[mike777]

Arclight, very concise summary of the book. You captured the essence.

[cwiggins]

I was not impressed by the book and would like feedback on my criticisms of it.

To start with, as several others have pointed out, the book starts with a straw man argument. Cohen does not claim that the Law EXACTLY predicts the number of total tricks. Instead, “On most bridge deals, the number of total tricks will be APPROXIMATELY equal to the number of trumps.” (emphasis mine). From From “Introduction to the Law” by Larry Cohen, page 8:

That leads to a second fallacy in the book. Lawrence says he will prove that there is no causation between the number of trumps and the number of total tricks. But causation and predictability are different. Something can be a valuable predictor even though a causal link is not clear or does not exist. Example: living in the northern part of the northern hemisphere, when my calendar says “January,” I predict and am frequently correct that it is going to be cold outside. But my calendar saying it is January is not causing it to be cold. Similarly, whether the LOTT is causally connected to tricks does not matter if it is a good predictor. Is it? When you look at plus or minus one trick, the tables in the book show that for 16 trumps, the Law is accurate 88.2% of the time. This is close to 90%, the level that most social scientists consider to be statistically significant. So whether causality exists is less important than whether being plus or minus one 88.2% of the time is good enough. (The answer might be different for matchpoints and IMPs.)

That it is right to switch from approximately equal to exactly equal implicitly makes some crucial assumptions that are not explicitly backed up in the book. The missing crucial assumptions are encapsulated in these claims: (1) It is possible to predict the actual outcome to the trick based on the information from the auction and your hand. (2) To bid effectively, you need to know the exact outcome rather than plus or minus one. But don’t the examples they show of the results changing by several tricks depending on the location of a key card show that the actual outcome is not known? And are you better off if your opponents know that you are going to make your bid plus or minus one or if your opponents know you have bid exactly what you will take?

As for proving that the LOTT does not work by counterexamples, SST and WP are open to the same attack. Consider the following two hands opposite a 1S opening.

Hand A:
S-Qxx
H-Kxxx
D-xx
C-xxxx

Hand B:
S-Qxxx
H-Kxxx
D-xx
C-xxx

The SST and the WP are the same for both hands. But because of the fourth trump, Hand B is a significantly better hand. If you have hand B, declarer will encounter a bad trump split (4-0) 10% of the time while a declarer facing Hand A will encounter a bad trump split 32% of the time. The fourth trump is likely to reduce the number of trump losers against normal splits (consider playing 4S opposite Axxxxx or Kxxxx). And the fourth trump virtually guarantees at least one ruff provided partner has 3+ diamonds. When you hold only three trumps, opponents are likelier to be able to prevent a ruff. I.e. the number of trumps makes a difference.

Is a counterexample sufficient to discard an evaluation method? Perhaps whatever evaluation method you use, you should use judgment to identify exceptional cases (magic fits in side suits, absolutely mirrored hands, etc.), i.e. cases like the counter examples, and rely on your normal methods when you cannot identify exceptional circumstances. If that process produces accurate results, do you really care that you are using judgment in some cases?

I was also put off by the claim that judgment is not part of bridge when you use the LOTT. Cohen advocates using judgment to determine adjustments and exceptions to the Law. Also, it is no revelation that some contracts include running side suits and whether the contract makes or fails miserably depends on a finesse being right or a stopper being protected by its position (e.g. you hold a king while the ace is either in the opening leader’s hand or on side). I know of no modestly advanced bridge player who, just because they started using the Law, stopped using judgment to determine whether these situations exist.

The claim that distribution produces tricks, not total trumps is overstated. Lawrence (page 257) in one of the more moderate statement says, “Trumps are nice but you need good distribution to make them work.” I agreed. But I would add: “Good distribution is nice, but how much it works depends on how many trumps you have.” Isn’t it self-evident that if you hold a void opposite four cards, the number of tricks you will take is dependent in part on whether you have 3- or 4- card support for partner? And if you have a side suit that you want to use ruffs to set up, do you want 3- or 4-card support in the hand doing the ruffing?


Despite my negative reaction, whether the book is worthwhile depends on whether you answer the following question positively: does it let me bid better than with my current methods?

For me, the answer is no. My current methods are use the LOTT combined with Rosenkranz’s losers and cover cards evaluation method. I went back and compared this to every example in the book, and the LOTT combined with Rosenkranz’s methods is better than SST plus WP and is easier to apply. In case anyone wants to verify this, I’ve put a description of how to count cover cards below. (I assume that everyone knows how to count losers and plus/minus adjustments to it.)

