I fought the Law

[Chamaco]

Lawrence's book does not reveal a new Gospel. It suggests adjustments to the Law, and formulas for correcting.

This is not quite true.

 

Lawrence's book criticizes the Law bringing up unfair examples, e.g. examples with duplication of shape/values, and other minuses that were already addressed by Cohen as "needing adjustments".

 

He goes on using statistics in an unfair way to say how man times the law does not work.

 

Finally, he suggests using a method of numericaly assessing the trick-tacking potential, that is NOT a real, practical, alternative to the Law, because it has different purposes (the Law tries to assess whether a jump raise will be a good sac opposite the alternative contract by opps, FTL just tries to assess whether we'll go down, regardless of which alternative contract opps have).

 

So, it's fair to say that the Law of Total Trick is not a Law.

It is also fair to say that often it fails and that it should not be used as a panacea.

 

But the way it was done specifically in the book sounds more like a battle of religion and/or a marketing affair.

 

 

Critics are always food for thought, but bringing down an opposing theory by using unfair examples and a misuse of statistics is bad.

[whereagles]

"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.

Comparing a well-documented (though poorly written) book like "Fought the Law" with singleton-kings-offside "Fought the finesse" is a rather unfair comment, Luis. Come on, you know better than that. Every book obviously has some bias, but Lawrence's book is FAR from "completely biased".

 

I agree Lawrence's SST/WP evaluation method sucks in terms of practicality and that the law of total tricks rules supreme in that respect. But to dismiss months of serious work by Lawrence and Wirgen, labelling it as "populist attack on a mainstream topic", is going too far.

[Chamaco]

Comparing a well-documented (though poorly written) book like "Fought the Law" with singleton-kings-offside "Fought the finesse" is a rather unfair comment, Luis.

 

The book is not quite well documented:

there are MENTIONED the summary of hundreds of hands, but the precise conditions of the analysis and simulations are not illustrated.

A "well-documented" summary usually should allow the readers to verify whether he can agree/disagree with the boundary conditions, as well as to double check if there are mistakes.

Basically, "well-documented" means delivering access to the raw data and the methods, to enable someone else to verify whether te math analysis might output a different hypothesis than the one presented by the authors.

 

Also, claiming that LOTT fails when it deviates by ONE TOTAL TRICK is very silly: ONE TOTAL TRICK means more or less half a level, that is, the margin that is left to hand evaluation and adjustments.

 

If we indeed consider the times when the LOTT deviats by at most +/- 1 TOTAL TRICK, the % of success is quite significant (if I recall correctly, in the 75-80% range).

 

Finally, the most interesting parts of such books are concrete hands and examples, but the chosen examples are carefully selected for worse case conditions (4333, shape duplications and /or duplication of values).

 

But such factors are used to adjust in ANY method: Cohen suggested it in his 2nd book, and in any case they should be used even in more traditional evaluation methods (e.g. Lawrence's book on Hand evaluation).

 

 

Hence, the documentation and the argumentation is very partial, and above all absolutely UNSCIENTIFIC, despite the way the data are presented might lead a naive reader to believe that the analysis is objective.

 

The misuse of statistics can demonstrate almost any nonsense, if one can play with numbers and select the right case histories.

[Kalvan14]

I was not trying to defend I fought the Law.

Actually, when I read the book, i found it more than a bit annoying. It was truly a kind of war of religion, which made me think there was something personal between Bergen and Lawrence.

This said, the idea of finding a kind of unified field theory for bridge is quite funny :)

I would anticipate that this is not possible. Luckily so: were it possible, I would stop playing bridge.

[CarlRitner]

It was truly a kind of war of religion, which made me think there was something personal between Bergen and Lawrence.

That's twice now I've seen Marty Bergen instead of Larry Cohen, the author of the LOTT books. These two used to be partners but Marty doesn't really have any involvement in this discussion.

 

It's a great discussion, by the way; things like this help players at all levels to understand where the other folks are at in terms of hand evaluation techniques, and opinions of the different approaches.

