Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Okan Zabunoglu
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
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 was pass/correct (with 3-4 in majors), as you deduced.

7 would go down 6; resulting in -1700.
It would not be difficult to find the ruff.
Dec. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As Art Korth mentioned above, 4 was an attempt to find the best strain (and it was understood that way in this partnership), but the level turned out to be too low.

Please note that the singleton in North may not be needed to make 6 in .
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.
I suppose, that creates problems with natural overcalls in a Mj (as a flaw). Here, it is very common to use double (over 2 multi) to show general strength; of course, it has its own flaws.
Dec. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I erased my meaningless comment, just forget it.
Dec. 26, 2018
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Dec. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I didn't know about that kind of usage of 2 (over multi 2 with a weak Mj only). Thanks for the info…
Dec. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Who should do what in your opinion? Should North not bid 4, or something else?
Dec. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Surely, 3 was natural.
Dec. 26, 2018
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Dec. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In case of running a at trick three; if W has a stiff honor, (s)he wins and plays a (or a ); and when E overruffs , returns a … (Now, declarer should decide who has K.)
Sept. 8, 2018
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Sept. 9, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't it bemusing to get to playing it from the North and end up becoming the only one making a contract!
Sept. 8, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's also certainly the case around here. I wonder about the reason…
Sept. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good hand, nice article…

I am not sure if the paragraph (and the 3-line dialog) right below the diagram on page 3 is really necessary.

On page 4, in the line next to last, I see something like “4a” (probably instead of 4 or 4).
Sept. 7, 2018
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Sept. 7, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top