Bridge With Melih Ozdil

In my quest to improve my bridge game and forming a partnership that will lead to world championships, I worked on a partnership with Melih Ozdil, who is frequently considered to be Turkey's best player.  I was interested in learning his style of play, and was forewarned that he was a difficult partner.  Melih is now living in New York City. 

Before the fall Nationals in San Francisco, we practiced online and I tried to learn his bidding system.  One thing about Melih - you play his system or you don't play with him.  I certainly was interested in learning what his system was, as I was likely to learn some things that were good.  And I expected that he would play some of my system also, that I would be able to see which things that I like would fit in with his and improve his system.  I am disappointed that he does not play upside-down count and attitude, which for me, is clearly superior to standard. 

I did not realize how much memorization it would take to play his system.  I worked at it, and recopied his notes into a style that would make greater sense to me.  But there were some bidding sequences that demanded memorization and had no logical framework for me to remember.  I knew that I could remember some of his system, but that it would be a tall order for me to not be overwhelmed by so much to remember and not completely loose confidence in each individual sequence.  I figured that if we got numerous days to play, and that if we discussed sequences in detail between sessions until I got a full understanding, that by later in the tournament we would be playing pretty well together.

Some players have photographic memories, and can remember system notes much easier than I can.  I need to literally absorb a system, and understand its nuances and rational for why sequences are designed as they are, before I am comfortable to play it and perform and concentrate on the other aspects of the game effectively at the table. 

We were supposed to play 3 days in the Blue Ribbon pairs, but shortly before that event began, he asked me to cancel as he had gotten a request for some pro-work those days.  That would put even greater pressure on us to perform well in the Reisinger, but I agreed.  I figured that we would have other tournaments in the future to work on partnership.

Then the Reisinger began.  This is a very tough board-a-match tournament.  Previously in the tournament I had been concentrating on a different bidding and carding system, so this rated to be a very tough challenge for me.  I knew I would struggle to remember so much different bidding system.  I did not realize the cultural, language and style problems would be so pervasive.

I will confine myself to the first 10 hands of our first session.  We were playing a 15-17 1NT opening.  Yet he opened 1NT with ªA982  ©J109  ¨KJ86  §AJ second position all vulnerable, and also with ªA762  ©AK3  ¨Q6  §AJ72 second position nobody vulnerable.  I don't know why he wants me to dedicate time to learn his system over the 1NT and 2NT rebids if he is going to bid as if I am a client playing with a pro.  It was not comforting to find him taking control and not respecting my bidding judgement, even if he was successful on a given hand.

On another hand he held:  ª9732  ©A5  ¨J86  §9863.  Vulnerable vs. Not-Vulnerable, partner opens 1§ in second position and RHO overcalls 1©.  What do you do?  Melih made a negative double, which, for me, is an overbid.  I expected greater strength and judged to force to game after the next opponent preempted to 3©.  I held ªAQ8  ©J  ¨K952  §AK742, and bid 4©.  He played in 4ª and went down 200.  He told me that he wanted me to double 3H - responsive.  Never in his system notes had he described that he played a double there as responsive instead of penatly-orientated, and I certainly wanted to avoid partnership confusion.  My bid was a slight overbid, but I have no idea why he wanted to suggest competing for the contract with his weak hand at unfavorable vulnerability.

Then he was on defense with this hand:

It is not clear if you want to cash some club tricks and possibly get a club ruff, or if you want to hope that partner has the diamond king to set up a diamond trick to knock off dummy's late entry and possibly get a diamond ruff.  You might even want to lead spades to give partner some trump promotions.  What do you think is right?

Since partner doubled the opponents in game and you have at least 2 tricks and 2 small trumps, you should expect to be able to defeat this hand with fairly routine defense.  Partner's double would be questionable with a singleton spade, a trump trick and the diamond king.  Partner could be gambling, trying to get 200 points, but since partner made a negative double forcing your side to the 3-level, you can expect partner to be better than that.  And why is declarer overcalling and then bidding again with minimal values?  Maybe declarer has a 7-card heart suit and thought that 3ª was a makable contract, and going down one would be a better result.

If declarer has 7 hearts, then you don't want to start making partner ruff spades, as after one ruff partner would be trumping with his presumed trump trick.  Besides which, if you gave partner a spade ruff, you would not know which minor suit to suit-preference in, since you don't know where partner has minor-suit strength.

A beginner student, in this position would probably just cash the §A, as it feels good to win tricks.  That does have the advantage of seeing partner's signal.  If partner encourages in clubs, then it must be best to continue leading clubs.  And if partner discourages, you would assume that partner has the diamond king and shift to diamonds.  I can't see any way where leading the §A would not lead to at least 4 tricks for the defense, as long as partner has a high trump and either minor suit king.

