Hand Evaluation
It is well established that the Milton Work point count, popularized by Charles Goren, is grossly inferior to methods that emphasize aces and kings and supported honors. The resistance to learning something more complicated, even by experts, has always been surprising to me. If we were trying to do something simple, we could play bingo.
The Bridge World has published various articles on better hand evaluation methods, including the 6421 count and the Kaplan and Reuben method. The latter approach was created using Edgar Kaplan’s experience about actual values and later tested with computer trials. The support from the computer tweaked his values a bit, but provided strong support.
Bill and I have used this method for years. I’ll comment more extensively later, but the essentials are available at Jeff Goldsmith’s website. This is how I value hands, and it often leads to more aggressive “shape” openings and passing “quack” hands with higher Goren points.
Justin Lall has renewed his bridge blogging, and you should check it out. His posts are instructive and entertaining. The latest takes up the issue of “light openings.” He also takes up the recent study of Zar Points, a method with considerable resesarch support.
I find all of these ideas interesting and worth discussion. More later, but I invite exploration and comment.
Imho, the Milton Work Count is widely adapted not because it is accurate, but because it is simple & easy for general reference.
No self-respecting expert would treat the raw point count seriously, rather, he would much prefer to evaluate the hand based on his judgement & the development of auctions. Afterall, the quality of one hand is hard to quantify, and those methods that offer close proximity to the real worth of a hand are just too complicated and so exhaust your mental energy for no good reason.
February 24, 2006 Simon Cheung