Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Okan Zabunoglu
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is relieving to see any ‘King of the World’ looking for a solution other than a lifetime ban.
Oct. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nick: It is almost impossible to know exactly when the unethical conduct started in each case and how that player would fare over the years if not fed with the confidence and all other benefits of the success via it. That's why I am just suggesting a more cautious/skeptical approach before distinguishing an unethical player as ‘world class’ or ‘top’. That is all.
Oct. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought in the same way initially and did almost the same as you did; but not change my vote in the finality; just had a slight difference of opinion (and no barking dog).
Oct. 18, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Oct. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is very difficult for me to understand the ease in qualifying someone who uses unethical/illegal methods as a ‘top’ or ‘world class’ player. Yet, especially lately, this happens to be the case very often.

Ability to spot a complex play or defense quickly or being a good analyst or double-dummy expert (or whatever …) does not necessarily make someone (even) a good player. Everyone can play very good bridge from time to time. Staying for long hours/days at the table with steadily good performance is what matters, and doing it over the years is something else!

Shouldn't it be considered how good an unethical player would have performed in the long run if he/she had not used untoward methods?
Oct. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On paper (assuming the correct defense), the success probabilities are:
Line 1: 50.5 %
Line 2: 48.0 %
Line 3: 49.0 %

However, there are several distributions in Line 2 and 3 for which the likelihood of inaccurate defense in PRACTICE cannot be ignored (see the comments below).

The details of the calculations can be found at:
http://jeofizikbric.com/web/images/bb/problem/4s_eng_rev.pdf

COMMENTS (about calculations)

(1) I had to suppose (in some combinations in Line 2 and 3) that the defense never slips, otherwise no way to calculate. For instance, when RHO has ♣Kx or ♣Qx, if he/she also has ♠Kxx, the contract goes down. To set it, either RHO must insert the ♣ honor when played from the dummy on the 2nd trick (in this case defense is easier) or LHO, when in with the ♣, should play another ♣ and then when RHO wins with ♠K, he/she will go to the partner via ♥ and get a ♣ ruff. In practice, this is not so easy in my opinion, especially when the defense has limited information about the declarer’s hand.

Even only in this combination, if one presumes that about half of the time the defense may fail, then the success rate of Line 2 roughly increases to 50 % and that of Line 3 to 51 %.

There are a few more cases (though the defense is relatively easier) for which the ‘correct defense’ assumption was necessary.

(2) It is also interesting to mention the case where LHO has ♣KQ tight. If ♠’s are 2-2, the contract cannot be made, because the declarer reaches the dummy to take the losing ♣ finesse (again). If LHO has ♠Kxx, he/she returns now-stiff ♣ honor and gets the ruff later going to the partner with a ♥; so, down again. If RHO has ♠Kxx, the situation may really get complicated. Now, LHO does not return the stiff ♣ honor, plays another ♦; RHO wins the ♠J (played after ♠A in LINE 2) allowing the declarer to reach the dummy; but the declarer does not fall into the trap and collects LHO’s now-stiff ♣ honor. Consequently, when LHO has ♣KQ tight, LINE 2 wins if any opp. has stiff ♠K or RHO has ♠Kxx or ♠Kxxx.

On the other hand, in LINE 3, since the declarer plays ♠J without cashing ♠A and (if wins) continues with ♠T, now RHO has to win the second ♠ enabling the declarer to reach the dummy, and the declarer loses to the now-stiff honor. Then, LINE 3 succeeds if RHO has stiff ♠K or ♠Kxxx (but not if RHO has ♠Kxx).

Of course, the numerical contribution of this is relatively small, but the cases like in (1) above may cause significant differences at real table.

NOTE: I hope I have not missed any successful combination. If you spot any flaw or questionable approach, please let me know.

EDIT: I found an error in judgment in Line 3 (e); so, the result changed from 49.0 % to 48.8 %, and the link was revised properly.
Oct. 17, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Oct. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If RHO has Kx, we have an entry to dummy by starting with Q. If RHO has Kxx, we cannot enter the dummy by either play; but starting with Q, at least we don't lose a . A small at trick two offers an advantage only if RHO has stiff K, but loses if he/she has Kxx (3 times more likely). So, I considered “a small ” to be inferior to Line 1.
Oct. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems you are right, I will check and correct the result. Thank you.
Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you for the votes already given and still to come.

