From: ahollander@dcs.simpact.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Dr. Roth
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:53:42 PDT
Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA

In article <1993Jan11.134032.43@dcs.simpact.com>, jschuler@dcs.simpact.com writes:
> In article <1993Jan10.165022.3164@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, reha@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (reha.gur) writes:
>> 
>> Has anybody read his "Picture Bidding" book?  I recently have
>> and I have a question: 
>> 
>> 	Is Roth senile? Or is he such a great genious that what is in the
>> 	book will be standard 20 years from now?
>> 
Why are these possibilities mutually exclusive? :-)

In the mid 50s when Roth published his first book on The Roth-Stone system
(the next book, with Stone, Bridge is a Partnership Game is better written 
and known) the documented sentiments were not dissimilar -- just replace 
senile with crazy.  

Many of the IDEAS have in fact become standard but very few of the 
implementations.  Example:  Even when I lived on the east coast, where 
many claimed to be playing Eastern Scientific (5 card majors with 
Roth-like opening bids + other variations from Hardy's 5 card majors - 
western style), I never met a pair that played Negative Doubles as Roth 
has ALWAYS defined them.

> Definitely not senile. I doubt very much that the methods described
> in the book will be standard, ever.
> 

I'd be willing to bet on a couple of the ideas [keyword] outlasting 
either of us.

> The advice that he offers along the lines of "If you can't be great,
> be different" IS sound advice. 

Trust John on this one!  (Although I have seen him win with a standard card 
too!!!)

> very sound opening bids, etc.

I'll bet my next paycheck that you and I couldn't get through a set of 
Challenge the Champs hands without cheating on the opening bids.  Hell, we 
hardly remember what respectible openings are let alone good, sound or very 
sound!!! :-)

> 
>> I won't quote from the book but I did not agree with 80% of the book.
> 
> No problem. If you disagree with his advice, you are not likely to
> be effective implementing it.
> 

I think most bridge players do themselves a disservice by believing or 
disbelieving in systems -- especially without trying them.  Unless you are 
tying to get your convention card to improve your results because of the 
'differences' factor discussed above, the lessons to be learned (vs 
conventions to be memorized) are found in how ideas/treatments interact 
to create system.  Roth has always been good at pointing out the benefits 
of gearing your system to account for commonly occuring themes and ignoring 
or minimizing the effort placed on the obscure hands.  He has always been 
good at NOT ignoring the impact of system on the opponents.  Unfortunately, 
he has also always been dogmatic to the nth degree.  I think the one 
biggest problem is that he has always been much better at 'knowing what to 
do later' than the rest of the world.  My guess is that his abilities have 
more to do with it than his system(s).

>> The examples also looked "candied" up to put his ideas in the best light.
>> 
> 
> Of course. Every book does this, though I agree that Roth broke new 
> ground here.

Actually, Mike Lawrence and Kit Woolsey have been pretty good at giving 
examples where their treatment has made a previously easy hand difficult.

I am still astounded by the splinter hands (do they really have to be 
exactly 4441??) and some of the inconsistencies (why was one jump to 7 
guaranteed when an almost identical example didn't even think about going 
past 6?).  It would be nice if authors re-learned from Goren that end of 
chapter quiz hands with recommended auctions would be more beneficial than 
the one perfect example.  Another approach is to fix one hand and give 
multiple hands to bid against (Lawrence often does this).

Then again, fiction can be nice too.....

> 
>> So should I study this book and be ready for the coming revolution or throw it
>> in the trash?
>> 
> 
> If you have an open minded and disciplined partner, try his ideas for a
> few sessions. It MAY make you a better bridge player, much the same as
> dropping Blackwood while bidding a set of slam/near slam hands will.
> 

Open-minded an absolute must!!!  But, I think alot can be learned from an 
undisciplined partner too.  There are at least as many lessons to be learned 
from 'what went wrong' as from playing down the middle.  Depending on your 
goals this may or may not be important.  If the plan is to achieve 
(Inter)national status, you've got to know when/how to deviate from 
agreements and tendencies.  If you want to routinely collect rating points 
at the local dup game you'll be much more successful not doing the wrong 
thing that by doing taking the 'right' action.  The latter need to be 
disciplined - ALWAYS.  The former need to know WHEN to be disciplined (who 
is partner, conditions of contest, status of match, opponents tendency, 
position of the moon....)  Examining [not memorizing] Roth's approach (or 
just about any system/treatment/convention) with known goals in mind will 
help your game.

> Happy (initial) passing,
> John Schuler

I'll believe it IF I see it John !!!!

> 
> P.S.
	If you think I'm slamming John, we've earned many a masterpoint as 
	partner or teammate.  I guess that means I AM slamming him :-)

Al Hollander


P.S.S.
	Can anyone of the folks that successfully responded to Chip 
	Martel's pre-Fall National play problem please send me Chip's
	e-mail address.  I can't get there from here!