Law of total tricks

Last updated

In contract bridge, the Law of total tricks (abbreviated here as LoTT) is a guideline used to help determine how high to bid in a competitive auction. It is not really a law (because counterexamples are easy to find) but a method of hand evaluation which describes a relationship that seems to exist somewhat regularly. Written by Jean-René Vernes for French players in the 1950s as a rule of thumb, it was first described in English in 1966 International Bridge Academy Annals. It received more notice from appearing in The Bridge World in June 1969.[ citation needed ] In 1981 Dick Payne and Joe Amsbury, using their abbreviation TNT (Total Number of Tricks), wrote at length about it for British readers. [1] Later, in the US, Marty Bergen and Larry Cohen popularized the approach, using their preferred abbreviation: 'the LAW' (all capitals). [2]

Contents

It was prefigured in S. J. "Skid" Simon's 1945 book Why You Lose at Bridge in his aphorism "When in doubt, bid one more". [3]

Definition

LoTT can be stated as follows:

The total number of tricks available on a deal is equal to the total number of trump cards both sides hold in their respective best suits, where the total number of tricks is defined as the sum of the number of tricks available to each side if they could choose trumps.

As an example, if North-South between them hold nine spades and East-West hold eight clubs, the LoTT says that the total number of tricks available is 17 (9 + 8). Note the LoTT says nothing about how many tricks each side will make; this depends on the split of high card points (HCP) as well as the number of trumps held - if, in the example, the side with eight clubs held all the HCP, they would make all 13 tricks with clubs as trumps - but if the other side could choose spades as trumps, they could well make four tricks (draw trumps and cross ruff) - note 13 + 4 still = 17. When the HCP are fairly evenly split between the two sides, the number of trumps held by each side is a close indicator of the tricks available to each side.

This method works on the assumption that for shapely hands, the combined length of the trump suit is more significant than points or HCP in deciding on the level of the final contract. It is of most value in competitive bidding situations where the HCP are divided roughly equally between the partnerships.

LoTT is said to be most accurate when the HCP are fairly evenly divided between the two sides and the bidding is competitive. Experts apply adjustment factors to improve accuracy.

TNT (Total Number of Trumps = Total Number of Tricks)

Payne and Amsbury's Bridge: TNT and Competitive Bidding (1981) may have been the first major book on the topic. [1] In the introduction, [1] :7 the authors acknowledge Jean-René Vernes as the first writer to investigate TNT (Total Number of Tricks) Theory. Page 19 includes a key table that may not have been printed elsewhere.

Total trumps principle

By combining LoTT with the scoring table, it is argued that the following Total trumps principle is quite often a winning strategy:

Bid to a number of tricks equal to the number of trumps you and your partner hold (and no higher) in a competitive auction.

Thus, if with an eight-card fit, a pair is safe to bid to the two level but are unsafe to go to the three level. But, with a nine-card fit, the three level will be safe.

In this context, "safe" does not necessarily mean that the contract will be made. But if not, it means that it is a worthwhile sacrifice against the opponents' contract. For example, if the opponents have bid to two spades, and you have a nine-card heart fit, the "law" says you should bid three hearts. Assuming the opponents have an eight-card spade fit, there are 17 total tricks. If the opponents can take eight tricks, LoTT says you can take nine. If the opponents can take nine tricks, LoTT says you can take only eight. But down one (even doubled, if not vulnerable) is a smaller negative score for you than letting the opponents make three.

Derived from LoTT, this principle assists players in judging the level to which they should bid in a competitive situation. At its simplest a player should bid to the level of their calculation (from the bidding) of the number of trumps held by their side:

In certain competitive situations, vulnerability can influence the optimum contract. Thus, with the HCP evenly split and facing a bid at the three level by the opposition, bidding to a level above the number of trumps held can be a useful sacrifice at favourable vulnerability.

Examples

For example, suppose that North-South have an eight-card heart fit and East-West have an eight-card spade fit. The total number of trumps is 16 so the "law" says the total number of tricks is also 16. That is, if North-South can take eight tricks playing in hearts, then East-West can take 16 - 8 = 8 tricks playing in spades; if North-South can take nine tricks in hearts, LoTT says East-West can take only seven tricks in spades.

