[Canuckstan]

Being new, apologies if this is an old topic but I'm not sure how to search old topics here. Having read the two Larry Cohen books on The Law of Total Tricks, I was interested to read Mike Lawrence's rebuttal, called I Fought the Law.

Is the Law something intermediate or advanced players use too uncritically? How do Experts approach it? Has Lawrence's book changed the consensus view on it?

[han]

Hi Canuckstan, welcome!

This may be an old topic but still very interesting. Here is an old thread on this topic, soon after the book came out:

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...0the%20law&st=0

What I did was this: I went to Search, typed "fought the law" and searched for threads of 30 days and older in all forums. When I searched for titles only one appeared, this one. When I searched for "entire post" dozens appeared, most had nothing to do with the law of total tricks.

Now about your bridge questions:


Is the Law something intermediate or advanced players use too uncritically?


I'm sure many do, and I'm sure that there are equally many who don't use it enough.


How do experts approach it


I'll let the experts answer that one . I doubt that experts all think alike.


Has Lawrence's book changed the consensus view on it?


Again, there is no consensus, so I will only answer for myself. I was not impressed with the book. Cohen's writing changed my way of thinking about bridge dramatically, but in the years after reading the book I became aware that the law is just a guideline, and should not be used as a law. Perhaps all that Lawrence's book did was reinforce this opinion. I think that all of Larry's advice is still valid: bid more with a big fit, look for side fits, go to the law-level as fast as you can, don't bid 3 over 3 without a reason, be careful about bidding 5 over 5, etc.

All serious bridge players should read and think about the law of total tricks. Then, the naive ones should read Lawrence's book too.

[ArcLight]

>All serious bridge players should read and think about the law of total tricks. Then, the naive ones should read Lawrence's book too.

I'm not sure what thats supposed to mean. My impression is that there are quite a few players who blindly follow the LAW.

"I Fought the Law" was a good rebuttal to blindly following the LAW. It showed many cases where the LAW fails. The LAW is pretty accurate at low levels (2) but less accurate at high levels (4+).

"I Fought the LAW" is well worth reading. Some dont like the fact that the first third of the book is spent showing problems with the LAW. I think thats necessary because too many people will just blindly accept something and not be willing to think critically and reevaluate.
The remainder of the book is spent showing what the authors think is important:
Working Points and distribution

A good book, well worth reading. Available from Carl Ritner (Carl on BBO or acbl@carlritner.com) for $15.95 (he sells on behalf of the ACBL and is very reputable, I've bought perhaps $200 worth of books over the past year from him)

[mike777]

Fought the Law basic version=
1)13=total tricks
2) Subtract your best estimate of combined 2 shortest suits
3) Estimate working hcp. If 19-21 working hcp then assume zero extra tricks, add or subtract one trick for each 1-3 working hcp. 22-24=+1, 16-18=-1.

See his book and website for more details.

Please note expert estimates of short suits and working hcp get expert results, novice level estimates get novice results.

[Winstonm]

A more apt title might have been: Total Tricks as a Starting Point.

Even Larry himself acknowledges the "Laws" impreciseness, going so far as to publish a second book on the adjustments one needs to make to add more accuracy to the hypothesis.

For me, though, there were kernals of knowledge that altered my views and bidding in a most positive way - and have improved my results. I'm sure each reader will find his own kernals so one can't help but gain some insight from the reading of Larry's books.

For me, The Law of Total Tricks was a valid starting point to refine my own methods and judgement - not something to follow slavelike.

Winston

[Kalvan14]

A beginner should certainly read Bergen's books on the Law. I would suggest him/her to wait a bit before reading I Fought the Law, before he/she gets confused.

An intermediate player should have already read the Law books, and it would do no harm to read Lawrence's book too (although, having to choose, other Lawrence books are much more useful).

Advanced players (not to mention real top players) reason in a different way, and very seldom rely on formulas.

My feeling is that the Law books were a good attempt at bridge didactics. Overall they were successful, and improved the average player (there are a substantial number of Law fundamentalists, that take the Law dictates to the bitter end, but i suppose it cannot be avoided ).

Don't read I Fought the Law without having read (and digested) the Law books.