 

The evaluation techniques expressed in I Fought The LAW are quite valid, if you have the mental acumen and capacity to do this at the table during the auction; apparently Lawrence and Wirgen feel there are a sufficient percentage of players capable of this to warrant the publication of the book.

 

Until the ACBL permits players to keep a computer running, as an aide during the auction, I'm afraid these techniques are beyond my level :unsure:

 

Cheers,

 

Carl Ritner

ACBL Library Used Bridge Book and Magazines

[Chamaco]

The evaluation techniques expressed in I Fought The LAW are quite valid, if you have the mental acumen and capacity to do this at the table during the auction; apparently Lawrence and Wirgen feel there are a sufficient percentage of players capable of this to warrant the publication of the book.

Their suggested method sure seems a good one, but my point was that it is not an alternative to the LOTT, because it has different purposes: the LOTT goal is to find the PAR of the hand, even if you go down (because opps have a beter score), the FTL method just tries to compute how many tricks your side can make, regardless of the opps potential.

 

That's a competely different story, and that's why it is silly to compare the 2 methods.

 

=====

 

I'll repeat here that I am not criticizing their suggested method, but I strongly dislike the inappropriate way they attacked the theory of the LOTT: they used biased examples and inappropriate statistics.

[barmar]

So, it's fair to say that the Law of Total Trick is not a Law.

It is also fair to say that often it fails and that it should not be used as a panacea.

The LOTT is a law in the same sense as the Law of Averages. When randomness is involved, that's about the best you can generally get.

[whereagles]

Basically, "well-documented" means delivering access to the raw data and the methods, to enable someone else to verify whether te math analysis might output a different hypothesis than the one presented by the authors.

 

Hence, the documentation and the argumentation is very partial, and above all absolutely UNSCIENTIFIC, despite the way the data are presented might lead a naive reader to believe that the analysis is objective.

That is true, but you forget something: Lawrence's book is for the general audience. It is NOT a scientific article. You have to reach a comprimise between precision and understanding of the point you want to make. What good does it make to fill dozens of pages with curve-fittings and simulation data? People just want to know the conclusions of the study, and that is what Lawrence gives them.

 

As for the examples shown, even a 100% honest analyst, which Larry Cohen is NOT - he clearly 'fits' the hands to prove his point, cannot escape a bias. The point, however, isn't to provide results of random hands, but to give you food for thought.

[Chamaco]

That is true, but you forget something: Lawrence's book is for the general audience. It is NOT a scientific article. You have to reach a comprimise between precision and understanding of the point you want to make. What good does it make to fill dozens of pages with curve-fittings and simulation data? People just want to know the conclusions of the study, and that is what Lawrence gives them.

 

That is true, but the book is presented under the aura of "making an objective statistical analysis".

It should be pretty clear that it is not so.

 

As far as being a book for a general audience, I have nothing against that, as long as this is quite clear, and that the critics are not biased with carefully chosen examples

 

As for the examples shown, even a 100% honest analyst, which Larry Cohen is NOT

 

Sure, I agree on this.

 

- he clearly 'fits' the hands to prove his point, cannot escape a bias.

 

I disagree.

If he wants to bring these examples, it's ok, but then he should mention that Cohen himself would downgrade hands with mirrred shapes or duplication of values or 4333.

You cannot criticize a hand evaluation methods based on its misapplication, this goes beyond good faith.

 

The point, however, isn't to provide results of random hands, but to give you food for thought.

 

I agree and I like "food for thought", but I do think that this should be done in a fair way.

There are many examples where the law fails genuinely and these examples are very interesting, but using systematically examples where it fails because applied in the wrong context does not seem to me the proper way to "feed" any thoughts ;)

[pigpenz]

I have not read Lawrences book but I am sure both of them use hands to fit their purposes. The only way to look at either is to just sit down and look at hand records after handrecords and come to your own conclusions.

[Chamaco]

I have not read Lawrences book but I am sure both of them use hands to fit their purposes.  The only way to look at either is to just sit down and look at hand records after handrecords and come to your own conclusions.

That's fair, but when I decide to do that, I would not buy a book.

