Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Okan Zabunoglu
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am convinced that Steve's line is the best; also elegant, and simple enough.
May 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Timo: As I already said, I cannot argue with that. However, it looks like a good idea and fun that we play a tournament (any kind) together when you come to and have time in Turkey. See you…
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's on the next page of the main article Stefan.
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hmmbrkf, interestingly good point. I cannot argue with that although the odds you mention are arguable, depending on bidding style of opponents (as you note). Anyway, I am still inclined to see my partner's line as best. :)
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Erased since already implied above.
May 19
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I didn't think about playing a at trick 3. Considering Stefan's layout, it looks the second best by a small margin.
May 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the original deal,

West had: K52 QT Q863 JT76

Only 8 declarers made it out of 47 in 6.
Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When West has the long s, it looks reasonable to play A, K (pitching a from dummy) and ruff a .

The analysis (as far as I was able to manage):

(1) When West has xxxx:

Now, our s are good. We cash A, come to K, discard a on a good (West following), and ruff a . As long as West has at least two s, we're home.

(2) When West has xxx:

We come to K and play another . If West has 3-3-3-4 distribution with Q, (s)he will have a problem. If West discards a , we ruff a , cash our last trump and play the good ; if (s)he discards a , we simply cash A and J. A rare endgame!

(3) When West has xx:

In this case, finesse was necessary, in addition to finding West with Q to the third. So, we go down because we cashed top s.

(4) When West has Qxxx:

As in (2), we come to K and play another . Now, the last resort is West's having doubleton Q.

(5) When West has Qxx:

We come to K and play a good . West ruffs and plays . Then, we still need to find West with Q.

NOTE: I haven't looked into the case where East has the long s; however, then, success probability is lower.

EDIT: In (2), the phrase “we simply cash A and K” was corrected as “we simply cash A and J”. Thanks for the notice.
Feb. 13
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Feb. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had once had a chance to play against the Schwartz Team (with Krekorian, Casen, Blanchard) at the first match in my only Spingold experience in the 1990s, and got knocked out right away. It was an unforgettable event…

My condolences to his family and friends.
Feb. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks a lot for your comments and/or the information you've given.
Jan. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Recollecting the other articles of Liam Milne; I am still not sure about the catch in this one, and waiting for a conclusive statement from him.

Happy new year.
Dec. 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the info about “equal level conversion”.
Dec. 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit Woolsey:

Assuming that West has six s (as implied), I don't think that (s)he can have 2 s and a void.
In that case, West would have: JTxxxx xx - AKJxx, and East: Axxx x Kxxxxxxx -.

Also, it is not likely that West would have 3 s and a stiff (JTxxxx xxx x KJx), because then East would have: Axxx - Kxxxxxx Ax. ( honors are interchangeable.)

In both cases, I believe, East would not bid 2 initially, and would hardly give up to 5 eventually.

Although I find the line you suggested perfect, it may not mean much under the conditions given here.
Dec. 29, 2018
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Dec. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
6 is cold because partner's hand, which was the subject of an earlier poll below, is AQx x Q9xxxx Axx.

Do you think (s)he should have bid 5 over 4?
If passed, what should (s)he do now over 5?
Dec. 29, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I didn't expect that either, and checked the results sheet again to see: 12 times 1430, twice 1660, 22 times 680 and 4 times 620. 4 pairs must have played 5.
Dec. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
:) To you too.
Dec. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you all for your valuable and interesting comments.

According to the majority view, North underbid; nevertheless, with respect to the minority view, South might have cue-bid with 4 (over 4) or started with a double rather than 3 overcall…

I am convinced that our bidding was not as normal as I thought, while the saying of Kursat's grandma and Art Korth's initial comment have a somewhat relieving effect.

Now, IMO, the action placing N-S best would be the double of 3 by North, as suggested by Petter Bengtsson (and seconded by David Caprera).

NOTE: slam was bid at 14 tables among 40 (no slam), 26 played in game. Of course, this may not imply much since I guess some Easts passed with (xx QJ9xxx xx QJ9) at first chair vulnerable, and some opened 2; both cases would lead to different bidding scenarios…
Dec. 27, 2018
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Dec. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
:) Your grandma has wise sayings…
Dec. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because both 3 and 4 bids were non-forcing, 4 would be interpreted as an alternative (and probably better) spot at a lower level in a preempted auction, rather than a cue-bid. This partnership had no misunderstanding regarding that, but failed in finding the proper level.
Dec. 27, 2018
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Dec. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is another point I am not sure about:
i.e., could South start with a double, planning to bid s if North bid s? Wouldn't that be an overbid?
Dec. 27, 2018
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
.

Bottom Home Top