It would be reasonable to lead the §2.  That might put declarer to a misguess in clubs, and you might even beat the hand 2 tricks.

But Melih shifted to the ¨8.  That did not work well for the defense for a particular reason.  This was the entire hand:

Declarer won the ¨8 lead with the ¨J in dummy, and led a trump.  I won the ©A and tried to give Melih a diamond ruff, leading the ¨3 as a suit-preference signal for clubs, in case he wanted to underlead his §A to get a second diamond ruff.  I follow the defensive school that if partner leads a suit, he generally wants me to continue leading that suit.  I find it offensive if I set a defense and partner overrules me and is wrong.  When Melih led a diamond, that meant to me that diamonds was the suit of the future, and it would be very wrong not to believe my partner.

Now it is certainly understandable that a new partnership could get confused on a defense like this.  But what was particularly aggravating to me was that, instead of letting me try to concentrate on remembering system and play my best, Melih wanted me to accept that I made a mistake on defense.  There was a lot of tension between us at that point.  Still, I wanted to continue and try my best.

Then this hand came along: 

I made the normal ªQ lead, although on this hand, 4th best would have been greatly superior.  Declarer crossed to the ©A and led a small diamond.  I won the Diamond Ace and continued with the ª10, to let partner know that I held the jack but not the 9.  Then declarer ran the diamond tricks.  At this point declarer had 6 diamond tricks, 2 spades and 2 hearts.  My first discard was the §J to let partner know that I held the §A.  The defense clearly held two tricks in the minor suits, and an established spade trick.  Melih only needed to hold his heart honors and one black card to get to my hand.  But, in the run of the diamonds, Melih decided to discard the ©10.   At that point, declarer had discarded spades and my hand was good.  If for some reason declarer didn't cash his high heart, I could take the rest of the tricks.   For me, the discard of the ©10 tells me that he has the ©98, so I felt free to discard my ©J.  I signal and play defense with my partner.  I don't try to make life difficult for my partner.  Yes, I could have discarded one more spade and one less heart, but I trust my partner's defensive signals (unless I am playing with a bad player). 

Why did Melih discard the ©10?  I think he was trying to talk declarer into taking an idiot's finesse.  I have talked declarer's into taking idiot's finesses before, so let me explain what it is.

When declarer reaches this end-position in the heart suit, and leads the ©8 from dummy, it is correct to finesse with the ©9 if he thinks Melih has the ©QJ6 and plays the ©6.  This would certainly be a very illogical play by East, so therefore only an idiot would make such a play. 

There are many positions where throwing honors unnecessarily will give declarer a losing option of finessing, without potentially fooling partner.  And, if Melih had thrown away the ©Q instead of the ©10, this idiot's finesse would have had a remote chance of success.  But if declarer had the ©KJ of hearts in the end position, that would have removed a potential misguess by declarer in the end position.  I think his play of the ©10 was intended to give declarer a losing option without removing the losing option if declare had begun with the ©KJ.  I don't think he ever considered the possibility that I would discard the ©J, and give declarer a finessing position.

I don't understand his Turkish mentality of partnership bridge.  I appreciate and like some of Melih's bidding theory.  I am impressed with his declarer play and presence at the table.  But I don't understand why he tortures partners unnecessarily. 

Even after the session ended, I was ready to keep working on the partnership.  But Melih announced to me that he did not want to have lunch together, that he wanted to eat with some other players. 

It is also frustrating to me that when I ask him explain some of his underlying thoughts about his play, he tells me that his English isn't good enough to explain. 

I understand now why one of his former partners in the states told me that if he tells me that I made an error, that I should just reply "Yes Melih". 

He was written up in the daily bulletin at the tournament.  On one of the hands, he fooled declarer by leading a small card from a doubleton on the opening lead.  I don't think partnership bridge is helped by making early decisions to violate system, without a good reason.  (If partner is known to be broke from the bidding, then it is reasonable to risk fooling partner at the greater chance of fooling declarer). 

Strangely, in some ways when I have a bad session of bridge with a partner, I like it.  It gives me a lot of opportunities to analyze what went wrong and how to correct it.  When sessions go both without any problems, I really don't learn very much.

It is a shame that partnership dynamics seem to be overwhelmingly difficult for us.  He certainly has spent lots of time thinking and studying bridge and has a lot to offer the game.  And when he eventually forms a good partnership, he will be a very worthy opponent.