[helene_t]

My analysis of Ginberg's database showed the LOTT to be accurate in 39% of all deals. Different people claim different accuracies based on the same data because there are some choices to be made:
- When two eight-fits exist I assume one is chosen by random (don't remember what Wirgren did).
- When declarership matters, Wirgren chooses the better one while I picked one at random. This might explain why I reach the conclusion that the LOTT has a positive bias while Wirgren claims it has a negative bias.

I was disapointed with Lawrence/Wirgren's book. For advanced players, it says little new - those people already know that the LOTT is a simplification. The Working Points concept might have been interesting if fully formalized and supported by some relevant statistics and/or systematic review. For intermediates, it might be a usefull point that the LOTT is just a rule of thump, but it is hardly necesary to write a whole book to explain that.

[Chamaco]

Lawrence's books are interested because they always offer food for thought.

However, I also found the book a bit disappointing for a couple of reasons:

1. The statistics are somewhat biased

2. Almost all of the example hands chosen to demonstrate that LOTT does not work features duplication of shape or of values. These are minuses that would impact any hand evaluation method, and ar signs that are in any case hard to detect by most bidding systems (well, excluding relay systems)

3. It is unfair and silly to compare the LOTT with FTL method.
The 2 methods have different purpose: FTL attemptsto verify the number of tricks OUR SIDE can make, REGARDLESS of how many thrick THE OPPOSING SIDE can make. So it works very well for borderline hands where we have to decides whether to stretch for game/slam or just stop before it's too late.

LOTT, instead, tries to consider the number of tricks BOTH sides can make, and bid, as fast as possible, to a level that not necessarily is to make, but in many cases might go down: in those cases, hopefully, the minus of going down is lower than the alternative contract opps side had available.

It is evident that the 2 methods have different purposes, so it makes no sense to say that FTL is better or worse than LOTT.

[Al_U_Card]

The "Rule of Eleven" is a law. It works exactly as long as the lead is a true 4th best. LOTT is, at best, an approximation that is a judgement aid. (Like hcp or LTC etc.) Judgement is developed over time with experience, good luck!

[mike777]

Chamaco, on Nov 7 2005, 03:34 AM, said:

Lawrence's books are interested because they always offer food for thought.

However, I also found the book a bit disappointing for a couple of reasons:

1. The statistics are somewhat biased

2. Almost all of the example hands chosen to demonstrate that LOTT does not work features duplication of shape or of values. These are minuses that would impact any hand evaluation method, and ar signs that are in any case hard to detect by most bidding systems (well, excluding relay systems)

3. It is unfair and silly to compare the LOTT with FTL method.
The 2 methods have different purpose: FTL attemptsto verify the number of tricks OUR SIDE can make, REGARDLESS of how many thrick THE OPPOSING SIDE can make. So it works very well for borderline hands where we have to decides whether to stretch for game/slam or just stop before it's too late.

LOTT, instead, tries to consider the number of tricks BOTH sides can make, and bid, as fast as possible, to a level that not necessarily is to make, but in many cases might go down: in those cases, hopefully, the minus of going down is lower than the alternative contract opps side had available.

It is evident that the 2 methods have different purposes, so it makes no sense to say that FTL is better or worse than LOTT.

FTL can be used for the same goals as LOTT.

You can use FTL to estimate how many tricks the opp will take. Use the same methods. Estimate the opp whcp and 2 shortest suits.
You can use FTL to estimate if you should sacrifice or not, just as one does using LOTT.

As I understand it FTL makes 3 basic claims.
1) FTL will not work on some hands.
2) FTL will give you better estimate of tricks than LOTT for both your hands and the opp's hands.
3) FTL will give you better etimate of tricks than 99%+ of bridge players only using their judgement.

Whether you will agree with these claims is another matter but well worth reading the book and deciding on your own.

[Chamaco]

mike777, on Nov 7 2005, 03:45 PM, said:

FTL can be used for the same goals as LOTT.

You can use FTL to estimate how many  tricks the opp will take. Use the same methods. Estimate the opp whcp and 2 shortest suits..

This is much harder, most times you won't know the shortness and sidesuits length of your opps, as well as how many working hcp they have and in which suits they are located.

In practice, I would say that estimating *OPPS* trick tacking potential with FTL will be applicable very seldom at the table.
For double dummy analyes, yes, but that sounds academic.

[mike777]

Chamaco, on Nov 7 2005, 10:47 AM, said:

mike777, on Nov 7 2005, 03:45 PM, said:

FTL can be used for the same goals as LOTT.