I have a thoroughly marked up copy of the book with lots of other comments. But these are probably my main issues. I would appreciate feedback on these criticisms.


Description of Cover Card count

Losers minus cover cards = how many tricks you will lose (assuming an 8+ trump fit). E.g.: 7 losers minus 4 cover cards = 3 losers = 10 tricks for you, so bid 4M.

Rosenkranz's counts cover cards as follows.
* ace = one cover card
* king = one cover card
* queen = 1/2 cover card
* with three trumps, a doubleton is a plus value, a singleton is 1/2 a cover card, and a void is one cover card
* with four card trump support, a doubleton is half a cover card, a singleton is one cover card, and a void is 1 1/2 cover cards. (Extra cover cards were not awarded for 5+ trump support, which fits with the statistics that Lawrence and Wirgren propose.)
As bidding proceeds, you adjust the number of cover cards depending on what partner shows. E.g if you hold a queen in a suit that partner has 3+ cards in, count it as a cover card. If partner splinters in a suit that you hold a king or queen in, re-evaluate to zero cover cards. Also, Rosenkranz encourages you to use judgment when using the cover card and losing trick count, and gives some factors to consider to determine whether to upgrade or downgrade the loser count.

Rosenkranz claims “[W]hen used in tandem with point-count, this adjustment of cover cards is more accurate than the LTC.” Godfrey’s Bridge Challenge (1996) page 16

Among several pluses of this over SST and WP, cover cards evaluates four card support for a five card suit higher than 3-card support, which it should be and which SST and WP do not.

[bglover]

I think people focus too much on the Law and its general usefulness as a whole.

I've stated several times before on this forum that people misapply the Law with too much frequency and generally make a mockery of it. I've had "expert" partners who claim to be slaves to the Law misapply it so frequently that I wonder if they ever really understood it to start.

There is no mathematical way to quantify "judgement", which basically the Law seeks to do. If one blindly just does the trump calculations and fails to (1) listen to the opponent's bidding (to locate where outside honors are likely to be sitting, and thus make the proper adjustments for guarded kings, etc.) and (2) doesn't account properly for distributional values, the Law is worthless. And, I can say confidently that a great many players do not seem to do both of these when applying the Law.

It can, and should, be used as a "guide" only and can only be useful if the other factors/adjustments are used properly. My experience has been that many people never learn to use the adjustments at all. And, that obviates the value of the Law entirely.

I stopped playing bridge for a number of years, then returned to the game. My new partner (after my return) used to constantly refer to the Law and I had no idea what he was talking about. BUT I ALWAYS KNEW to compete another level with a 9 card fit and i ALWAYS KNEW that a hand that holding a singleton or void with a trump fit was more likely to produce more tricks than a hand that was 4432. All the Law does is quantify theses principles. Any good player knew these things long before Cohen's books appeared.

Misapplication of the Law is very common BECAUSE people use it to replace good judgment. To focus solely on the Law (or even primarily) to make decisions whether its proper to compete/sacrifice is, in my opinion, a mistake. There are usually "other" factors to consider. And any good player must be aware of everything going on in the hand at that moment to make the "best" decision.

[ArcLight]

>To start with, as several others have pointed out, the book starts with a straw man argument. Cohen does not claim that the Law EXACTLY predicts the number of total tricks. Instead, “On most bridge deals, the number of total tricks will be APPROXIMATELY equal to the number of trumps.” (emphasis mine). From From “Introduction to the Law” by Larry Cohen, page 8:

I read both Cohens books on the LAW, and he says the LAW is better than most experts judgement. (by Experts were talking people at Freds level, not a run of the mill expert who wins a regional). He presents a number of examples where the LAW gave a better result than the experts. To me he very clearly presented the idea that the LAW was superior, and while never claiming 100% perfection, he does imply that most of the time its wrong is because some adjustment wasnt factored in. So I dont think its a straw man at all. Larry Cohen vigorously presented the idea that the LAW was very accurate, and better than experts judgement. (I think he even came across as ridiculing some experts for thinking their judgement was better than the LAW). Thus I dont think this is a straw man argument at all.


>That leads to a second fallacy in the book. Lawrence says he will prove that there is no causation between the number of trumps and the number of total tricks. But causation and predictability are different. Something can be a valuable predictor even though a causal link is not clear or does not exist.

I think you are arguing semantics. Perhaps the correct term he should of used was predictable? It doesnt really matter. What does matter is the authors (Anders Wirgren was involved too) presented numerous examples backing their points, and refuting the LAW.

