Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Okan Zabunoglu
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is for us to figure out. That is just what happened at the table last week.
Jan. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Declarer is West.
Jan. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Corrected, thanks.
Dec. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Corrected, thanks.
Dec. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let me add this:

If we assume that W has 3 's and E has 6 's; then, the probability that W has 3 's (40.72 %) or 4 's (23.76 %) is 0.645.

Now, cashing AK wins when W has T65, T64, T54, 654 or T654. This makes 21.04 % of that 0.645.

Playing J wins when W has QT6, QT5, QT4, QT65, QT64, QT54, Q654; resulting in 31.22 %.

Dividing these by 0.645, we get,
32.6 % for the first line, and
48.4 % for the other one.
(Michael Kopera got exactly the same result for Line 2 using ‘SuitPlay’ in an above thread.)

NOTE: These two are comparable with each other on the precondition that W has 3 's and 3 's or 4 's (this is the whole).
Nov. 22, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Nov. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
SUCCESS CONDITIONS

For cashing AK:
W has Qx or E has Qx or stiff Q.

NOTE: I assumed that W will always play Q from QT tight on A (as a false-card), and we will NOT finesse vs. T in E.

For starting with J:
W has QT or QTx or QTxx or Q654
———————————
SUCCESS PROBABILITIES

1. With no information about 's distribution in opponents' hands;
Cashing AK: 29.94 %
Starting with J: 24.84 %
(Robert Balas gave the same numbers earlier above.)

2. Assuming that W has 3 's, so E has 6 's;
that is, W has 10 and E has 7 vacant places.

The calculation is as follows.

Total number of distributions of the remaining 17 cards in vacant places in W and E: 17!/(10!x7!)=19448.

(A) Two 's in W: 12!/(8!x4!) x 5!/(2!x3!) = 495x10=4950.
Probability of 2 's in W=4950/19448=0.25452 (25.45 %).

(B) Three 's in W: 12!/(7!x5!) x 5!/(3!x2!) = 792x10=7920.
Probability=7920/19448=0.40724 (40.72 %).

(C) Four 's in W: 12!/(6!x6!) x 5!/(4!x1!) = 924x5=4620.
Probability=4620/19448=0.23756 (23.76 %).

Now, success probabilities:

Cashing AK wins in 4 cases of total 10 in (A), 4 of 10 in (B), and 1 of 5 in (C); then,

25.45x4/10 + 40.72x4/10 + 23.76x1/5 = 31.22 %.

Starting with J wins in 1 case of 10 in (A), 3 of 10 in (B), 4 of 5 in (C); then,

25.45x1/10 + 40.72x3/10 + 23.76x4/5 = 33.77 %.
——————————–
Note that cashing AK wins in 9 cases, while playing J wins in 8 cases. However, when 's are 3-6, it is quite more likely that W has 4 's, and the second line wins in 4 cases out of a total of 5 then.
——————————–
The line suggested by Nick Hardy is worth considering (esp. when 's are 3-6). That is, cash A and if you see T from E, finesse vs. Q in W.

The probability for this:
25.45x4/10 + 40.72x3/10 + 23.76x2/5 = 31.90 %.
——————————–
NOTE 1: Espen: In order to get accurately comparable results for the overall success probabilities of the two lines, it was necessary to assume that W has 3 's and E has 6's (not that W has 3 or 4 's). In other words, I ignored W's 3 bid, to focus on the calculation with vacant places. With a precondition that W has 3 or 4 's, similar calculations can be made. But then, I don't think that all cases can be compared meaningfully.

NOTE 2: These (hand) results are consistent with the results obtainable through a web site by Theodore T. Triandaphyllopoulos,
( http://www.automaton.gr/tt/en/bridge.htm ),
which can handle vacant spaces. I also intend to verify them using the “Dealer” software (Staveren's) when I have more time next week.

