<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.9" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hand Evaluation</title>
	<link>http://oldprofbridge.com/2006/01/05/hand-evaluation/</link>
	<description>Contract Bridge Themes with a Midwest Accent!</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:22:31 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.9</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Simon Cheung</title>
		<link>http://oldprofbridge.com/2006/01/05/hand-evaluation/#comment-22</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2006 19:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://oldprofbridge.com/2006/01/05/hand-evaluation/#comment-22</guid>
					<description>Imho, the Milton Work Count is widely adapted not because it is accurate, but because it is simple &#38; 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 &#38; 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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Imho, the Milton Work Count is widely adapted not because it is accurate, but because it is simple &amp; easy for general reference.</p>
<p>No self-respecting expert would treat the raw point count seriously, rather, he would much prefer to evaluate the hand based on his judgement &amp; 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.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