>Example: living in the northern part of the northern hemisphere, when my calendar says “January,” I predict and am frequently correct that it is going to be cold outside. But my calendar saying it is January is not causing it to be cold. Similarly, whether the LOTT is causally connected to tricks does not matter if it is a good predictor. Is it? When you look at plus or minus one trick, the tables in the book show that for 16 trumps, the Law is accurate 88.2% of the time. This is close to 90%, the level that most social scientists consider to be statistically significant.

In I Fought the LAW (hence forth IFTL) the authors point out that the LAW is fairly accurate when there are 16 total tricks, but does worse the more total tricks. 88.2% is also close to 86.4%, maybe 86.4% isnt so good? (i.e. what does 90% have to do with anything?). Is 88.2% better than experts judgement? When its off, how far off is it?


>So whether causality exists is less important than whether being plus or minus one 88.2% of the time is good enough. (The answer might be different for matchpoints and IMPs.)

It may very well not be good enough. The LAW may be off 2 or 3 and that may be disastrous. Thats discussed in the book.

The LAW is probably good enough for low total trump hands, but clearly not (as demonstrated in the book) for higher total trump hands.


>That it is right to switch from approximately equal to exactly equal implicitly makes some crucial assumptions that are not explicitly backed up in the book.

Yes they are. The LAW is generally accurate on average, but there may be a high variance. Suppose I had a method that predicted the total number of trick with 100% accuracy over a large number of hands, but the variance on any hand was around 3 tricks. Would that be useful? Not at all. The authors show the LAW works well enough with 14 total tricks, but not with 17+.

>The missing crucial assumptions are encapsulated in these claims: (1) It is possible to predict the actual outcome to the trick based on the information from the auction and your hand.

Yes with the method presented in IFTL. No with the LAW adjustments Larry Cohen gives.


> (2) To bid effectively, you need to know the exact outcome rather than plus or minus one.

To bid effectively you need to be 100% accurate most of the time, and not be too far off the other times.


> But don’t the examples they show of the results changing by several tricks depending on the location of a key card show that the actual outcome is not known?

They show that the LAW can be way off, in direct refutation to what Larry Cohen wrote (in bold) as one of the laws. That card position doesnt affect the total tricks. It can.

>And are you better off if your opponents know that you are going to make your bid plus or minus one or if your opponents know you have bid exactly what you will take?

I'm not sure I understand your concern. Your opponents don't necessarily know your distribution, that you are bidding in such a way becaus eyou have a void as opposed to HCP. You can bluff bid as well, you opponents dont know what you are thinking. There is psychology as well. Id rather have a 100% method and bluff occasionally, than have a less accurate method. (and Im not saying IFTL is 100% either)


>As for proving that the LOTT does not work by counterexamples, SST and WP are open to the same attack. Consider the following two hands opposite a 1S opening.

Hand A:
S-Qxx
H-Kxxx
D-xx
C-xxxx

Hand B:
S-Qxxx
H-Kxxx
D-xx
C-xxx

>The SST and the WP are the same for both hands.

***> Perhaps not, because you have 4 to the queen, you may have enough to have an implied Jack (the enemy Jack cant make because you have 9 trumps), that in turn gives you one extra WP. Or you may be ablt to take the opponents King, either through a drop or a finesse.


> But because of the fourth trump, Hand B is a significantly better hand. If you have hand B, declarer will encounter a bad trump split (4-0) 10% of the time while a declarer facing Hand A will encounter a bad trump split 32% of the time. The fourth trump is likely to reduce the number of trump losers against normal splits (consider playing 4S opposite Axxxxx or Kxxxx). And the fourth trump virtually guarantees at least one ruff provided partner has 3+ diamonds. When you hold only three trumps, opponents are likelier to be able to prevent a ruff. I.e. the number of trumps makes a difference.

The authors acknowledge that having 9 trumps is far better than having 8. What they also say is having 10 is probably not that much an advantage over 9. But the LAW would make a big deal out of that. The authors do a good job of showing that extra trump (say beyond 9) are not necessarily that useful, but having distribution is. In complete disagreement with the LAW.


>Is a counterexample sufficient to discard an evaluation method?

Not at all. Please come up with many, as did the authors in their book. Come up with a number of complete hands and lets analyze them. Im sure the IFTL method is not 100%, but its probably a lot better than the LAW in general, over a large number of hands.


