Firstly I must say I enjoy your book and am still digesting it.
A question re Singleton Aces. When it comes to SST, should I count the stiff Ace as One or as Zero (as good as a void) since I have no losers in that suit?If I do count it as Zero, then can I still count it as (at least) 3 WP?
I have been puzzling over coming up with a 'snappy' name for your new evaluation method. For the moment pard and I call it the AW-LAW(Anders Wirgren – LAWrence).
You have one card in the suit and 4 HCP, so we suggest you count 4 WP for the ace singleton and the length as one card. That is what you have, after all. You could count the suit length as 0, but then you shouldn't assign the ace any WP at all (if you do, you will count it twice). In the end, your estimation will be the same.
Thank you for the suggested name. We like it."; break; case 15: echo "Question 15
I completely agree with Mr. Scott (see Question 4).
The first portion of the book seems to be method justification. Percentages and charts ad nauseam. Your book is anything but user friendly. 'I Fought the Law' has a lot to say. Pity that one has to endure endless data before getting to the bottom line. It smacks of author insecurity... An Adlerian approach where one chips away at the other's pedestal and shoves the chips under ones own. Nothing has to be lost. Restructuring is definitely needed. The quick fix would be to relocate at least most of the first 64 pages toward the back of the book.
You have some great concepts here. Suggest the 2nd edition be a rewrite WITH THE READER IN MIND. Currently the feeling is that it smacks of bitterness, for whatever reason. It seems like a personal vendetta.
This book says a lot, but I doubt that many would recognize a Mike Lawrence writing style.
Manhattan Beach, CA
Thank you for your views.
So far, most readers seem to agree with how the book was written, but if a majority express views like yours we will consider restructuring the material. Most writers agree with our approach, which was to show the intent of the Law as well as our views on it. It is hard to critique something if few readers know exactly what it is.
We disagree with your feelings that we were bitter or that we have a personal vendetta. Our aim has been (a) to show that the base for the Law of Total Tricks is wrong, and (b) to present a new way of estimating how many tricks one side can take. Nothing else. You may perceive this but it was not our goal. Perhaps the fact that the Law has become a part of our language has stirred up some feelings. Frankly, there is no way to debate important issues without causing some fervor.
More questions and answers:
[ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 ]