pclayton Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 Really great fun. Good bridge? I dont know enough about the resume of the Naturalists but it seems 1 Imp/ board isnt nearly enough of a handicap against the likes of Team Zia. Goulash will only increase the variance on the boards too. I'm curious if Justin is getting action at 3:1. I hope that this match gets some great coverage too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 Revolutionary match! The bidding methods of 1930 vs the bidding methods of 1980! Live on BBO! (I don't mind the idea at all, I am sure it will be great fun, but it seems not quite adequate to put it in the tradition of the other matches.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 Revolutionary match! The bidding methods of 1930 vs the bidding methods of 1980! Live on BBO! (I don't mind the idea at all, I am sure it will be great fun, but it seems not quite adequate to put it in the tradition of the other matches.) Well, for the posters here, I'm sure that 1980-traditionalists versus 2007-scientists would be more interesting. But BBO-vugraph is aiming at a diverse audience. There are a lot of people at my local club who struggle forming an opinion about the merrits of weak twos and negative doubles, and who find a Meckwell vs Jansma-Verhees auction just as interesting as a press conference in Japanese. Too few of them are BBO users. Events like this one might help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walddk Posted October 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 Steve Eginton (eggy) from England approached us about 2 weeks ago and told us about the match. "Zia would like to have it on BBO; any thoughts?" We were obviously delighted and had a set game a few hours later. Steve is instrumental in organising this broadcast and I think we should all be grateful. Lots of spectators will flock to the vugraph rooms, not least to the room where Zia is. It's a fact that Zia himself will be playing all 104 boards. How often do our members get the opportunity to watch him for so long? Natural, scientific or not, I don't think it matters much for our thousands of Zia fans. And I do think that the large amount at stake adds to the flavour and excitement. As an example, it would be great if the commentators are able to say: "If Zia plays the Jack of hearts he will make 3NT and win $6,000 – if not he is down 2 doubled and will lose $5,000!" Roland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 Marchessini didn't play but in fact did organise previous ('92) event You sure? I think I've read in the match book that he played the last 16 boards. Pretty boring pushovers, those boards though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walddk Posted October 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 As a very good friend and long-time teammate of Gunnar Hallberg, I must say that finding him posing as a bidding scientist made me laugh hysterically!!!! Well, it depends on how you define "scientific". If it's scientific to play Stayman, negative doubles, splinters and cue bids (and the Portland players think it is), then Hallberg belongs to the scientists. Roland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzpp Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 With 56 IMPs to start with, it seems that the organizer already made up their decision that naturalists are losers. The problem is, what does it mean if they win? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 Revolutionary match! The bidding methods of 1930 vs the bidding methods of 1980! Live on BBO! Blah. Send Vanderbilt Club against SAYC, and tell me which one is the 'natural' one. were some really neat systems in the early 30s. Stupid Official System ruined everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 Revolutionary match! The bidding methods of 1930 vs the bidding methods of 1980! Live on BBO! (I don't mind the idea at all, I am sure it will be great fun, but it seems not quite adequate to put it in the tradition of the other matches.) Well, for the posters here, I'm sure that 1980-traditionalists versus 2007-scientists would be more interesting. But BBO-vugraph is aiming at a diverse audience. There are a lot of people at my local club who struggle forming an opinion about the merrits of weak twos and negative doubles, and who find a Meckwell vs Jansma-Verhees auction just as interesting as a press conference in Japanese. Too few of them are BBO users. Events like this one might help. That's a valid point Helene, but in the earlier matches the players on both teams were leading players of the era. Now we have top level players on the scientist team and rich players on the naturalist team. But you are right, most club players won't care much about this and will likely enjoy the show. If they watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walddk Posted November 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 You might find this interesting. The scientists (read Robson) have created a special system for the Goulash part Friday. A/Z = Robson/ZiaB/G = Brogeland/Hallberg 