> Perhaps whatever evaluation method you use, you should use judgment to identify exceptional cases (magic fits in side suits, absolutely mirrored hands, etc.),

! agree 100%, but thats in direct contradiction to Larry Cohen who was mocking some experts who didnt follow the LAW. The point of IFTL is to use judgement, and not rely on a simple method.



>I was also put off by the claim that judgment is not part of bridge when you use the LOTT.

Cohen mocked experts who got set who didnt follow the law.

> Cohen advocates using judgment to determine adjustments and exceptions to the Law.

He may have one blurb that sasys that, but everywhere else he's showing how the LAW is better than peoples judgement. He tries to explain the LAWs failing by people "not useing their judgement to come up with an adjustment", such as the double fit, or impurity, etc. And those may not necessasrily be detectable during the bidding either.


>Also, it is no revelation that some contracts include running side suits and whether the contract makes or fails miserably depends on a finesse being right or a stopper being protected by its position (e.g. you hold a king while the ace is either in the opening leader’s hand or on side).

The LAW says that the cards positions is irrelevant, the total tricks will be the same, and thats not always corrrect.


>I know of no modestly advanced bridge player who, just because they started using the Law, stopped using judgment to determine whether these situations exist.

Good.


>The claim that distribution produces tricks, not total trumps is overstated.

I disagree 100%. Shape is vital in Bridge. Imagine the opps bid a grand slam holding all 40 HCP. But the 2 opps are void in 2 side suits and each hold 2 trumps. Thats 4 ruffs for down 4.


>Lawrence (page 257) in one of the more moderate statement says, “Trumps are nice but you need good distribution to make them work.” I agreed. But I would add: “Good distribution is nice, but how much it works depends on how many trumps you have.”

He does say in IFTL taht you need some trumps to make use of the distribution.
If you read Mike Lawrences writings (such as www.bridgeclues.com) he is always talking about how important having 9 trumps (5-4 ) is than having 8. (He points out that a Limit raise needs 4 trumps, not 3).


>Despite my negative reaction, whether the book is worthwhile depends on whether you answer the following question positively: does it let me bid better than with my current methods?

For me the answer is a resounding YES. I felt it helped my hand evaluation and a few things began to click.


>For me, the answer is no. My current methods are use the LOTT combined with Rosenkranz’s losers and cover cards evaluation method. I went back and compared this to every example in the book, and the LOTT combined with Rosenkranz’s methods is better than SST plus WP and is easier to apply.

Please post the complete hands where your method is better, Id very much like to see them. (I have Klingers Modern Losing Trick count and thought it was interesting. He too has a number of adjustments, some which seem similar to those you listed below.)


>Rosenkranz claims “[W]hen used in tandem with point-count, this adjustment of cover cards is more accurate than the LTC.” Godfrey’s Bridge Challenge (1996) page 16

Please present some hands and lets take a look.


>Among several pluses of this over SST and WP, cover cards evaluates four card support for a five card suit higher than 3-card support, which it should be and which SST and WP do not.

Please present some hands and lets take a look.


I don't think any new theory (such as the one presented in IFTL) should be blindly accepted. It should be vigorously challenged. The way to do that is come up with hands that it doesnt work on. The authors do that themselves in their book. Also its necessary to come up with a large number of random hands and test both theories, as opposed to "stacking the deck" and only testing hands on which one method works and the other doesnt. ex. If there are 1000 possible bridge hands (out of the universe of all Bridge hands) on which theory X doesnt work then theory X is fantastic. But if one presented just those 1000 hands it would look like theory X is awful.

[luke warm]

whether or not one misapplies the law (and sure it happens) or relies on it too much has no bearing on the situation... lawrence, if i understand him, is stating that the law of total tricks is a deficient evaluation method for the same reason you are - that it eliminates judgment... this is not true, or at least it isn't true for anyone who understands cohen's book

as cwiggins said, anyone can knock over a straw man... it's ok to argue for or against anything one wants, but lawrence should at least argue against lott based on what was actually claimed...

is the lott a good indicator of the total tricks a hand contains? by adding/subtracting for purity, fit, etc, is it an even better indicator? i think it is, but i don't think it replaces (and i don't think cohen meant for it to replace) judgment

while you may be correct in stating that you "always knew" to compete with an extra trump, the same obviously isn't true for some other very good players (at least if one can believe the things they said and wrote about the book)... as often seems to happen, the more attention a thing attracts the more obvious it becomes

[keylime]

Gang, I don't use LOTT. LOTT, like Bergen raises, are NOT losing trick count (LTC) sufficient.

