The Law was originally proposed by French bridge theoretician Jean-René Vernes in his 1966 book "Bridge Moderne de la Défense." He subsequently wrote a synopsis of the Law in a Bridge World article circa June 1969. It has since gained widespread popularity when American expert Larry Cohen introduced it in his books "To Bid or Not to Bid" (1992) and "Following the Law" (1994). Today, the Law of Total Tricks is widely accepted, both by experts and casual players, as a valuable guideline for bidding.
Let's jump into some examples...
North | ||||
AQT32 | ||||
KQ3 | ||||
West | T9 | East | ||
54 | AT3 | 976 | ||
AT985 | J72 | |||
AK63 | South | 87 | ||
J8 | KJ8 | KQ976 | ||
64 | ||||
QJ542 | ||||
542 |
West 1 Pass |
North 1 Pass |
East 2 Pass |
South 2 |
This is a typical Law deal. East-West have 8 hearts and North-South have 8 spades. 8 hearts + 8 spades = 16 total trumps. That number happens to be the combined number of tricks that can be made in
The principle is the same if we move some cards around:
North | ||||
AJT32 | ||||
Q3 | ||||
West | A93 | East | ||
54 | T83 | 976 | ||
AKT985 | J72 | |||
KQ6 | South | 87 | ||
AJ | KQ8 | KQ976 | ||
64 | ||||
JT542 | ||||
542 |
West 1 4 |
North 1 Pass |
East 2 Pass |
South 2 Pass |
North-South still own an 8-card spade fit, but East-West now enjoy a 9-card heart fit. 8 spades + 9 hearts = 17. Playing
The bidding in the above examples was fairly realistic, with or without the Law. So let's look at a hand in which the Law may actually influence the bidding. Sitting East, you hold:
973 KQ32 J2 QT72 |
The auction begins:
Partner 1 (1) Pass |
Opp 1 Pass 2 |
You 2 ? |
Opp 2 Pass |
Playing a natural 5-card major system, you have already described your hand with
Opp 1 | ||||
AQT6 | ||||
987 | ||||
Partner | JT85 | You | ||
54 | K9 | 973 | ||
AJ654 | KQ32 | |||
A976 | Opp 2 | Q2 | ||
A6 | KJ82 | QT72 | ||
T | ||||
K43 | ||||
J8543 |
The opponents hold 8 spades, while your side holds 9 hearts. 8 + 9 = 17, so the Law says there should be 17 total tricks available.
This leads to the most important application of the Law...
In my experience, this is most common and critical at the 2- and 3-levels. If you and your partner have an 8-card fit, then you are usually safe to compete to the 2-level in that suit. And if you own a 9-card fit, then you're usually safe to compete to the 3-level. The contract will either make, or be a good sacrifice against whatever the opponents can make.
North | ||||
AQT32 | ||||
K3 | ||||
West | T93 | East | ||
54 | T83 | 9 | ||
AQT985 | J742 | |||
AK6 | South | 872 | ||
AJ | KJ876 | KQ976 | ||
6 | ||||
QJ54 | ||||
542 |
20 total trumps in hearts and spades but only 18 total tricks.
Mike Lawrence and Andres Wirgren wrote the book "I Fought The Law Of Total Tricks", which makes compelling arguments about the shortcomings of the Law.
A key reason behind the Law's popularity, Lawrence and Wirgren claim, is its simplicity. It provides a straightforward framework for evaluating a bridge hand. Simplicity is certainly a virtue, but it does not necessarily equate to accuracy. One of their key arguments was that Jean-René Vernes relied on average values, not absolutes. To quote Vernes' 1969 Bridge World article, "Can it be possible to predict, on average, the number of total tricks?" The original Law did not claim that total tricks and total trumps are equal on every single deal. They are only roughly equal (around 60% tricks to 40% trumps) when the average is calculated across many deals. This distinction is important. Matthew Ginsberg, a mathematician and computer programmer, conducted a precise study and reported the results in The Bridge World (May 1996). Using his bridge software program "Goren in a Box" (GIB), Ginsberg ran a double-dummy analysis of nearly 450,000 deals to test the Law. Per his Bridge World article, total tricks only equalled total trumps on 40% of the deals. Thus it is reasonable to argue that the Law incorrectly assumes a direct connection between tricks and trumps, which, in reality, doesn't exist. When total trumps and total tricks happen to align on a given deal, it might be a coincidental correlation rather than a causative relationship.
echo date('Y'); ?> © Jeff Tang. All Rights Reserved.