 

Buying a book that titles "I fought the law", I expect a *somewhat* but not *totally* biased analysis: I know pretty darn well that the Law fails in given hands (I paid my prices for that), and indeed I wanted a good read about that that would add more to the subject, besides the adjustments mentioned by Cohen in "Following the law".

But, buying a book with such a title I expected an analysis more detached and objective.

 

As it is, the analysis is pure desctructive: it appears that the LOTT is close to useless, which is not true either.

This is rather annoying: if, like you correctly say, the only reliable approach is "do your homework" (which I do) then I'll stop buying bridge books, but that would be sad, meaning that bridge authors are not capable to analyze some topics with a decent deal of objectivity.

 

The part of the book that has some values is the one on their method to compute trick-taking potential, although the results are often very close to the application of a straightforward and oversimplified method such as LTC.

Besides, it's not really what one expects to get when he buys a book with such a title...

 

======

 

What makes me even more sour is the fact that for me this is a "deja vu" from the chess literature.

Pre 1995 chess literature had a good standard, because every book chapter had real contents, selected by human persons with specific cases histories that were fitting with a given topic.

 

Then, starting the mid 90s, the big databases became available, and the quality of many books dropped. Lots of books became just big database dumps, because dumping and analyzing by PC lots of data became quite fast, quite faster than writing a REAL book, and putting real effort in analyzing single, complicated, and deep positions.

 

This "Fought the Law" book gave to me the same impression, in a way.

[whereagles]

Then, starting the mid 90s, the big databases became available, and the quality of many books dropped. Lots of books became just big database dumps, because dumping and analyzing by PC lots of data became quite fast, quite faster than writing a REAL book, and putting real effort in analyzing single, complicated, and deep positions.

Once the technology is there, people use will it. I don't consider it as good or bad... it's just a sign of the times.

 

By the way, about biasing: I once read a chess book by Alekhine and his writting was VERY dogmatic. As you see, even the greatest players of all time fall into the trap of biasing ;)

[Chamaco]

By the way, about biasing: I once read a chess book by Alekhine and his writting was VERY dogmatic. As you see, even the greatest players of all time fall into the trap of biasing ;)

Alekhine played and wrote in the years 1910-30s.

Besides, he was universally considered one of the most objective commentators of the time, one that introduced the modern way of commentary (the same followed by Bronstein in one of the best books of all time, the commentary of the Zurich 1953 tournament).

Many think that especially his ability in annotating, leaning from errors, and selfcriticisms is what led him to defeat Capablanca in the world title match.

 

Capablanca or Nimzowitsch articles/books (same period) appear to the modern reader even worse in terms of dogmatism, and we are talking of really great players.

 

 

It is only natural that all of these books seem overly simplified to the reader of the 2000, in between we had many generations of other authors that have elaborated many nuances from the time these giants were playing :-)

 

If any of them was living, playing and writing today, he's be writing ina different way and most of its articles would go over our head, trust me ;)

[Chamaco]

Once the technology is there, people use will it. I don't consider it as good or bad... it's just a sign of the times.

 

I do not hate technology: if someone uses a new technology to improve teaching or the level of documenatton and play, then it's great.

 

For instance, the tools Fred introduced (Bridgemaster, BBO, and now Full Disclosure) are indeed revolutionary, but they do not drop the quality of the products, they indeed enhance them.

 

Instead, when you do use large AMOUNT of data, but lose depth and originality in the coverage, that's where we lose quality.

 

Technology is not evil: if hi-tech is used for a better product, I am all for that.

[Canuckstan]

Well, since we veered off into chess, maybe this is the place to ask about the Hocus Pocus books, which compare chess and bridge. I didn't buy it but skimmed one of two volumes in the book store. I just couldn't get my head around what exactly the book was trying to say so saved my money. But it was close!

[Kalvan14]

It was truly a kind of war of religion, which made me think there was something personal between Bergen and Lawrence.

That's twice now I've seen Marty Bergen instead of Larry Cohen, the author of the LOTT books. These two used to be partners but Marty doesn't really have any involvement in this discussion.

 

It's a great discussion, by the way; things like this help players at all levels to understand where the other folks are at in terms of hand evaluation techniques, and opinions of the different approaches.