Give you a dramatic example of this. At one of Calgary's fine DBC's (the Aurora), my student and I defended a 3♥ contract via a Bergen sequence that went off three, doubled:

1H - P - 3C (constructive, 4 trumps)
3H - X! (GREAT DOUBLE partner) - P - P

Trumps were two-two, colors equal, and we STILL took +800. Why is that?

1. The hands were 3-5-3-2 opposite 3-4-3-3. Flat on flat.

2. The Bergen raiser had A TON of losers. For their 8 hcp hand they rewarded partner with a 9.5 loser hand opposite a 7.5 loser hand.

3. Partner found one great double.

4. I was leading trumps anyway (pard did too at every chance possible (twice)).

LOTT frankly isn't LTC sufficient. Isn't in many cases. Furthermore, that leads me to another question:

Over a Bergen raise setup, are trump leads effective as opening lead choice? I tend to think so.

[MickyB]

Keylime...how did your partner find that double?!

[Chamaco]

keylime, on Feb 7 2005, 05:56 PM, said:

1. The hands were 3-5-3-2 opposite 3-4-3-3. Flat on flat.

2. The Bergen raiser had A TON of losers. For their 8 hcp hand they rewarded partner with a 9.5 loser hand opposite a 7.5 loser hand.

--- cut ---

LOTT frankly isn't LTC sufficient. Isn't in many cases.

The example you used seems constructed on purpose, but good LAW followers would not apply it that way:

1) opener should not have a 7.5 losers hand but better off guaranteeing 7 losers

2) 4333 hands should consider their support shorted , e.g. 4 card support with 4333 is considered 3 card support

3) LOTT and LTC *can* be put together ny chhosing to use the invitational 4 card support with 8 losers rather than using straight hcp count (and using mixed raise with 9 losers). The only guarantee is that opener should guarantee a no of loser not greater than 7.

Having said that, it is obvious that the type of disaster you mention should not occur.

More generally, it is very easy (and unfair in my opinion) to try to shed bad light on one theory by applying it mechanically in specific cases.
LOTT/ LTC and any other theory should be adjusted with the aid og judgment and commonsense.
And even then there will be times when it fails, just like other widely accepted evaluation tools :-)

[luke warm]

just because one believes they are efficient and uses bergen raises doesn't mean judgment is checked at the door, like a coat... a 4333 hand with 8 hcp doesn't qualify as a bergen constructive... i personally would raise to 2M with that, tho i admit i might give thought to raising (later in the auction) to 3M in certain circumstances

i've used bergen raises for a long time and never had that kind of horror story happen... the only theoretical (to my knowledge) failing is the lead double

[keylime]

My partner had a light takeout double with 10 hcps and she wasn't going to let 'em play three cheap. I was quite happy.

[Gerben47]

I think both Lawrence and Cohen have some good points but I think it is sad they are using statistics to make the same data say what they want.

Here's the deal:

LOTT is right on 38% of the deals, one trick more about 24% of the time, one trick less about 24% of the time, and then about 7% for each of the extremes.

Now Lawrence says: 38% is not very good.
and Cohen says: To make a bidding decision you need to take a 1 sided test (which is correct), so to make the correct decision you have an accuracy of 38+24+7 = 69%, that's pretty good!

Then Cohen shows some hands where the number of tricks stays the same, and Lawrence shows some hand where the number of tricks changes. Big deal. We know both exist.

[Chamaco]

Gerben47, on Feb 8 2005, 10:06 AM, said:

I think both Lawrence and Cohen have some good points but I think it is sad they are using statistics to make the same data say what they want.

Ditto.

Blind belief in the mechanical application of the LOTT on each single deal is as ridiculous as discarding the LOTT it if it fails by +/- 1 TOTAL trick about 24+24% of the time.

But it is sad to see some credited authors play with numbers to claim one theory is wrong.

[mikestar]

The law is less accurate with larger numbers of trumps for one simple reason: all trumps are not created equal.

The eighth trump is quite valuable. Compare 4-4 or 5-3 to 4-3 or 5-2. The ninth trump is almost as valuable: less chance of bad breaks, more opportunites for ruffs. The tenth trump is worth something, but clearly not as much as the ninth. The eleventh trump is worth a little bit, but not as much as the tenth. The twelfth trump is worth very little extra. The only thing the thirteenth trump is good for is making sure they won't set your grand slam by ruffing the opening lead.

