Talk:Law of total tricks

=Example= Looking at this article it seems to be written in a fairly negative light. I personally find 'the law' much more useful than it would seem to be from this article. What do the rest of you feel? I still think it is a good article, however. Perhaps it should show how swapping cards (eg moving a king so the finesse fails) does not normally affect the total tricks - only changing the distribution (even breaks = less TT, bad breaks = more TT).Cambion 12:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh and how can we 'verify' the hand? Use suitplay? heheh. (See suit combinations...) Cambion 12:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I ran the current example through GIB's double-dummy solver. It verifies that NS can make 4S.  However, GIB says that EW can make 2H rather than 1H as the text states.  Even the text lists only five defensive tricks.  Radius 01:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * D'oh. Thanks. The example went through several consecutive rearrangements, and, according to the Murphy's Law, ended up in the wrong one. I think hope I fixed it now. Duja ► 07:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

=Article name capitalization, abbreviation= The most common use of the term (as a specific technique published and named as such) contains capitals as in "The Law of Total Tricks" including use in mid-sentence. When in context, it is also referred to as "The Law" and "The LAW." Having looked at several references, I do not think "The law of total tricks" (i.e. no caps) is correct in any context and the article should be moved to "The Law of Total Tricks" and all uses and links amended accordingly. Other opinions/comments? Newwhist (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Criticism
Mike Lawrence (prolific bridge writer) and Anders Wirgren have published "I Fought the Law of Total Tricks," (2004, Publisher: Best Bridge Books, ISBN-10: 0976299917, ISBN-13: 9780976299912), which questions the validity of the Law of Total Tricks. I think that this article should mention this criticism. 69.1.135.71 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)