| Law of Total 
Tricks - A bidding methodology predicated on suit length, emphasizing both 
constructive opportunities as well as preemptive properties.  Also see book 
        Law of Total Tricks, 
        The: To Bid Or Not 
        To Bid and
        Following the 
        Law of the Total Tricks. In it's most 
simple form, "The Law" suggests a partnership bid to equal the number of 
combined suit length, with adjustments based on aggregate vulnerability and 
other factors. For instance, if:   Side A shows 9 Hearts collectively based on their bids 
and,   Side B indicates 
8 Spades then,   The aggregate tricks total 9 + 8 = 17 Thus:   If Side A's bidding indicates 
they can make 10 tricks in Hearts then,   Side B can only make 7 tricks in Spades 
(17 - 10 = 7) Assuming Side A is vulnerable and can make 620 points, Side B can 
lose up to 3 tricks and still have a better score (4 Spades Doubled, down 3 = 
500 points, 120 points better than losing 620 points). Jean-Rene Vernes, 
who originally created "The Law" in a 1969 article in the
Bridge World magazine, included 
illustrative hand # 93 from the 1958 World Championship: 
" In one room, 
the Italians arrived at a contract of four clubs, North-South; in the other 
room, they were allowed to play two spades, East-West. Analysis shows that the 
result was never in doubt. North made ten tricks in clubs, losing only one spade 
and two red aces, while West made eight tricks in spades at the other table, 
losing one spade, one diamond, one club and two hearts." "Now I will ask 
the reader to consider an unfamiliar concept that I call 'total tricks'--the 
total of the tricks made by the two sides, each playing in its best trump suit. 
In the deal above, the number of total tricks is 18 (10 for North-South in 
clubs, plus 8 for East-West in spades)." "Now, even though 
it is not possible, in the course of a competitive auction, to determine how 
many tricks the opponents will make, can it be possible to predict, on average, 
the number of total tricks? If so, this average figure cannot help but be of 
lively interest in making competitive decisions.  "In fact, this 
average exists, and can be expressed in an extremely simple law: the number 
of total tricks in a hand is approximately equal to the total number of trumps 
held by both sides, each in its respective suit. In the example above, 
North-South have ten clubs, East-West eight spades. Thus, the total number of 
trumps is 18, the same as the total number of tricks." "You may notice 
that in this deal the number of trumps held by each side was equal to the number 
of tricks it actually made--ten for North-South, eight for East-West. That is 
pure coincidence. It is only the equality between the total number of 
trumps and the total number of tricks that obeys a general law." Jean-Rene Vernes 
professed several adjustments were necessary to "The Law": 
      
        | 1. | The existence of a double 
        fit, each side having eight cards or more in two suits. When this 
        happens, the number of total tricks is frequently one trick greater than 
        the general formula would indicate. This is the most important of the 
        "extra factors."  |  
        | 2. | The possession of trump 
        honors. The number of total tricks is often greater than predicted when 
        each side has all the honors in its own trump suit. Likewise, the number 
        is often lower than predicted when these honors are owned by the 
        opponents. (It is the middle honors--king, queen, jack--that are of 
        greatest importance.) Still, the effect of this factor is considerably 
        less than one might suppose. So it does not seem necessary to have a 
        formal "correction," but merely to bear it in mind in close cases.  |  
        | 3. | The distribution of the 
        remaining (non-trump) suits. Up to now we have considered only how the 
        cards are divided between the two sides, not how the cards of one suit 
        are divided between two partners. This distribution has a very small, 
        but not completely negligible, effect. |  The article concludes, stating: 
      "Unfortunately, it is very difficult in practice to determine the total 
      number of trumps. (Oddly, this calculation is often somewhat easier for 
      the defending side than for opener's. For example, you can usually work 
      out the total trumps with great precision when a reliable partner makes a 
      takeout double of a major-suit opening.) Most often, though, players can 
      tell exactly how many trumps their side has, but not how many the 
      opponents have. However, this itself is sufficient to allow the law of 
      total tricks to be applied with almost complete safety."
 "Consider, for example, the second bidding sequence above, and suppose 
      that South has four spades. After partner's one-spade overcall, he can 
      count on him for at least five spades, or nine spades for his side. Thus, 
      East-West have at most four spades among their 25 cards. In other words, 
      they must have a minimum of eight trumps in one of the three remaining 
      suits. Thus, South can count for the deal a minimum of 9+8=17 total 
      tricks. So a bid of three spades is likely to show a profit, and at worst 
      will break approximately even."