I could only find time to calculate the result for Line 1.

In the following cases, Line 1 wins.

RHO has Kx: if 's are not 5-0 = 19.6 %

RHO has stiff K or Kxx: if 's are 3-2, or either opponent has stiff 9 or Q or K or KQ tight = 21 %

RHO has Kxxx: if either opp. has KQ tight= 0.3 %

(The total when RHO has the K = 40.9 %)

RHO has xx: if RHO has KQx or Kx or Qx or KQ tight or LHO has KQ tight = 7.6 %

RHO has xxx or x or void : if either opp. has KQ tight = 2.0 %

(The total when RHO does not have the K = 9.6 %)

Overall success probability of Line 1 is 50.5 %.

NOTES:
(1) These were first calculated by hand and then verified through generating hands using Hans van Staveren’s “dealer” program (a very old version). So, I believe there is no numerical error, as long as I have not missed any successful case.
(2) A rough estimation implies that results for the other two lines are not very significantly different. I am still not sure which line has the highest chance; and that does not matter really since the purpose is to find out the general tendency at the table.
(3) It is considerably harder to calculate the probability of the other 2 lines since they are more complicated. However, if I can manage to do that, I will post results.

EDIT: Thanks to Phillip Martin. He spotted an important combination that I had missed. As a result, the additional case where RHO holds xx and KQx increased the success chance to 50.5 (from 48.5).
Oct. 16, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Oct. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well, surely you have a point; however, when this was asked to me in a bridge gathering, I did not bother asking what the auction was, instead, just picked a line. So, just play if you like, or do not.

NOTE: I still don't know the correct line, and it is not easy to calculate. So, I don't know if it really depends on the likelihood that LHO leads his/her stiff club (it may not be). It can be assumed that, regardless of the auction, most people would lead a singleton vs. 4S. Of course, you might say “if the auction was like this or that I would not”, well, there is no end to that… at least in this hand IMO.
Oct. 15, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“None” shows up automatically and denotes the ACBL ranking.
Anyway, you have a valid point; so I will do it shortly.
Oct. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He is poll-ish Polish.
Oct. 11, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Oct. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wish Poles are stripped off their titles of WC 2015.
Because I still think that they should not have played there in the first place, through either disqualification or withdrawal (so, it is not related to the 6-minute incident).

However, I agree with you (Andrzej) on that WBF is very likely to let them keep their medals whatever the outcome of B-Z case is. Otherwise those in WBF will have contradicted themselves heavily. That may even have a bearing on the decision about B-Z, I fear. I also fear that WBF may never satisfactorily reveal what happened behind the curtains. Well, wait and see…

On the other hand, I used to think that Poland was a good-bridge country. This view did not have anything to do with the medals they won or could not; it was based on their dedication to the game, their teachings, innovations, writings (of Martens esp.) etc.

IMO and in my bridge circles, Poland won a medal but lost much more.

Now, as Gawrys said: I don't care… (anymore, to say the least)
Oct. 11, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Oct. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I cannot tell the best excuse, but the worst one coming from a declarer who struggles for a long time in a hopeless contract is:
“I don't like going down.”
Oct. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The PBU statement in summary (as Adam Skalski posted above): The PBU asks WBF to explain the reason of withdrawing the invitation to B-Z and declares the full cooperation with WBF to clarify the situation, and also asks WBF to respond within a short period of time.

PBU's star pair was disinvited about a week ago. PBU seemed to have simply accepted the decision and replaced that pair accordingly, without showing any reaction (as far as is known). Now PBU asks for a clarification and a response in a short time.

So, PBU does not know the reason for the disinvitation.

(Who met on the 27th, PBU and WBF, or only PBU? I agree on the ‘fine mess’ C. Diamond noted above.)

What was done has already been done. Isn't it too late for such a statement?

Not so easy for me to understand the logic behind all these!
Oct. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thank you; concise and informative.
I shared both videos in my country's (Turkish) bridge groups in facebook.
Oct. 1, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Oct. 1, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top