EDIT: Brackets in (A), (B), (C) above did not show up, so I had to rearrange them; and changed wording in NOTE 1.
Nov. 22, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Nov. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For me, too, (as I said) Deep Finesse has been an indispensable bridge companion. Yet, as with almost all technological advancements, not everything it brings inherently is plus, unfortunately.
Nov. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Certainly true that Deep Finesse (and similar software) caused double-dummy problems to lose a lot of interest.
I have some of those UK bridge magazines, each with a continuing double-dummy corner, which contains magnificent problems. Of course, solving double-dummy problems is quite different from playing at the table, but it has its own merits, fun and attractiveness.

I think, except some actual aficionados, nobody intends to think over double-dummy problems anymore. And it is not much meaningful to ask/pose such problems, since one can get the exact solution just by feeding the hands to a program.

Obviously, this offers an advantage; but the downside of it should not be ignored.
Nov. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you, nice to hear this.
Nov. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Say that declarer ducks a , East overtakes his pard's 9 with T and normally returns a . Now declarer has to decide who has the T. If he finesses vs. T (I would), now he will go down TWO. That becomes more puzzling!
Oct. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is certainly what I meant by ‘relativity’.

What actually happens at the table may significantly differ from what should happen in our opinion when looking at (analyzing) the hands.

NOTE: Besides, in practice, big errors may happen at the other table (or at our table) and we (or our teammates) may never know about some of those (if we are not in the view-graph). As an aside, it is usually better (for all the parties) not to know everything during the heat of the competition! Real life is far from being perfect.
Oct. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes; declarer cannot afford to lose a trick since he needs 5 tricks in 's to reach 9. So, he won K, cashed a , (himself) played 9, lost to T, and after a return, conceded for down 1.

It seems that the lead is much more likely to be from JTx(x) than from Jx(x).
Oct. 28, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Oct. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Irrelevant (or irrelative) in the sense that the story was just about seeing South's bidding cards at the table: 1, 2, … 5, 6.

NOTE: They were my teammates, and 6 made. Yet, I did not note the full deal, since I found the South's bidding more interesting.
Oct. 28, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Oct. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is a good idea to put him in 7, but please make your pard bid it, so that the pattern would be complete: 1, 2, … through 7.

NOTE: These guys were young (and aggressive) that time, and probably they had the understanding that opening weak 2 with an outside A was unacceptable (too good).
Oct. 28, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Oct. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4C was probably at least a mild slam try in Spades, though I am not totally sure. However, some (around here) play the next-higher suit of the transferred M after 2NT opng showing a slam interest in the M and not guaranteeing a ctrl in the suit bid. Even if North did not have a stiff C, he could still bid 4C. And with natural Clubs, he would bid 4H.

(And if it went 2NT-3D-3H- then 3S would show some slam interest in H, without promising a S ctrl. And with natural Spades, he would start with normal Stayman.)
Oct. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry. No offense was intended; though I was afraid that it could be interpreted this way. I even thought of changing the nationality to my own (as I have some Arabic roots), yet that would impair the originality. I apologize to anyone who felt offended or thought that some others would feel offended.
Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This comment has been marked as inappropriate by the moderator(s).
Oct. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess so, Alex; that's why I put in “…”.
Oct. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I read those referred to under this post (I assume they would be his worst, but I could not read all his comments in ALIVE discussion). I did not find them as intolerable as meriting a life ban, which obviously has something to do with the repetitions…

Excuse my curiosity about a guy who is believed to deserve the adjectives above by some members of the same group he once (earlier than me) belonged to.
Oct. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This ‘Dean issue’ has been pretty enlightening on my vocabulary of pejorative adjectives. My curiosity about this ‘obnoxious, dishonest, vitriolic, curmudgeonly, delusional, Nostradamus-like … asshole/dick’ has gone up as I read.

Why don't you let him in, say, for a few weeks(on probation though), so that recently active members like me have a chance to observe what and how he is writing. (He is just writing, right? not doing anything else offensive?)

NOTE: I empathize with the BW staff and respect their decision for sure. I am just stating my opinion from where I am.
Oct. 19, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top