 

The evaluation techniques expressed in I Fought The LAW are quite valid, if you have the mental acumen and capacity to do this at the table during the auction; apparently Lawrence and Wirgen feel there are a sufficient percentage of players capable of this to warrant the publication of the book.

 

Until the ACBL permits players to keep a computer running, as an aide during the auction, I'm afraid these techniques are beyond my level :)

 

Cheers,

 

Carl Ritner

ACBL Library Used Bridge Book and Magazines

My bad: as in a lot of great partnership, I tend to mix up the guys, like in this case, Bergen instead of Cohen. But my point stands.

 

Going back to the second part of your post, I think you support my position. The method suggested by Lawrence is too complicated for the advancing players who might benefit from it. And expert players have their own rules, and card/table sense.

[luke warm]

By the way, about biasing: I once read a chess book by Alekhine and his writting was VERY dogmatic. As you see, even the greatest players of all time fall into the trap of biasing :)

Alekhine played and wrote in the years 1910-30s.

Besides, he was universally considered one of the most objective commentators of the time, one that introduced the modern way of commentary (the same followed by Bronstein in one of the best books of all time, the commentary of the Zurich 1953 tournament).

Many think that especially his ability in annotating, leaning from errors, and selfcriticisms is what led him to defeat Capablanca in the world title match.

 

Capablanca or Nimzowitsch articles/books (same period) appear to the modern reader even worse in terms of dogmatism, and we are talking of really great players.

 

 

It is only natural that all of these books seem overly simplified to the reader of the 2000, in between we had many generations of other authors that have elaborated many nuances from the time these giants were playing :-)

 

If any of them was living, playing and writing today, he's be writing ina different way and most of its articles would go over our head, trust me :)

i remember the first (in my view) really great chess book i ever read... i'm sure you've read it, mauro, it was staunton's (i don't remember the name)... that book made me see what a beautiful game chess is

[Winstonm]

I was not trying to defend I fought the Law.

Actually, when I read the book, i found it more than a bit annoying. It was truly a kind of war of religion, which made me think there was something personal between Bergen and Lawrence.

This said, the idea of finding a kind of unified field theory for bridge is quite funny  :lol:

I would anticipate that this is not possible. Luckily so:  were it possible, I would stop playing bridge.

If you have read much from Lawrence or communicated with him you soon learn that he dispises Bergen raises as well - so much so that it seems beyond bridge theory or logic and reflects a true "cattiness".

 

I am convinced this is a personality issue and not bridge. If a friend like Peter Rank had written the LOTT books I would bet Lawrence would be in total agreement and his book would have been about how to improve results within the law instead of a battle against it.

 

Winston

[mike777]

I was not trying to defend I fought the Law.

Actually, when I read the book, i found it more than a bit annoying. It was truly a kind of war of religion, which made me think there was something personal between Bergen and Lawrence.

This said, the idea of finding a kind of unified field theory for bridge is quite funny  :lol:

I would anticipate that this is not possible. Luckily so:  were it possible, I would stop playing bridge.

If you have read much from Lawrence or communicated with him you soon learn that he dispises Bergen raises as well - so much so that it seems beyond bridge theory or logic and reflects a true "cattiness".

 

I am convinced this is a personality issue and not bridge. If a friend like Peter Rank had written the LOTT books I would bet Lawrence would be in total agreement and his book would have been about how to improve results within the law instead of a battle against it.

 

Winston

I think there are 2 reasons he does not like Bergen raises.

1) He strongly prefers strong jumps shifts and his 2/1 structure is based on them.

2) He thinks LOTT is badly flawed and cannot be saved.

 

Given the above Bergen raises are worse than useless, they destroy his whole bidding system logic.

 

As a side note I am surprised by the strong lack of support for "Fought the Law" on this forum. If I understand the arguments against it:

1) LOTT is of more significant help than FTL claims for advancing level players.

2) FTL is not a significant improvement over LOTT and may be worse.

3) FTL is to difficult to use at the table for the vast majority of improving level players.

 

BTW2 I think this kind of debate can only help my bridge game and make the game much more interesting for many of us who love the game.