KQ853
K43
7
J1043
107

N

W               E

S

J4
A87651092
J94KQ103
KQ9A872
A962
QJ
A8652
65

In the diagram, N-S have 9 spades and E-W 8 hearts combined. N-S can make 4 spades (conceding two clubs and heart ace) while E-W can make only 1 heart on a good defense (which takes a trump from QJ, two spades, diamond ace and two diamond ruffs)—the law holds, as the total tricks available is 10+7=17.

Note, however, how minor card rearrangements affect the law:

  1. If the N-S diamonds were divided 4-2 instead of 5-1, with clubs consequently divided 3-3, the available total tricks would be only 8 for N-S + 8 for E-W = 16
  2. If, on the other hand, the E-W spades were divided 3-1 instead of 2-2 (with appropriate minor-suit rearrangement), they could make 2, while N-S could still make 4, giving 18 total tricks.

Consequences

There are a number of bridge conventions that take advantage of this principle. For example, Bergen raises following an opening bid of one of a major (using a 5-card major system):

  • 3 of the major = 4-card support and 0-6 HCP
  • 3C = 4-card support and 7-9 points
  • 3D = 4-card support and 10-12 HCP

In 2002, Anders Wirgren called the accuracy of the "law" into question, saying it works on only 35-40% of deals. However, Larry Cohen remains convinced it is a useful guideline, especially when adjustments are used properly. Mendelson (1998) finds that it is "accurate to within one trick on the vast majority of hands"

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Contract bridge</span> Card game

Contract bridge, or simply bridge, is a trick-taking card game using a standard 52-card deck. In its basic format, it is played by four players in two competing partnerships, with partners sitting opposite each other around a table. Millions of people play bridge worldwide in clubs, tournaments, online and with friends at home, making it one of the world's most popular card games, particularly among seniors. The World Bridge Federation (WBF) is the governing body for international competitive bridge, with numerous other bodies governing it at the regional level.

Stayman is a bidding convention in the card game contract bridge. It is used by a partnership to find a 4-4 or 5-3 trump fit in a major suit after making a one notrump (1NT) opening bid and it has been adapted for use after a 2NT opening, a 1NT overcall, and many other natural notrump bids.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">500 (card game)</span> Rules of 500 card game

500 or Five Hundred is a trick-taking game developed in the United States from Euchre. Euchre was extended to a 10 card game with bidding and a Misère contract similar to Russian Preference, producing a cutthroat three-player game like Preference and a four-player game played in partnerships like Whist which is the most popular modern form, although with special packs it can be played by up to six players.

In the card game contract bridge, the Losing-Trick Count (LTC) is a method of hand evaluation that is generally only considered suitable to be used in situations where a trump suit has been established and when shape and fit are more significant than high card points (HCP) in determining the optimum level of the contract. The method is generally not considered suitable for no trump or misfit hands; also, the trump suit is generally considered to require at least eight cards in length with no partner holding fewer than three.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Spades (card game)</span> Card game

Spades is a trick-taking card game devised in the United States in the 1930s. It can be played as either a partnership or solo/"cutthroat" game. The object is to take the number of tricks that were bid before play of the hand began. Spades is a descendant of the Whist family of card games, which also includes Bridge, Hearts, and Oh Hell. Its major difference as compared to other Whist variants is that, instead of trump being decided by the highest bidder or at random, the Spade suit always trumps, hence the name.

Acol is the bridge bidding system that, according to The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, is "standard in British tournament play and widely used in other parts of the world". It is a natural system using four-card majors and, most commonly, a weak no trump.

Rubber bridge is a form of contract bridge played by two competing pairs using a particular method of scoring. A rubber is completed when one pair becomes first to win two games, each game presenting a score of 100 or more contract points; a new game ensues until one pair has won two games to conclude the rubber. Owing to the availability of various additional bonus and penalty points in the scoring, it is possible, though less common, to win the rubber by amassing more total points despite losing two games out of three. Rubber bridge involves a high degree of skill but there is also a fair amount of luck involved in who gets the best cards. A popular variation of rubber bridge is known as Chicago.

Polish Club is a bridge bidding system which was developed in Poland, where it is the most popular bidding system, and which is also used by players of other countries. It is a type of small club system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bid whist</span> Card game

Bid whist is a partnership trick-taking variant of the classic card game whist. As indicated by the name, bid whist adds a bidding element to the game that is not present in classic whist. Bid whist, along with spades, remains popular particularly in U.S. military culture and a tradition in African-American culture.