Of course, this assumes that the added trumps are divided between the partners: if we start with a 7-0 fit and give all the extra trumps to the long hand, that thirteenth trump is worth a lot more. But this is length value rather than trump value per se: Give the trumps to the short hand and you will not feel the difference between a 7-5 fit and a 7-6 fit, and odds are good that you won't feel the difference between 7-4 and 7-5.

Both Cohen and Lawrence are simplfying a larger, more complex truth about the value of trump length and distribution--they are simplifying it in different ways.

I take strong exception to Cohen's assertion that The Law is superior to expert judgement. I take equally strong exception to Lawrence's assertion that the Law is too unreliable. Until one has expert judgment, the Law beats the hell out of guessing.

[ArcLight]

This is a direct quote by Marty Bergen, from his excellent book, "More Points Schmoints", page 113 on the Law of Total Tricks:

There is no doubt that it is more accurate for competitive bidding than the judgement of the best player in the world.

Your trump length is far more important than distribution or HCP.

[fred]

mikestar, on Feb 8 2005, 03:28 PM, said:

Until one has expert judgment, the Law beats the hell out of guessing.

Agree, but I think that most people who blindly follow laws and rules never gain expert judgment - they don't need to because their laws and rules always provide them with an excuse if their actions don't work out (shades of Walter the Walrus again - "I had to double I had 18 points!").

In my opinion the best way to develop expert judgment is to get as much experience as possible trying to excercise your non-expert judgment. Look over your results carefully. Try to be objective. Ask experts what they think. Listen and think about their answers even if your instincts suggest they are crazy. See what you can learn.

Other useful practices include:

- Kibitz successful players (either on BBO or in person)
- Watch vugraph
- Read "The Master Solvers' Club" in The Bridge World magazine

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[whereagles]

I can't stand much of vu-graph. I prefer being there and play myself

[luis]

In a recent travel I decided to buy one bridge book to handle the idle times at airports.
I had this book in my hands and finally decided not to buy it, instead I took the 2003 World Championship book that is to me like watching a movie of the championship.
The reason I didn't like the book is that I couldn't find anything constructive in it, we know the law doesn't work in many hands, we know it's a tool that you can use along with your judgement so what is the point in showing when it doesn't work, what's the point in stating numbers and percentages ? I'd have liked a book about when to detect competitive auctions where the law should not be used instead the book looked just like a compilation of things we already know marketed under a rebel title.

I agree 100% with Fred about judgement and one thing I learned is that a bridge player never stops developing his judgement the more you play the more you watch and the more you read more information you have to take better decisions.

[ArcLight]

>The reason I didn't like the book is that I couldn't find anything constructive in it, we know the law doesn't work in many hands, we know it's a tool that you can use along with your judgement so what is the point in showing when it doesn't work, what's the point in stating numbers and percentages ? I'd have liked a book about when to detect competitive auctions where the law should not be used instead the book looked just like a compilation of things we already know marketed under a rebel title.

The book discusses hand evaluation as well. Its not just an anti-LAW book. It shows how your hand increases in value in some cases, but not others. If it was just an anti-law book I dont think it would have as much value.

Since I dont have any Bridge Worlds, maybe I should buy the Master Solvers club CD.

How does one identify successful players on BBO? Look for World Class players?
(I was trying to Kib Ben the other day but one of the players never showed up, must of been scared of him!)


(Luis, you say you don't like the book. If I understand your post correctly, you didn't read the book, did you? If not, then perhaps you mean "I was not interested in the book because ...")

[luis]

I didn't read it, I glazed over every page at the bookstore, while my wife was trying to figure out different ways to kill me. So I think I had a good view of the contents and how they were developed to decide if I was going to like the book or not.
I understand it can have some words about hand evaluation but there were too many pages showing how the law doesn't work in several situations and I decided It wasn't wise to spen money in a book that had so many pages devoted to show something that we all know like trying to demonstrate something that doesn't need a demonstration. I estimated I would use about 30% of what the book had so it wasn't a good buy for me.

If you write a book about a 1NT structure you wouldn't spend a lot of pages showing how many different hands can open 1NT would you? :-)

[ArcLight]

>If you write a book about a 1NT structure you wouldn't spend a lot of pages showing how many different hands can open 1NT would you? :-)

Actually, you would be surprised!

1) I'd discuss opening 1NT with a 5 card major, many players wont do that.

2) I'd discuss opening 1NT with 5-4-2-2* hands where I might have a rebid problem if pard bids a higher ranking suit, and I dont want to reverse.



By 5-4-2-2 I dont mean 5♠-4♥-2♦-2♣, I just mean the pattern 5-4-2-2 regardless of suit.