Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Okan Zabunoglu
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An iron medal! That's a creative idea.

(It led me to find out if the term ‘iron’ is OK. I got this in Wikipedia: “… in the Indian Vedic system, where the four ages: Gold, Silver, Bronze, Iron, come with defining characteristics. We are currently in an Iron Age, which will eventually give way to a returning Golden Age.”) He he…

If there has to be a third-place play-off, at least the loser may get some relief (with an iron medal).
Feb. 16, 2016
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Feb. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Rolf:

I have no intention of extending the argument, just want to get close to a conciliation.

You said earlier:

“Yes, but only when Gold, Silver and Bronze medals are awarded. The disappoitment of losing a semi is HUGE.
Motivation for a third place playoff is not the best, but still…
No need to overcrowd the victory podium.”

As can be deduced from this, you are not really so much for a play-off since you understand the mood of the losers of a semi, and you are for it only when there is a bronze-medal award.

The main reason you put forward is to avoid overcrowding the podium, or (in other words) an inflation of bronze medals. (If you see another advantage in a play-off match, please explain it.)

You also say (above): “Very few remember the 3rd placed in any event.”

So, what is so wrong with issuing 6 more bronze medals (probably to be remembered only by the owners and maybe some of their relatives and close friends)?

Weighing all the negative factors involved against this single (and debatable) point of yours, wouldn't you rethink about the issue?

Some of those negative factors may be negligible, as you state above (that is up to Murat to assess your objections). Still, all aside, wouldn't just consideration of the mood of the players be adequate to outweigh that single advantage?
Feb. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think that you're missing anything; however, when you say “hand out Bronze medals to all participants that dont play in the final”, you are at least exaggerating.
Feb. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my opinion, ‘a good test of character’ could be the only rational reason for a third-place match. Still, taking into account all the unfavorable things, why not just let it slip away (as you do)?
Feb. 14, 2016
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Feb. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No doubt on that (whether or not there is a sponsor).
Feb. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know anyone who would like to play it (or, better to say: not hate to play it), and I don't think that it attracts the attention of audience (e.g., in BBO). Thus, considering all the advantages you mention, it should be a good idea to eliminate it.
Feb. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why not let more people have a chance to climb the podium? Then, at least four more people would likely show up in the victory ceremony.
Feb. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As you said, in Bermuda Bowl, there is a third-place play-off. Not in European National Teams, but in the European Open Teams Champ. before 2015, there was a play-off; yet, in the 7th of that event in 2015, two bronze medals were awarded to the losers of semi-finals. In the first European Winter Games, held last week, again a play-off match was scheduled (though not played). In Spingold and Vanderbilt, there is not play-off. In some international cups, there is. In Turkey, in two of the most important national team events, it is scheduled, etc…

Seems there is no consistency, no consensus in that respect.

I am totally against it, regardless of a medal is awarded or not, and at any level of competition.

Whatever the award is, just divide it into two and give it to both teams. If it is a medal, half a medal may look weird; so, present two smaller medals.
Feb. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I might agree with you.
(I erased the rest of my reply, finding it ambiguous.)
Feb. 13, 2016
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Feb. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are right. However, it can be said that there is a considerably better award for third place (in any case).
EDIT: Do you object to two bronze medals?
Feb. 13, 2016
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Feb. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, a bronze medal for third is rewarded in almost all cases. Instead of the play-off match, how about two bronze medals? Or maybe something else?
Feb. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know about any event in which the losers of semi-finals can enter another competition; normally they're expected to play for third place at the same time as the final (usually a fewer number of sets).
Feb. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double is my choice, too.
Feb. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for your votes (also for those still to come) and all the CONSTRUCTIVE comments.

Here is the story of the deal, which came up in the Turkish Open Teams Championship in 2014.

I was the 1 opener, sitting East with:

QT73 J962 A754 A

South (a good and experienced player) called 1NT over my 1, with the ‘poll’ hand at the top.

West passed, North looked for a 4-card major and then bid 3NT.

West (my partner) led 2, and the dummy (North) was seen:

KJ94 A5 K986 962

I won A (J from the declarer), and returned 2.

It turned out to be a mistaken play.

Did you find the setting return?

NOTE 1: It is much more difficult (hardly thinkable in practice) to beat 3NT if declared by North.

NOTE 2: Of course the poll does not have anything to do with my poor defensive return. As a result of discussing and analyzing this deal recently again, I wondered about the general tendency (in BW) with South hand.
Feb. 3, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wow! So bad, ha?
Feb. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Louis. I'll do so next time.
Feb. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Now I understand it. A simple and instructive point…
Jan. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you for your insightful and comprehensive coverage.

I will tell my partner (besides the results of the poll) that Michael Rosenberg said:

“With Qxx, I only want to unblock it when I KNOW partner has J10x. So, there has to be one card that SHOWS that holding - and it MUST be the jack. Therefore the 10 is either no J or J10 doubleton.
This is ‘signaling’ by logic - it overrides the normal agreement.”

So, he (an ex-national player) was the one who gave J from JTx, and I could not drop the Q (at MPs). Afterwards, I told him that if he had given the T, I might have… He said: “Maybe, I am not sure”, and it stopped there.

NOTE: As for UDCA, it just adapts here very well. I am not in a position to claim that it is superior, although I find it slightly more fit with the natural.
Jan. 7, 2016
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Jan. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you all for your votes and valuable comments, which have led to some interesting points out of this initially-simple-looking (!) combination.

Let me also express my views (to advocate my own vote), before giving the declarer's hand. NOTE: New votes are still appreciated.

(1) The main question is which North should insert from JTx: J or T?

As David Burn stated a few times, if pard has JT doubleton, he should play J for sure (imo, too). Then, it seems that he should play T from JTx (since he cannot afford to play the x).

Now, if pard plays T, is it totally clear for me what to do? I am still not sure. As noted earlier, pard may be giving count with Tx, or trying to look like a person who has QT tight. Or is it a matter of how to split?

In addition, pard may think that giving the T denies the J; so, he may play the J from JTx to make me sure that he has the T…

Consequently, I would not know surely what to do if pard played the T.

(2) Declarer has either 4 or 5 (or even 6) s, and it is very likely that the contract cannot be set if I do not unblock Q.

As Bernard Yomtov pointed out, an exception may be that declarer has Qx AJ9 Axxxx Axx. In this case, pard holds QTx, and we may expect him to give s differently (like giving the 6 on the third round instead of 5, or leading a higher spot on the second round). I agree with Michael Hargreaves that partner’s playing all the small s does not imply that he likes s; however, if he had QTx, I think he would not play the smallest at each turn.

(3) Assuming that it is a make without unblock, unblocking results in an overtrick only, which costs a 1-imp loss (in teams), but probably a lot of MPs (in pairs). Then, since I am not so sure what my partner is doing, I tend to drop Q in IMPs regardless of partner’s card.

However, to risk that in MPs, I certainly need a better partnership understanding/experience.

(4) As Michael Askgaard mentioned, an UDCA’er has no problem at all. Play J from JTx, T from JT tight; and if you like, falsecard with T from Tx, at no risk.

(5) Here is the declarer's hand: (Michael Rosenberg got it almost right in his thread above.)

J9 AQT6 A965 A87
Jan. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
15-17
Jan. 7, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top