 
 "A similar analysis shows that the situation is entirely different when 
      South has only three spades, so that his side has a considerable chance of 
      holding only eight of its trumps. To reach the figure of 18 total tricks, 
      it is now necessary for East-West to hold ten cards in their suit--not 
      impossible, but hardly likely. It is much more reasonable to presume that 
      the deal will yield only 16 or 17 total tricks. Thus, it is wrong to go 
      beyond the two level; three spades must lose or break even."
 
 "As we examine one after another of the competitive problems at various 
      levels, we find that the practical rule appropriate to each particular 
      case can be expressed as a quite simple general rule: You are protected 
      by "security of distribution" in bidding for as many tricks as your side 
      holds trumps. Thus, with eight trumps, you can bid practically without 
      danger to the two level, with nine trumps to the three level, with ten to 
      the four level, etc., because you will have either a good chance to make 
      your contract or a good save against the enemy contract."
 
 "This rule holds good at almost any level, up to a small slam (with only 
      one exception: it will often pay to compete to the three level in a lower 
      ranking suit when holding eight trumps). Of course, the use of this rule 
      presupposes two conditions: (1) the point-count difference must not be too 
      great between the two sides, preferably no greater than 17-23, certainly 
      no greater than 15-25; (2) the vulnerability must be equal or favorable. 
      For this rule to operate on unfavorable vulnerability, your side must have 
      as many high cards as the opponents (or more)."
 "The Law" was 
    popularized by Larry Cohen in 1992, who wrote several book on the topic.  
    Best known is "To Bid or Not to Bid", followed by "Following The Law" which 
    provided adjustments to the law.  Larry Cohen and his partner, Marty 
    Bergen, devised many conventions based on the concept of the law of total 
    tricks - particularly with a very good trump fit (9+ cards). Also see 
    Hand 
    Evaluation Books
 In the May 
    1992 issue of Bridge World, Andrew 
    Wirgren took a critical view of the law of total tricks from an analytical 
    perspective, titled "The Anarchy of Actual Tricks".  Andrew's article 
    highlighted the difference between a side's longest suit (the original 
    concept of "The Law") and the one that produces the most tricks. Andrew 
    pointed out that studying actual tricks is more important than studying 
    total tricks.  Andrew used a 
    hand generation simulator, Scania BridgeDealer, to generate deals. 
    Surprisingly, he found "The Law" only worked correctly 35 percent of the 
    time.  Next, he studied three world championship books:  
      1981 Bermuda 
      Bowl final = 31 percent "Law" accuracy 1982 
      Rosenblum Cup final = 36 percent "Law" accuracy 1983 
      Bermuda Bowl final = 41 percent "Law" accuracy Next Andrew 
    studied the adjustment factors to "The Law" in Larry Cohen's second book. 
    Negative Adjustment Factors would suggest that the Total Tricks will be less 
    than the number of trumps while Positive Adjustment Factors would suggest 
    that the Total Tricks will be greater than the number of trumps.  Negative 
    Adjustment Factors included:  
      Negative 
      Purity honors in opponent’s suits and/ or poor interiors in your 
      own suit Negative 
      Fit ( misfits) Negative 
      Shape (flat hands) Positive 
    Adjustment Factors included:  
      Positive 
      Purity (no minor honors in opponents’ suits and/or good 
      interiors in your own suits Positive 
      fit (double/double fit Positive 
      Shape (extra length or voids).  Andrew 
    Wirgren concluded that accurate use of "The Law" suffers deficiencies. Location of High Cards Larry states in his book "To 
    Bid or Not to Bid", pages 18-19 that:1) "Finesses that are onside for one 
    pair will be offside for the other. The Total Trick count is constant". 