1L = F1, unlimited New Suits = good five+ cards 1NT = non FG no good suit Two-over-One FG Jump in new suit show two-suiters bid better suit 2NT = FG three-card raise 3L = FG four+ card support 1NT = 11-18 no good five+ card suit 2L = F1 2NT = F1 3L = FG two-suiters bid better suit 2♣ = either a club-major two-suiter, very strong balanced, or a strong one-suiter 2♦ relay 2M = C + M 2NT = strong balanced, say 21+ 3L = single-suited in L 4L = asking bids in L 1st step = no second round control 2nd step = Q/xx 3rd step = x/K 4th step = void/A 2L = Two-suited good hand, bid better suit 2NT asks for other suit Distinguish raises by offense, particularly no. of trumps 3L = Preempt, playing strength above Bridge Natural, F 3NT = Huge one-suiter specific ace-ask 4♣ = no ace 4♦, ♥, ♠ = bid ace 4NT = ♣A 5L = two aces, bid lowest ace you don’t have 5NT = three aces 4L, 5L = Natural pre-empt with playing strength Defence to their bidsOver their 1NT opener Dbl = majors 2L = Nat 3L = Two Suiters (bid better suit)Our 1NT overcallA/Z: Comic either 16+ bal or weak single-suitedB/G: Wide-ranging 10-19 bal(ish)Our jump cue-bid shows big one-suiter1m – 3m = hearts1m – 4m = spades1M – 3M = oMOur jump to 3NT is ace-ask, as 3NT opener General AgreementsDefault = BridgeAll Single Jumps = Two Suiters (bid better suit)4NT in Comp. = Good hand/raiseAll Splinters show void, except after opening 1NT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walddk Posted November 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 I have been asked to explain what Goulash bridge is. Let me give you a short version: Goulash is a style of playing bridge, normally in friendly play such as rubber bridge, in which the cards are not thoroughly shuffled between consecutive deals. The aim is to create deals where the suits are more unevenly distributed between the players, thus creating "wild" deals in order to make the game more vivid. For the match Friday, a duplimate machine (too scientific for the Naturalists? :) ) has been programmed to deliver those wild deals. When goulash dealing is in effect, many players adjust their bidding principles. Goulash is very entertaining, and interesting results are being produced. This is not only a skill thing; luck and guesses are important parts of the game. Roland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 Heh - I expect to see several 3NT-(6H) or equivalent auctions - I hope they're prepared! Similarly 2H-() - partner is almost never going to get to bid 2NT to ask. I wonder what 2H-(3S)-3NT is? or is 4S the "bid your other suit?" What if the naturalists psych a preeemptive overcall? Should be fun. The good news about Goulash bridge with these players is that the Portland, TGR's, etc. players - even the rich players who support the club and the pros for the privilege - are probably the masters at the format, given that they play more of it than anyone except possibly silly juniors - and they play it for regular table stakes (up to $2.50 a point) as part of their regular games. Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 And two more links, the first an interview with Lord Wolfson ... http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/search/ar...head-good-hand/ Then read about his granddaughter, Janet de Botton, a very wealthy bridge player at top level in England ... http://www.fmwf.com/newsarticle7.php?cat=23&id=105 (scroll down to the bottom) I think you are mixing up your Lord Wolfsons. The Lord Wolfson playing in this match is the son of the 1st Lord Wolfson. Janet de Botton is his daughter. see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Wolfson,_Baron_Wolfson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 This just in... Andrew 1♣, Pass on his left, Zia responds 1♠, doubled by Dmitri, whereupon Andrew jumps to 6♠, down one. Where's the science?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 Sorry to be a party pooper but this is not the least bit exciting to me. I haven't heard of the players on the naturals, the scientists don't have any sort of reputation as scientists at all, and if not for this thread I wouldn't even know the match was happening. It's a real shame because an event like this would be really cool if it was done right, the one going on now just seems meaningless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjames Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 Sorry to be a party pooper but this is not the least bit exciting to me. I haven't heard of the players on the naturals, the scientists don't have any sort of reputation as scientists at all, and if not for this thread I wouldn't even know the match was happening. It's a real shame because an event like this would be really cool if it was done right, the one going on now just seems meaningless. I agree.. Throw in some relays and forcing pass then we are talking :D (though relays can be hard, when bidding boxes is not used :) ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 It's entertaining, but in a painful kind of way. Every time one of the naturalist makes a terrible mistake Roland Wald quickly