[fred]

I was just told of a new web site that I thought some forums readers might enjoy:

www.alvinroth.com

This site has a facility similar to BBO Forums in that visitors can post questions about bidding for Alvin Roth (who is arguably the greatest bidding theorist in history).

Al also happens to be well known as a real character and some of his answers are not exactly cordial, but this is a good opportunity to pick the brain of a a true bridge legend.

I have always found it valuable to discuss judgment situations with strong players who have seen more hands than I have. Al has been playing bridge at the highest levels since the 1940s and, although he is not an active tournament player these days, there are few (if any) living players who has seen as many hands as he has.

This post is not meant as an ad - the site I refer to is not commercial in any way.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[ArcLight]

>You are in 1st seat and hold:
Jxxx
AJx
KQJ10xx
void


Dr. Roth suggests opening 2 diamonds, weak.

Roth is orders of magintude better than me, but I think 2♦ is a terrible bid.


In general I find his answers terse and cryptic.

Why bother making a reply to a question if its not clear?

[Flame]

Can you post a link to his response ?
There are two different questions here, first does 2D show such a good hand in our system, and second, is it good that 2D show this.
If 2D doent show such a good hand it is certenlty a bad bid, but the second question is more intersting and much harder to answer.

[Double !]

ArcLight, on Dec 18 2005, 11:16 AM, said:

In general I find his answers terse and cryptic.

This surprises you?

[kenberg]

The site is certainly interesting. As I understand the argument for opening 2D it probably goes something like this: Suppose you are a really good player by Al Roth's standards. Essentially this means you are Al Roth. You can open this 2D and then, by carefully listening to the auction, you will know if you should then come in with your spades. If you do, your really good partner will know that you have exactly this hand. I'm not sure how this theory works if 2D is followed by three passes.

Seriously Al Roth is of course a character but he is indeed one of the great players and theoreticians of the twentieth century. When I was in college half a century ago I took a course from the poet John Berryman. Absolutely out of his mind. It was a great course. As one of the cable TV channels advertises: Characters welcome!

Ken

[fred]

I don't agree with a lot of Roth's ideas either (for example, it would never occur to me to open a weak 2D with the hand in question and I am a relatively sound player by modern American standards).

However, over the years I have benefited greatly by listening to the advice of experienced and successful players, even if I don't agree with their views. Al's style of bidding is totally alien to me (and probably to most of you), but his resume strongly suggests that his ideas are worthy of consideration.

I agree that it would be nice if Al spent more time explaining the reasoning behind his answers, but the man is 91 years old (and I am told that he has no computer skills whatsoever) which to me makes it rather amazing that he is able to do this at all.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[P_Marlowe]

ArcLight, on Dec 18 2005, 11:16 AM, said:

>You are in 1st seat and hold:
Jxxx
AJx
KQJ10xx 
void


Dr. Roth suggests opening 2 diamonds, weak.

Roth is orders of magintude better than me, but I think 2♦ is a terrible bid.


In general I find his answers terse and cryptic.

Hi,

well a matter of partnership agreement.

If you have ever read "Picture Bidding" from Alvin Roth,
you would not have been surpriesed.

The point is, do you have the agreement, that a
weak two bid shows this hand?
If you look at Fantunes/Nunes system, you will see
they open, surprise, surprise, 2D with this hand,
I hopefully remember their system correct,
at least they would with

Qxx
AJx
KQJ10xx
x

If I ever find a partner willing to play Roth-Stone,
I am sure it will be a great adventure, and
at least playing IMP's, the opponents would need
to watch their steps.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: If I got it right, Alvin Roths background is Rubber Bridge,
and he said in "Picture Bidding": Being born as a boy in Brooklyn,
I know what a buck is worth (... I am to lazy to look it up )

[hrothgar]

The Roth-Stone bidding style was never my cup of tea...
(I always preferred light initial action to sound)

With this said and done, I've always very much admired all of the work that Al Roth did. Roth Stone always struck me as an internally consistent system... If you accept the core assumptions, you'll end up with something that looks very like R-S.

Roth has been responsible for some incredible insights. More importantly, he did so without all the double dummy analyzers and Monte-Carlo simulations that we have available today.

BTW. Anyone surprised by any of the comments on the web site hasn't paid much attention to the MSC for the past 4 decades...

[mike777]

hrothgar, on Dec 18 2005, 03:14 PM, said:

The Roth-Stone bidding style was never my cup of tea...
(I always preferred light initial action to sound)

With this said and done, I've always very much admired all of the work that Al Roth did.  Roth Stone always struck me as an internally consistent system...  If you accept the core assumptions, you'll end up with something that looks very like R-S.

Roth has been responsible for some incredible insights.  More importantly, he did so without all the double dummy analyzers and Monte-Carlo simulations that we have available today.

BTW.  Anyone surprised by any of the comments on the web site hasn't paid much attention to the MSC for the past 4 decades...

I abstain, in over 70 years of bridge playing I have never had this problem.!

If I can just get past this round of bidding I should be in great shape!

Playing Roth Stone at MP can be great, you know what double always means and the only issue is are you beating it for how large a set?

[Chamaco]

ArcLight, on Dec 18 2005, 04:16 PM, said:

>You are in 1st seat and hold:
Jxxx
AJx
KQJ10xx 
void


Dr. Roth suggests opening 2 diamonds, weak.

Roth is orders of magintude better than me, but I think 2♦ is a terrible bid.

The idea behind the supersound Roth Stone system might not be as outdated as it may seem.
It has been indeed revived lately.

If you think of the Fantoni-Nunes system - which is NOT considered exactly oldfashioned - it has indeed a similar phylosophy:
- all 1 level bids are forcing 1R and guarantee a balanced 15+ OR a good unbalanced non minimu opener (14+ or a very good 13)
- 2 level bids are not real weak 2s, but rather a (9+)10-13 unbalanced hand
- 1NT is 12-14.

EDIT: OOPS, I had missed Marlowe's post

Of course this is a double-edged sword: you do not open REALLY weak 2 (<9/10 hcp), so you lose some preemption there, but with weakish but still sound hands (10-13) you can often rob space to opps without preempting too much pard (because the 2-level opener has a narrow hcp range).

I agree that opening this hand 2D in a modern std american (or 2/1 ) style would be close to suicide, but not in another system.
There are tradeoffs, but it has also its merits in other sequences.

[42]

I like this site! You are asking the Oracle and get a wise answer.