracts at least
75% of the time, or else they get discouraged if they fail too often.
Stig Holmquist
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
Bob Lipton
Doubtless Goren included Qxx opposite xxx or Jxxx opposite Queen or
higher doubleton or tripleton, which also occasionally produces a trick
basedon the location of the Ace and King. It should always be
remembered that all point count systems for evaluating hands for bidding
approximations.... otherwise there would be no point in playing out the
hand. Quick Tricks are approximations, after All. HAQxxxx looks like 1.5
trick on offense or defense..... until partner or righty opens 1H in
first seat.
But many evaluation systems have validity.... point count and quick
tricks and Klinger Loser Count and my own loser count among them. But
all of them are less accurate than building simple, median and extreme
constructs of the hands around the table as the bidding proceeds, at
which point you begin to understand constructive bidding.
Bob
OldPalooka
> 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.
[snip]
Perhaps between them in 1968, they simply had seen more ten counts
than you have in 2008. Perhaps they got a bit more out of their ten
HCP than you. And wasn't this note in reference to having adequate
defense in case partner had some tickets *and elected to penalize the
opponents*?
== Bill Shutts
henry...@yahoo.com
My students are only going to play rubber bridge in the near future
and they need a bidding method that yields makable contracts at least
75% of the time, or else they get discouraged if they fail too
often.
************
Then teach them that opening 1-bids require 14 hcps in 1st and second
seat and can be shaded to 13 in 3rd and 4th seat. After all, the
stronger the initial opening bid the more likely that they will find a
makable contract 75% of the time.
And do you not teach your students anything about defending a bridge
hand? I can't speak for others, but psychologically I'm very
discouraged when the opponents bid to 20 making contracts in a row,
especially at rubber bridge where every making contract costs me
money. How do you handle their discouragement if the ones bidding and
making contracts rarely go down?
Perhaps you could let your students know that defeating borderline
contracts is a cause for rejoicing, and that occasionally getting to
an unmakable contract is part of bridge.
Henrysun909
/disable sarcasm/
Stig Holmquist
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 important 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 document 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
henry...@yahoo.com
I'll make one last effort to demonstrate the absudity of Rubens claim
that quick trick passed out of existence in the 1940s.
*****************
And I'll make one last effort (well, I best not complete the
sentence).
Perhaps you failed to notice my caveat, where I conceded that it could
be argued that where Roth and Rubens said "quick tricks" they should
have used "honor tricks" to be technically correct. It is at least
understandable by reasonable people that an editorial decision to use
the more popular and common (in 1968) term could be involved here.
But what is beyond contention by everyone in the bridge universe
except, apparently, for yourself is that the Culbertson honor trick
evaluation method did, in fact, disappear - virtually overnight, once
Goren started popularizing the Milton Work 4-3-2-1 point count.
(In fact, historically, there have been several point counts before
Work's won the day, none of which were able to topple honor tricks
from their position as evaluation method of choice. The best of them
- the Bissell count - used the theory of honor gaps to evaluate honor
holding, thus giving more weight to holdings like KQJx instead of
AQTx But I digress.)
One needs only to be a student of bridge history, not a national
champion, to know this. And that history needs to go back before
Goren and Kaplan and Sheinwold into the 1930s and 1940s and 1950s. In
fact, you might find it interesting to actually read one of
Culbertson's books on bidding and see how he uses honor tricks as an
evaluation tool to put Goren and Work et al into perspective.
You can continue to persist in thinking that only the old masters use
quick tricks in their evaluation of what is an opening bid, and you
might therefore want to make sure that your students only open hands
that meet your 'rule of 15', which would mean that hands like
KQTxx
KJT9x
Qx
x
11 hcps + 2 length points + 1.5 honor tricks = 14.5 "stig" points
or
AKT9xxx
Qxx
xxx
VOID
9 hcps + 3 length points + 2 honor tricks = 14 "stig" points
or
xxx
xxx
Axx
AKxx
11hcps + 0 length points + 3 honor tricks = 14 "stig" points
are not opening bids. To this, one might recall the comment of Reese,
who - in response to some wag who said that a hand like
QTxx
J9xx
AKx
Kx
should be passed because offensive potential was uncertain but
defensive prospects were excellent - noted that perhaps this hand
should wait to open for the other 3 aces for then defensive prospects
would be even better.
Look, you clearly have your bra and panties in a bunch because you are
on a don quixote-like one woman campaign to get honor tricks re-
instated as something people care about.
Write your article for the ACBL, write your article for the Bridge
World, write your book on hand evaluation and let the rest of the
bridge community take a whack at it.
Henrysun909
Stig Holmquist
I've submitted an article "What became of quick tricks" to ACBL and
the editor has offered no crtique of it and is holding it for possible
future publication. He did not reject it like you seem to do.
You seem to be a typical male chauvinist, who thinks a woman is unable
to think clearly. I've got newa for you, I'm not a woman. But you are
a narrow minded pig head. Get the facts before you spout off.
Stig
>Henrysun909