Facts or Fiction ?
It had to happen. Larry Cohen just couldn't keep ignoring our book, even though he had done so for more than a year. After "too many people" asking for his opinion, he finally published this piece of text on his home page in the end of February 2006:
Many people have asked for my reaction to the Mike Lawrence (& Anders Wirgren) book called "I Fought the LAW". This book was written some 12 years after I wrote "To Bid or Not to Bid" (the 1992 bestseller on the LAW of Total Tricks).
Although the "LAW" became very popular in the 1990's and remains popular today, these authors decided to fight it. I've read their book and these are my conclusions:
- They think the LAW works on many deals, but not all. (We already knew that).
- They suggest a (complicated) formula to fine-tune the LAW. It has to do mainly with counting distribution in suits that have losers. This will be confusing for most readers, but the point they try to make is that depending on how your short suits are distributed in the partnership, the "Total Tricks" will change. I agree with this. It is really just another (more complicated) form of "Adjusting" which is in Chapter 9 of "To Bid or Not to Bid".
- They were unfairly critical (I thought it uncalled for) in some of their
claims. They made some factual errors regarding data in my book. Why let facts
get in the way of a good story ? (Some of the statistical claims are sloppy and
inaccurate).
I would have preferred their tone to be: "The LAW is a nice breakthrough that helped many players, but we think we can improve upon it."
Instead, their tone was "Larry is telling half-truths and we want to show you why you shouldn't believe in the LAW."
The way I see it, "To Bid or Not to Bid" is a book for the masses. Players apply the LAW (advanced students using "adjustments") and do quite well. People are tougher competitive bidders when using the LAW. I teach throughout the world and see how the LAW (in its simplest form) is so helpful to so many (especially those of intermediate ability). The Lawrence/Wirgren book gets too complex. The authors might be onto a slight adjustment/improvement/upgrade, but it is impractical for most players to apply it.
"Fight the LAW ?" Any music fan knows how the song ends. "..And the LAW won !"
Has Larry Cohen read our book ? We are not sure. If he had read our book, he would know that we are not trying to fine-tune the Law. We are recommending our readers to stop using it. We think that using the Law as your primary bidding tool is wrong.
Imagine the world of science. Somebody presents a hypothesis that the number of trumps for both sides on a given deal should be a good indication of the number of tricks for both sides. If statistics shows it to be true no more than 40% of the time, then the theory had been found "not good enough", and nobody would care about it. But in the world of bridge, we are supposed to keep such a lousy theory and try to find good adjustments. Why ? What's the point in acting as if these 40% are the norm ?
Regarding the Point 3 from Larry's web site, he makes these statements.
- "They were unfairly critical (I thought it uncalled for) in some of their claims."
- "They made some factual errors regarding data in my book. Why let facts get in the way of a good story."
- "Some of the statistical claims are sloppy and inaccurate."
And when we are on the subject of not "letting facts get in the way of a good story", we will tell you what Larry Cohen himself has done. Our first example comes from "To Bid or Not to Bid" (page 176), where he gives an example of when to compete over the opponents' Notrump bid:
In the 1978 World Championship Pairs, the eventual winner, Marcelo Branco, of Brazil held:
| ||||||||||||||
|
The full deal isn't shown, which is very understandable, since if it had been in the book, everybody could have seen that West/East are very far from the 9 tricks Cohen thinks they have.
For the record, the four hands are as follows:
 A K 5 4 | Board 11 | |
 Q 8 7 6 3 2 | Dealer: South | |
 — | Both NonVul. | |
 K Q 2
| ||
| Q 10 2
| 
| J 6 3
|
| A K
| 5
| |
| J 8 7 4
| A 10 6 2
| |
| A 7 6 3
| J 10 9 5 4
| |
| 9 8 7
| ||
| J 10 9 4
| ||
| K Q 9 5 3
| ||
| 8
|
As you see, it would have been even better for Branco to double 3NT (it goes four down). To us, it doesn't seem somebody is "letting facts get in the way of a good story" here...
Another thing to note is that West's 3NT wasn't to play; it was a takeout in minor suits. So playing 3NT was never an option, and the whole discussion in the book was meaningless.
A similar example from "Following the Law" is this (page 114 à 83):
| K 5
|
| K 5 2
|
| 4 3 2
|
| A K 7 6 4
|
"My partner, holding 3-5-2-3 distribution, bid 3♥. RHO passed, I passed, and LHO passed. The full deal is irrelevant here. What's important is that the Dutch knew to let us have it on the three level in this typical eight-and-eight situation. I would much have preferred to defend 3♠ than to play in 3♥. In fact, each side had 8 tricks. When your opponents know the LAW, it makes it much more difficult to win ! "
If we take a look in the World championship book from Chile 1983, we find the deal on page 71. Then we realize the reason why Cohen thinks "the full deal is irrelevant."
| 10 7 5 | Board 15 | |
| A J 3 | Dealer: South | |
| K J 6 2 | N-S Vul. | |
| 9 8 5
| ||
| K 2
|
| Q J 9
|
| K 8 7
| Q 10 5 4 2
| |
| 10 5 3
| 8 4
| |
| A K 7 6 3
| 10 4 2
| |
| A 8 6 4 3
| ||
| 9 6
| ||
| A Q 9 7
| ||
| Q J
|
with 8 tricks; +110 pts.
In the closed room, this happened:
| West | North | East | South |
| Cohen | de Boer | Berkowitz | Muller |
| 1
| |||
| Dble | 2 | 3 | Pass |
| Pass | Pass |
In his book, Larry Cohen wrote that "each side had 8 tricks." In fact, Eric Kokish writes in the World Championship book, "with the lucky lie, 3♥ was made, with 6 IMPs to America."
Once again, somebody hasn't "let facts get in the way of a good story."
saved from url=http://www.newbridgelaw.com/