[kenberg]

I am generally a great fan of Mike Lwarence's books but I am still hoping to someday finish "I Fought ...". Mostly it strikes me as an overheated reponse to an overhyped Law. Nonetheless, the parties involved are major players and theorists so it is well worth our while to try to grasp it all.

 

Also, I think Bergen must be brought into this. It seems right to say there are two distinct applications of Cohen's version of the Law. One is as a guide to competitive decisions in the almost infinite array of contested bidding sequences, the other is as a foundational tool for a bidding system whether or not the opponents enter in (although in anticipation that they might). It is in this latter part that Bergen especially comes in, or so I believe. Let's say for simplicity (ignoring the exceptions and other aspects) that Bergen advocates getting to the three level quickly whenever there are nine or more trump. I believe it is historically accurate that this advocacy reached its height during his partnership with Cohen and that in justification he often cited Cohen's LOTT. It seems not totally crazy to say part of the expert assessment of LOTT is tied up with how many experts play 1S-Pass-3S as preemptive and/or 1S-Pass-2S as being pretty much limited to 3 card support. At the least, it would be interesting to know if this treatment is now common among experts or whether it is not. Of course one could say "I adhere to LOTT but I reject this application of it".

 

I myself don't much care for Bergen raises but I doubt that this non-endorsement will create a massive drop in its stock.

 

Ken

[Kalvan14]

I am generally a great fan of Mike Lwarence's books but I am still hoping to someday finish "I Fought ...". Mostly it strikes me as an overheated reponse to an overhyped Law. Nonetheless, the parties involved are major players and theorists so it is well worth our while to try to grasp it all.

 

Also, I think Bergen must be brought into this. It seems right to say there are two distinct applications of Cohen's version of the Law. One is as a guide to competitive decisions in the almost infinite array of contested bidding sequences, the other is as a foundational tool for a bidding system whether or not the opponents enter in (although in anticipation that they might). It is in this latter part that Bergen especially comes in, or so I believe. Let's say for simplicity (ignoring the exceptions and other aspects) that Bergen advocates getting to the three level quickly whenever there are nine or more trump. I believe it is historically accurate that this advocacy reached its height during his partnership with Cohen and that in justification he often cited Cohen's LOTT. It seems not totally crazy to say part of the expert assessment of LOTT is tied up with how many experts play 1S-Pass-3S as preemptive and/or 1S-Pass-2S as being pretty much limited to 3 card support. At the least, it would be interesting to know if this treatment is now common among experts or whether it is not. Of course one could say "I adhere to LOTT but I reject this application of it".

 

I myself don't much care for Bergen raises but I doubt that this non-endorsement will create a massive drop in its stock.

 

Ken

Quite true. i would add that it is not just a battle of principles, but also (and possibly mostly) a battle for market shares between book writers. Maybe it's not as big (or as heated) as the famous querelles of the 30s and 40s, but it is a reasonable imitation.

 

I agree that the bidding stuctures with fit (Bergen vs. Lawrence, I mean) are completely incompatible, and obviously this affects the complete bidding structure.

As you mentioned, the most striking differences are Bergen's urge to get to 3-level with 9 trumps, and Lawrence's insistence on strong jump shifts.

 

I like the way Lawrence writes (FTL excepted :D ), and I believe he did a very good job with his books on hand evaluation, competitive bidding and balancing.

I do not like his version of 2/1, OTOH, and my ideas in bidding are more in line with Bergen's (I play a different structure of fit bids, but the underlying principle is the same). This said, I also think that a beginner or an intermediate player will likely be more comfortable with Lawrence methods (except, once again, FTL: I do have the impression that this method not only is too complicated for the target slice of players, but is also too mechanical).

 

IMO, the popularization of the Law was a very successful exercise, and Cohen earned a place among the great theoreticians of bridge with his books. The Law is not (and cannot be) an infallible oracle (or maybe it is that, :) : just like all oracles, it must be understood and interp[reted), but I believe that a majority of bridge players discovered a side of the game they had not even glimpsed before.

[Trpltrbl]

So you didn't shoot the deputy ?

 

GBB :D