points out how much money they own and whose house they are in and who their granddaughter is etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the commentators were instructed not to say bad things about the naturalists either because they are very mild. Also, I've read many times now that Wolfson's granddaughter/daughter is one of the top female players in England. One of my British friends assures me that she is pretty good for a client but certainly not a great player (in his words: "if she was better than I then I would kill myself"). Assuming that the commentators know this I don't understand why they would say she is that good. At least in the US clients are common in top level bridge and nobody would claim that these clients are at the level of the players they hire. I think there is no shame in this, why pretend it is otherwise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walddk Posted November 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 I wouldn't be surprised if the commentators were instructed not to say bad things about the naturalists either because they are very mild. Sheer nonsense. I can offer you all correspondence if you don't believe me. No one, and I repeat no one no matter how much money they own, can instruct me and the commentators I am in charge of to do certain things. They can ask politely, but they did not even do that. They may not be the world's greatest bridge players but they have manners. And if your next question is if I or anybody else is getting paid to do this and not that, the answer is no. Not a penny. "It's entertaining, but in a painful kind of way", you write. Now tell us why you can be bothered to be there at all. Given the number of spectators we have for every segment, the event seems to be justified. If it really was so painful as you state, the vugraph theatre would have been almost empty, wouldn't it? There is no reason to believe that BBO members are masochists. They could surely find something else to do with themselves if they don't give a damn. Feel free to think and write that the judgement Fred, Uday and I made was poor when we agreed that this would be great fun, but you are kindly requested not to imply anything dubious without any knowledge whatsoever. Roland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 Roland, I agree that broadcasting this event on vugraph is justified. I saw Zia make some nice plays and the setting is quite interesting. It gives us an idea of what might go on in the high stakes rubber bridge clubs, something most of us can't afford to find out by going there. That the level is sometimes painfully low doesn't mean it cannot be interesting. What isn't justified (in my opinion) is selling this event as the fourth episode in the great battle of naturalist vs scientists. For that the scientists bid too naturally and the naturalist play too badly. So I protest against the commentators who claim that this is great bridge and say that (some of these) bridge players are top level when they clearly are not. I did not mean to imply that you or any other commentators are bribed, I didn't think that and I apologize if my post sounded like that. I believe you that you didn't instruct the commentators to be especially mild for this event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 What isn't justified (in my opinion) is selling this event as the fourth episode in the great battle of naturalist vs scientists. For that the scientists bid too naturally and the naturalist play too badly. Or, as the obviously unbribed Mr. Larry Cohen put it: "This is billed as 'Nature' vs. 'Science' -- but that has really had nothing to do with the swings. It has just been better bridge against worse bridge." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sambolino Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 one may notice carefully selected adjective "better" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joker_gib Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 I did not have the opportunity to see the first part. Are the results somewhere ?? Alain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 It was something like after 0 boards: Zia 0Dmitri 56 After 56 boards: Zia 223Dmitri 156 give or take a few. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walddk Posted November 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 I'm afraid not, Alain. On the EBU web site it is announced that results will be posted, but you won't find any yet. I can tell you that Scientists won Thursday's play (56 boards) by 231 IMPs to 155. The Naturalists had a 56 IMP head start and they held on to that lead for 5 of the 7 segments. After dinner it went horribly wrong, especially in the last set. The 76 IMP margin in the end translates to £7,600 = $15,830 = 10.975 €. Roland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joker_gib Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 The 76 IMP margin in the end translates to £7,600 = $15,830 = 10.975 €. Not bad for a day of bridge ! :rolleyes: :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.