You can use FTL to estimate how many  tricks the opp will take. Use the same methods. Estimate the opp whcp and 2 shortest suits..

This is much harder, most times you won't know the shortness and sidesuits length of your opps, as well as how many working hcp they have and in which suits they are located.

In practice, I would say that it will be applicable very seldom at the table.
For double dummy analyes, yes, but that sounds academic.

I would argue that just trying to estimate the opp's wchp and 2 shortest suits is well worth the effort and practice. I fall far short in this effort.

I think LOTT/FTL if nothing else gets the improving player to at least to try and count out the opp hands. Any mechanical rules that get us to do that more is an improvement.

In fact I would argue this may very well be the most important bridge priority to practice at the table. More important than learning another bridge convention or treatment.

Perhaps Lawrence in a follow up book will give us some tips on how to do this.

[Chamaco]

mike777, on Nov 7 2005, 04:01 PM, said:

Chamaco, on Nov 7 2005, 10:47 AM, said:

mike777, on Nov 7 2005, 03:45 PM, said:

FTL can be used for the same goals as LOTT.

You can use FTL to estimate how many  tricks the opp will take. Use the same methods. Estimate the opp whcp and 2 shortest suits..

This is much harder, most times you won't know the shortness and sidesuits length of your opps, as well as how many working hcp they have and in which suits they are located.

In practice, I would say that it will be applicable very seldom at the table.
For double dummy analyes, yes, but that sounds academic.

I would argue that just trying to estimate the opp's wchp and 2 shortest suits is well worth the effort and practice. I fall far short in this effort.

I think LOTT/FTL if nothing else gets the improving player to at least to try and count out the opp hands. Any mechanical rules that get us to do that more is an improvement.

In fact I would argue this may very well be the most important bridge priority to practice at the table. More important than learning another bridge convention or treatment.

Perhaps Lawrence in a follow up book will give us some tips on how to do this.

Mike, I know you emphasize the role of counting, and i Know you are right
(that is by far the most challeging task for me right now, but I know it will be the most rewarding).

However, even the day when I'll indeed manage to count systematically opps hands, I think that most times it will be hard for me to figure out their shortnesses and working points *during the bidding*.

Hence, it will be impractical to try to use FTL t estimate opps trick-taking potential during the bidding, to try and assess whether a sac is worth a shot.

[whereagles]

Lawrence's book is incredibly boring, but accurate. The idea of 'short suit total' and 'working points' is, in my view, definitely much more precise than the law of total tricks, even with adjustments.

THE PROBLEM IS... it's very hard to evaluate SST and WP in the middle of a competitive auction. It requires making assumptions and mental calculations. It is not practical unless you have an calculating mind.

Cohen's idea of LOTT + adjustments is way easier to use and provides decent results. That is why it's so popular and practical.

[mike777]

Chamaco, on Nov 7 2005, 11:11 AM, said:

mike777, on Nov 7 2005, 04:01 PM, said:

Chamaco, on Nov 7 2005, 10:47 AM, said:

mike777, on Nov 7 2005, 03:45 PM, said:

FTL can be used for the same goals as LOTT.

You can use FTL to estimate how many  tricks the opp will take. Use the same methods. Estimate the opp whcp and 2 shortest suits..

This is much harder, most times you won't know the shortness and sidesuits length of your opps, as well as how many working hcp they have and in which suits they are located.

In practice, I would say that it will be applicable very seldom at the table.
For double dummy analyes, yes, but that sounds academic.

I would argue that just trying to estimate the opp's wchp and 2 shortest suits is well worth the effort and practice. I fall far short in this effort.

I think LOTT/FTL if nothing else gets the improving player to at least to try and count out the opp hands. Any mechanical rules that get us to do that more is an improvement.

In fact I would argue this may very well be the most important bridge priority to practice at the table. More important than learning another bridge convention or treatment.

Perhaps Lawrence in a follow up book will give us some tips on how to do this.

Mike, I know you emphasize the role of counting, and i Know you are right
(that is by far the most challeging task for me right now, but I know it will be the most rewarding).

However, even the day when I'll indeed manage to count systematically opps hands, I think that most times it will be hard for me to figure out their shortnesses and working points *during the bidding*.

Hence, it will be impractical to try to use FTL t estimate opps trick-taking potential during the bidding, to try and assess whether a sac is worth a shot.