    Andrew strongly disagrees as the following random deal exemplifies:
 Playing in some number of 
    clubs, East-West have 9 club trumps and North-South have 9 spade trumps for 
    a total of 18 total tricks. Playing in clubs East-West get five club tricks 
    and two diamond tricks. The critical card is who has the HK. For 
    North-South, the position of the HK is worth three tricks when the 
    DA is knocked out at trick one. If West has it, the total trick count is 
    20, but if East has it, then there are only 18 total tricks. This shows that 
    the position of the high cards is not irrelevant and does not balance 
    themselves out. Thus, the total trick count is not always constant when 
    formulating the Law. Distribution of the Suits
     Larry also states in his 
    book To Bid or Not to Bid on Pages 18-19 that "bad breaks for one side 
    translate into good breaks for the other. The Total Trick count is 
    constant." This is not always the case as Andrew points out with the 
    following example hand: Both sides can take eight 
    tricks, first drawing trump then removing the minor suit Ace from the 
    defense.  By moving all the 5s, the total trick count changes 
    dramatically. Now both sides can make 10 tricks for 20 total tricks, two 
    more than expected. Moving the C5 from North to South meant that one 
    club loser disappeared and moving the H5 from the South to the North 
    hand meant that a heart loser vanished at the same time. The same goes for 
    East-West. This simple example shows 
    two important things. The first is that an extra trump for one side does not 
    automatically mean one extra total trick. The second is that distribution is 
    important as theorized by Andrew disagreeing with the opposite view of 
    Cohen. Therefore, the total number of tricks on any deal depends not only on 
    the total number of trumps, but also how the suits are distributed.  A third factor challenging 
    "The Law" is the belief that the trick count remains constant when honors 
    are moved from one hand to the other. The following is an example deal that 
    was played by Andrew Wirgren in the 2001 Hecht Cup in Copenhagen showing 
    that this is not always true: 
    Assuming both sides can make 17 total tricks and both sides have found a 
    black suit fit, should West overcall 3C to 3S?  Wirgen did 
    getting a 48% score, while 3C by opponents would be down two for a 78 
    percent game (93 percent if Doubled).  Thus, when a side is bidding a 
    suit other than their best (starting out with Hearts here), using the Law is 
    non-productive. 
    While moving the HA to from South to North still produces 17 total 
    tricks, their side can take 7 tricks in Clubs or 9 in Hearts.  
    Interestingly, doing so also changes the East-West tricks, making Diamonds 
    their best trick-taking suit.  So while the Law purports "shifting 
    honors" does not influence the outcome, here it causes the trick taking 
    swing from 14 to 17 actual tricks.  Ironically, exchanging the 5s 
    between North-South or East-West hands allows the side to make 10 tricks (20 
    total)! Finally, Wirgren argues that 
    point count, control, and vulnerability hypothesis of the Law are not always 
    valid, citing: "(1) the 
    point-count difference must not be too great between the two sides, 
    preferably no greater than 17-23 HCP, certainly no greater than 15-25 HCP; 
    (2) the vulnerability must be equal or favorable. For this rule to operate 
    on unfavorable vulnerability, your side must have as many high cards as the 
    opponents (or more)." Originally, Vernes considered the point count difference  important 
    without an explanation, however the topic was not addressed in "The Law of 
    Total Tricks". Wigren provides the following 
    illustrative example: With 9 Hearts and 9 
    Diamonds, the hands comprise 18 total tricks.  In actuality, 
    North-South takes 13 tricks in a Heart contract while East-West is limited 
    to 5 Diamond tricks plus 1 Club trick.  So the total should be 19 total 
    tricks. However, moving 
    North-South's Aces to East, things change dramatically.  Here, a Spade 
    lead against South's Heart contract provides the defense 2 additional tricks 
    - SA and a Spade ruff.   In the Diamond contract, the SA 
    was only worth 1 trick. Thus, when player's strength/controls become 
    unbalanced, it becomes more unlikely that trumps will provide an accurate 
    evaluation of aggregate tricks.   In conclusion, point-count and 
    control differences can greatly affect trick taking based on associated 
    controls. Wirgen studied 352 deals 
    from world 
    championships finals, noting the accuracy of the Law a 37 percent based on 
    point-count and control differences.  When one side has at least 24 
    points, the accuracy decreased to 30 percent.  When the points were in 
    the 17-23 range, the accuracy increased to 42 percent. In conclusion, according to 
    Andrew Wirgen, "The Law" is 
    better served in competitive part score auction and the strength is 
    balanced.  Unlike the hypothesis in the Law, Andrew Wirgen has 
    attempted to provide definitive data where the Law is inaccurate. |