You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An odd spot card is encouraging in its own suit. An even spot card is suit preference for other suits. Here 2 on the third was encouraging for .

By the way, T is in North.
Dec. 16, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When west is 4-2-1-6, east is 2-3-8-0; and the suggested line (i.e., not cashing K when in dummy with K) succeeds.

When west is 4-3-1-5, east is 2-2-8-1; I think it can be made double-dummy only.
Nov. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Another fine point on so simple a scenario.

When LHO is 2-3-3-5, RHO is 4-2-6-1; when LHO is 2-2-4-5, RHO is 4-3-5-1; and the latter is more likely, as you've pointed out.
Nov. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael Rosenberg: When not only RHO but also LHO has 2-3-3-5, I think, the same play is needed.
Nov. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This problem turned out to be much easier than I thought, thanks to Paul Huggins for the main line and to Michael Rosenberg for the final touch.
Nov. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No, it came up two days ago in a team game in Jeofizik Bridge Club in Ankara. I just removed some spot cards to simplify it.
Nov. 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pass (since it's borderline and other factors are negative).

Pass (if I double and partner bids 2, we may lose a possible fit; so, I prefer ‘wait and see’).

3 (but that does not end the problem, I am not sure what is best next, over probable responses).

Pass (because you say 2 is almost FG; I would risk 2 if I was allowed to pass to partner's 3 showing negativity).
Aug. 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At the table, I'd play 7. Here, I will go for 4.
Aug. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A different scenario (how to stop at 3):

2(1) - 2(2)
3(3) - Pass(4)

(1) Strong.
(2) 2nd negative, at most 3 HCP (no K).
(4) Is this forcing? I don't think we talked about this. Well, even if intended to be forcing, we may get lucky.
Aug. 23, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David Burn says (as a note): “However, it might work backwards - that is: allocate the bottom three teams to pools A-C and let teams choose in order from the fourth worst upwards.”

I like this idea, of course with some RESTRICTIONS on the selection process; otherwise, one of the groups would be filled with lower seeded teams too soon.
Aug. 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, a black suit squeeze on West (or a show-up squeeze on East) could have worked, but (what I meant was) it does not in the ORIGINAL deal. As you said, in the last 4 cards, you play the in the hand, West discards a (not squeezed), you discard a from dummy, East pitches a . You go to K and play the last in dummy; East follows with T (no show-up squeeze).

Now, there are two possibilities:
(1) If West has T, he started with 2 s, and East with 4.
(2) If East has T, he started with 3 s without Q, and West with Q third.

Even if you strongly think that it is case (1), thus the finesse is twice better, you cannot afford to finesse; your twelfth trick comes from collecting the doubleton Q from West.
Aug. 13, 2016
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Aug. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are right about the relevance of the auction; fine thinking.

Well, I am not sure if the original West hand is clearly qualified for a 1 call (at red in IMPs) over RHO's 1 opener. I guess that might be another issue, with which I did not want to further complicate the things, in order to cut the story shorter having focused on the card play.

You are also right when you said that you would end with twelve; yet I don't think that it is on a black suit squeeze. Neither opponent is squeezed in the original deal (no discarding problems). You end with twelve tricks because you cannot afford to finesse in in the three-card ending.
Aug. 12, 2016
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Aug. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In 6, it seems best to take the three simple finesses. In 5, it is a logical option not to finesse in and IMO.

However, if we decide to finesse, the order should be: , , and . Even if we are able to collect four tricks, we still have to deal with the potential loser; but if we take finesse before finesse and it loses, then when T drops in one, two or three rounds, we won't need the finesse.

I did not pay attention to the intrafinesse in s, which has a lower chance than the simple one versus Q (as Martin notes).
Aug. 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I count it in both cases for the total success.
West has K2 or K6 = 26 %, stiff K = 13 %, K62 = 11 %; total success = 50 % for finesse.
West has K2 or K6 = 26 %, stiff K = 13 %, East has stiff K = 13 %; total success = 52 % for cashing A.
Aug. 9, 2016
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Aug. 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1m - P- 2M: 5-card M and 4-card fit for m, less than invite (6-9)
May 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's encouraging to hear that.
May 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In any case, regardless of what their explanations would be, it would be better to hear from the bridge players than their lawyers.
May 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mr. Enrique Morera:

There was one good way for your clients to be acquitted in my eyes. That was; your clients should have stepped forward to challenge all the accusations when they first emerged saying: “we are ready to give an explanation of each card we played”.

The rest is just legal technicalities, and in vain, in my opinion.

NOTE: You can call me biased, and you are right.
May 17, 2016
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment May 17, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve Chen:
Do you want it to be eliminated?
April 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Everybody has a right to forget … and, most of the time, is naturally punished due to that. However, rarely, forgetting, say, your time of flight can even save your life.

Automatic penalty for forgetting ‘anything’ sounds at least unnatural (if not inhumane).
April 7, 2016
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment April 7, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top