Well your post gets right to the heart of the matter!
When I played F2f bridge eons ago it seemed my expert opp and expert partners knew my hand better than I did at trick zero

This may be why Lawrence's estimates seem double dummy to many of us reading the book, he in fact really does know the opp hands that well.

[pigpenz]

The Law is a starting point for bidding, just like Aces=4 Kings =3 etc.
The Law gives you a general idea on how far to compete in competitive auctions.
I have looked for a web page that shows how the law compares to matchpoint results but have not been able to find it.

Generally above two spades someone has to take the push to break the when both sides have 2 eight card fits. There are 16 total tricks 8+8=16. If they can make 2♠=8 then the other side is generally right most of the times to bid 3 down one....if they make 3 9tricks then the other side was most likely down at 2♠.

Now where the law has to be adjusted is secondary double fits, singletons etc. The one playce i have seen the law be totally ineffective is when you have 5-5 and 5-6 fits. And i believe it is covered in the original articles in Bridge World. if you have 5332 hand oppsite 5233/5323/5332 the opps usually can take alot of tricksin the outside suits, so law generally tends to really break down on 10card fits and higher.

[luis]

The LAW is a good tool, as any tool it is not perfect for every problem you have.
But it is indeed a good tool, adjustments and general judgment are still needed, there's no way to blindly take a decision just based on the LAW.

"I fought the LAW" is in my view a poor attempt to sell a book attacking a popular topic. The stats are completely biased, I can write a book titled "I fought the finesse" presenting 1000 hands where kings are singleton offside and what does it prove? Absolutely nothing.
Instead of "fighting" the law a book about guidelines to understand how to better use the law, applying adjustments and generic statistics would be much better.

[pigpenz]

luis, on Nov 7 2005, 11:57 AM, said:

The LAW is a good tool, as any tool it is not perfect for every problem you have.
But it is indeed a good tool, adjustments and general judgment are still needed, there's no way to blindly take a decision just based on the LAW.

"I fought the LAW" is in my view a poor attempt to sell a book attacking a popular topic. The stats are completely biased, I can write a book titled "I fought the finesse" presenting 1000 hands where kings are singleton offside and what does it prove? Absolutely nothing.
Instead of "fighting" the law a book about guidelines to understand how to better use the law, applying adjustments and generic statistics would be much better.

yes Luis is correct is just a tool, a good book to go with the books on THE LAW are books on Losing Trick Count. They sort of go hand in hand and LTC brings into the use of ideas like q109 is better than qxx etc you get the idea, you have to understand the power of high spot cards.

say partner opens 1NT
and you have any balanced hand with 2Kings and 1 Queen but every other card is 10,9,8 combinations. An expert would most likely just bid 3NT but others would just invite.

[mike777]

pigpenz, on Nov 7 2005, 12:05 PM, said:

luis, on Nov 7 2005, 11:57 AM, said:

The LAW is a good tool, as any tool it is not perfect for every problem you have.
But it is indeed a good tool, adjustments and general judgment are still needed, there's no way to blindly take a decision just based on the LAW.

"I fought the LAW" is in my view a poor attempt to sell a book attacking a popular topic. The stats are completely biased, I can write a book titled "I fought the finesse" presenting 1000 hands where kings are singleton offside and what does it prove? Absolutely nothing.
Instead of "fighting" the law a book about guidelines to understand how to better use the law, applying adjustments and generic statistics would be much better.

yes Luis is correct is just a tool, a good book to go with the books on THE LAW are books on Losing Trick Count. They sort of go hand in hand and LTC brings into the use of ideas like q109 is better than qxx etc you get the idea, you have to understand the power of high spot cards.

say partner opens 1NT
and you have any balanced hand with 2Kings and 1 Queen but every other card is 10,9,8 combinations. An expert would most likely just bid 3NT but others would just invite.

Does not your example just show experts use mechanical rules also.
Judgement just seems to be another word for applying mechanical rules that the experts use. Mechanical rules newer players do not know or know but forget at the table under pressure.

For that matter the term mechanical rules seems nonsensical. Rules are rules. Some have a few exceptions, some have many. Some have many adjustments, some have none.

[luis]

I don't think you can say that judgment is mechanic.
With the same hand after the same bidding I might take a different decision based on the state of the match, scoring, pd, opponents, what happened in the day so far, etc etc.