Zar Points (ZP) is a statistically derived method for evaluating contract bridge hands developed by Zar Petkov. The statistical research Petkov conducted in the areas of hand evaluation and bidding is useful to bridge players, regardless of their bidding or hand evaluation system. The research showed that the Milton Work point count method, even when adjusted for distribution, is not sufficiently accurate in evaluating all hands. As a result, players often make incorrect or sub-optimal bids. Zar Points are designed to take many additional factors into consideration by assigning points to each factor based on statistical weight. While most of these factors are already implicitly taken into account by experienced players, Zar Points provides a quantitative method that allows them to be incorporated into bidding.

Preempt is a bid in contract bridge whose primary objectives are (1) to thwart opponents' ability to bid to their best contract, with some safety, and (2) to fully describe one's hand to one's partner in a single bid. A preemptive bid is usually made by jumping, i.e. skipping one or more bidding levels. Since it deprives the opponents of the bidding space, it is expected that they will either find a wrong contract of their own, or fail to find any. A preemptive bid often has the aim of a save, where a partnership bids a contract knowing it cannot be made, but assumes that, the penalty will still be smaller than the value of opponents' bid and made contract.

These terms are used in contract bridge, using duplicate or rubber scoring. Some of them are also used in whist, bid whist, the obsolete game auction bridge, and other trick-taking games. This glossary supplements the Glossary of card game terms.

The weak two bid is a common treatment used in the game of contract bridge, where an opening bid of two diamonds, hearts or spades signifies a weak hand, typically containing a long suit. It may be deployed within any system structure that offers a forcing artificial opening to handle hands of (eg) 20+ points, or an expectation of 8 or more tricks. It is form of preemptive bid.

In the card game contract bridge, a takeout double is a low-level conventional call of "Double" over an opponent's bid as a request for partner to bid his best of the unbid suits. The most common takeout double is after an opponent's opening bid of one of a suit where the double shows a hand with opening values, support for all three unbid suits and shortness in the suit doubled. Normally, the partner of the doubler must bid his best suit but may pass if (a) his right hand opponent intervenes or (b) on the more rare occasions when his hand is such that he wishes to convert the takeout double to a penalty double.

In contract bridge, various bidding systems have been devised to enable partners to describe their hands to each other so that they may reach the optimum contract. Key to this process is that players evaluate and re-evaluate the trick-taking potential of their hands as the auction proceeds and additional information about partner's hand and the opponent's hands becomes available.

Bridge bidding systems that incorporate a strong 2 clubs opening bid include modern Standard American, standard Acol, 2/1 game forcing and many others.

In contract bridge, an overcall is a bid made after an opening bid has been made by an opponent; the term refers only to the first such bid. A direct overcall is such a bid made by the player seated immediately to the left of the opener, i.e. next in the bidding rotation; an overcall in the 'last seat', i.e. by the player to the right of opener, which is made after two intervening passes, is referred to as a balancing or protective overcall.

A bridge maxim is a rule of thumb in contract bridge acting as a memory aid to best practice gained from experience rather than theory.

In the game of contract bridge, balancing refers to making a call other than Pass when passing would result in the opponents playing at a low level. Balancing is done by the player in the balancing position, i.e. to the right of the player making the last non-pass call. This is in contrast to bidding in the direct position, i.e. by the player to the left. Balancing is normally done with values unsuitable for direct action, but only after the opponents' bidding has demonstrated weakness or minimal strength. The aim of the tactic is to find a makeable or nearly-makeable contract for one's own side or to "push" opponents a level higher. It is more common in matchpoint games, where even a defeat and loss of 100 points is a relatively better result than the opponents' gain of 110-140 points.

Five-card majors is a contract bridge bidding treatment common to many modern bidding systems. Its basic tenet is that an opening bid of one-of-a-major in first and second position guarantees at least five cards in that major. This method has become standard in North American tournament play, but European methods vary.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Payne, Dick; Amsbury, Joe (1981). Bridge: TNT and Competitive Bidding. B.T. Batsford (London, England). ISBN   0-7134-2543-1.
  2. Cohen, Larry (1992). To Bid or Not to Bid: The Law of Total Tricks. Natco Press. ISBN   978-0963471505.
  3. Simon, S. J. (1945). Why You Lose at Bridge . London: Nicholson & Watson. p. 65. OCLC   18352804.