[mike777]

Please feel free to post any understanding you may have of the Roth Stone system
Opening bids
Opening preempts
opening nt
overcall style
etc

Your opinion of this style versus standard 2/1 bidding?



btw below is his website and cc

http://www.alvinroth...ewforum.php?f=1

It is clear the vast majority of players favor opening most if not all balanced 12-13 hcp with 2 aces and random jacks. Light preempts seem much more common than sound.

Thank you in advance.

[Double !]

Since you asked...........

The following is taken from Albert Morehead's "Contract Bridge Summary" 1963

opening bids show 14pts, including at least 11HCP and at least 2 defensive tricks.
an opening 1M bid by uph guarantees at least a 5-card suit.
Responses to 1M:
bid 1NT forcing with 6-11 pts
single raise = 3+ trumps & 10-12 pts
double raise = 4+ trumps and 13+ pts
any 2/1 in a lower ranking suit = 11+ pts and guarantees a rebid after opener's 2nd suit

Responses to 1m:
unless responder can bid 2C/1D, responder must show a 4-card major if he/she has one
response of 1NT is n.f.
Jump responses are weak/pre-emptive
Weak 2 bids 6-12 hcps/ 2Nt is only forcing response
Open 2C is GF
Open 1NT = 16-18 with 4333 or 4432, never bid with 4-4 in majors

Hope this is helpful for starters.

DHL

[CarlRitner]

Bridge Is A Partnership Game ~ The Roth-Stone System, Granovetter Books, 1989 is the reprint of the original book outlining the system and philosophy. I happen to have one copy left if anyone is interested.

Cheers,
Carl
www.carlritner.com

[mike777]

I am guessing a very minimum opening is:
xxx...KQTxx...Kxx...AJ

glad I can pass with less .

[keylime]

Believe it or not, Roth-Stone principles combined in a 2/1 approach might make the method function to a better degree.

[mike777]

keylime, on Jan 3 2006, 11:21 PM, said:

Believe it or not, Roth-Stone principles combined in a 2/1 approach might make the method function to a better degree.

Interesting.

Of course, Walsh, Swanson and others claim much of 2/1 came out of Roth/Stone.

Of course much of Roth/Stone came out of others .

[Echognome]

Interesting to discuss some of the older bridge systems.

Can anyone name this classic system?

1♣: 17+ hcps Any Shape
1♦: 12-16 hcp 4+ diamonds
1♥: 12-16 hcp 4+ hearts
1♠: 12-16 hcp 4+ spades
1NT: 15-17 hcp balanced
2♣: 12-16 hcp 5+ clubs
2♦: 22+ hcp Game Forcing
2♥: 6-12 hcp 6 hearts
2♠: 6-12 hcp 6 spades
2NT: 22-23 hcp balanced

Hint: It is older than you might think.

[hrothgar]

Echognome, on Jan 4 2006, 02:14 PM, said:

Interesting to discuss some of the older bridge systems.

Can anyone name this classic system?

1♣: 17+ hcps Any Shape
1♦: 12-16 hcp 4+ diamonds
1♥: 12-16 hcp 4+ hearts
1♠: 12-16 hcp 4+ spades
1NT: 15-17 hcp balanced
2♣: 12-16 hcp 5+ clubs
2♦: 22+ hcp Game Forcing
2♥: 6-12 hcp 6 hearts
2♠: 6-12 hcp 6 spades
2NT: 22-23 hcp balanced

Hint: It is older than you might think.

looks a lot like Schenken

Might be Vanderbilt (never really looked at it)

[ArcLight]

>Of course, Walsh, Swanson and others claim much of 2/1 came out of Roth/Stone.


Mike Lawrence says that too at the beginning of his excellent 2/1 CD.

[mikeh]

Roth-Stone evolved over a number of years, and I suspect that Roth continued to tinker after he stopped playing with Stone. Early BW articles describe some unusual ideas: unusual then and now. Thus he wsa a strong advocate of the powerful free-bid philosophy: if RHO overcalled, he needed a big hand to bid, even with a fit. I am going by memory, and may have the details wrong, but I believe he espoused a pass after 1♠ (2♥) with Qxxxx xx Kxx xxx.

As the BW commented, this approach caused so many difficulties for the early R-S players that he was forced to invent the negative double! As with many devices, the original negative double was quite different from the method we use today.

While R-S is mainly known for its ultra-sound opening bid approach, it had other innovative ideas, many of which were truly unique. Some never caught on: the powerful single raise of a major suit opening bid is one idea that failed to excite the bridge public. However, the forcing 1N response was the bid that, more than any other, paved the way for the development of the 2/1 approaches.

R-S provided a structured, coherent framework in an era of loose, seldom discussed methods, much of which depended upon tone of voice, body language etc. (See Kaplan's seminal articles in the 1950's BWs in which he described this old black magic approach to the game, employed by many of the leading experts of the time)

Thus a user of R-S was akin to a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind.

Today, most opponents have two eyes and many of them have had laser surgery! A one-eyed man is now at a disadvantage.

The main problem with R-S is that it compells too many first and second seat passes. Roth was justly famous for his ability to pass for the first two or three rounds and to then enter the bidding, successfully. This might work for him, but it is not advised for the average expert let alone the average player. With the advent of light openings and lighter preempts, the R-S player risks getting shut out of way too many hands, or being forced to come in to live auctions after an initial pass.

BTW, the 17+ strong club system quoted above looks like Schenken's Better Bidding in Fifteen Minutes (I think) from (again, I think) 1965. However, my memory of the opening 2♦ bid was that it demanded that responder show specific Aces (and then Kings), rather than being based on 22+ hcp. My university friends and I played our bastardized version of the method in the early 1970's.

It would not be Vanderbilt, because the Vanderbilt ♣ was developed in the era of honour tricks rather than point count (I think).

[mike777]

"The main problem with R-S is that it compells too many first and second seat passes. Roth was justly famous for his ability to pass for the first two or three rounds and to then enter the bidding, successfully. This might work for him, but it is not advised for the average expert let alone the average player. With the advent of light openings and lighter preempts, the R-S player risks getting shut out of way too many hands, or being forced to come in to live auctions after an initial pass."

Yes I think this is the crux of the debate the last 50 years. The vast majority of top experts and newer players voting in favor of the above arguments for lightish openings.

The argument for pass is:
1) if it is the opp hand our HCP are not placed by bidding.
2) if it is our hand the opp may place where their hcp are by bidding.
3) we solve more bidding problems, not all, for partner by opening sound.

[Double !]

Echognome, on Jan 4 2006, 06:14 AM, said:

Interesting to discuss some of the older bridge systems.

Can anyone name this classic system?

1♣: 17+ hcps Any Shape
1♦: 12-16 hcp 4+ diamonds
1♥: 12-16 hcp 4+ hearts
1♠: 12-16 hcp 4+ spades
1NT: 15-17 hcp balanced
2♣: 12-16 hcp 5+ clubs
2♦: 22+ hcp Game Forcing
2♥: 6-12 hcp 6 hearts
2♠: 6-12 hcp 6 spades
2NT: 22-23 hcp balanced

Hint: It is older than you might think.

No, It's Schenken

Better Bidding in 15 Minutes

DHL

[MickyB]

Bridgefiles says this is Vanderbilt, and Bridgeguys says it isn't Schenken

[Robert]

Hello everyone

Picture Bidding is his latest book. Very good book.

Regards,
Robert