Cavendish Invintational Pairs, 2004

[mishovnbg]

$26000 -> Brad Moss - Fred Gitleman (Sorry Slothy)

$23000 -> Norberto Bocchi - Giorgio DuBoin (Sorry Rain)

$16000 ->Fulvio Fantoni - Claudio Nunes (Sorry Ron)

 

Misho

[jillybean]

Does anyone have the web site for the up to date VP standings?

If you do, please post it here.

Thanks

[Erkson]

Does anyone have the web site for the up to date VP standings?

If you do, please post it here.

Thanks

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~bridge/cavteams.htm

 

------------------Quote------------

vugraph106: the standing after FIVE matches:

vugraph106: Deutsch (106); Ekeblad (104); Wigodor (95); Narasimhan (94); O'Rourke (88); Freed (77); Moss (77); Jacobs (73); Meltzer ...

vugraph106: (73); Zimmerman (70); Brachman (69); Hamman (65); Ventin (62); Casen (58); Johnson (48); Welland (41)

.........

vugraph106: Standings after Round 6:

vugraph106: Jacobs (79); Johnson (77); Deutsch (133); Meltzer (84); Ventin (89)

vugraph106: Zimmerman (94); Freed (98); O'Rourke (97); Narasimhan (104);

vugraph106: Brachman (79); Welland (42); Hamman (85); Wigodor (115); Ekeblad (107); Casen (61); Moss (96)

--------------

 

Erkson

[cwiggins]

When making your bets, you might want to factor in the conditions of the contest, which prohibit such exotic things as a multi 2D, weak two bids showing two suits, one of which is unknown, and transfers to opening bids. See http://www.thecavendish.com/2003/COCpairs.html paragraph 11.

 

I was very surprised to find this out last night when watching the teams competition on Vugraph. What this means is that many of the leading pairs in the world (Meckwell and Bocci-Duboin come to mind right away) would have to substantially or completely overhaul their systems to play in the event, which explains why they are not playing in it. Under these rules, Sontag and Weichesel could not play the system that they won the Cavendish with! Wouldn't you like to see at least a chance that Hamman-Soloway would play Versace-Lauria on the last round for all the money?

 

For me, this means that the Cavendish has lost much of its bloom. From now on, I will think of it as a tournament whose rules prohibit the best pairs playing against each other at their peak capability, rules that prohibit the same level of competition that you would see in world championships. I.e. the Cavendish may have lots of money, but having prohibited so many of the best pairs, it's an event with second tier competition.

[fred]

This is NOT the reason why some of the world's top pairs

do not play together in the Cavendish. Read an earlier post

I made in this thread if you want to know the real reason.

 

I know all of the players that make up what most people

would consider the world's top 10 partnerships. I am friends

with many of them. I cannot say this for certain, but I doubt

there is a single pair in this category who refuses to play in

the Cavendish for the reason you suggest.

 

The 2 reasons the Cavendish organizers have placed

rather severe restrictions on system:

 

1) They consider it unfair for people to have to face strange

systems in a 2-board round of a pairs tournament.

 

2) They hope that the Cavendish can be used to help market

bridge to "average social players". If they are successful, there

will be benefits for all of us (bridge on TV, corporate sponsors

putting up big prize money for a series of tournaments, bridge

ultimately becoming a much more popular game).

 

My guess is that the vast majority of players in the Cavendish

agree with 1). That in itself is a good enough reason to justify

the policy they have. Some may not agree where the line has

been drawn, but just about all of the best players think that there

must be a line somewhere.

 

If you do not believe 2), consider that for every person who is

interested in seeing unusual systems, there are probably 1000

people whose knowledge of bridge bidding consists of little more

than Blackwood or Stayman. If these people are going to be

interested in watching bridge, they are going to want to watch

a game that resembles the game that they have learned to play.

 

Your have a right to disagree with me, of course, but I have been in

this business for close to 15 years now and I have had contact with

a LOT of bridge players of all levels of experience in this time. I

did not always think about this issue the way that I do now. I came

around to my current position as a result of hearing what many

"average bridge players" think.

 

This post will likely reopen a 75-year old can of worms that I

have strayed into many times before (often to my later regret).

The systems buffs tend to be very vocal about their views, but

I believe that most of them are (seriously) out of touch with reality.

 

No offense intended.

 

Since I am playing in the Cavendish through Sunday, I may not

be able to make any more posts until next week.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[luis]

As a System buff I'd like to say that I agree with Fred.

 

I think that in order to make bridge a sport where we can develop and test our most strange systems we must first make bridge available to more people.

 

Bridge on TV and sponsors are needed, and restrictions on what you can play can be a good way to start, I think that the current state of the art in bridge makes the game very hard to learn for a lot of people and that some simplifications can be good to make the game easy to reach.

 

I think that my fellow System buffs friends are playing the right war in the wrong time. First we need to help bridge become popular, then we may start to ask to relax the system regulations.

[hrothgar]

Fred wrote:

 

>I know all of the players that make up what most people

>would consider the world's top 10 partnerships. I am friends

>with many of them. I cannot say this for certain, but I doubt

>there is a single pair in this category who refuses to play in

>the Cavendish for the reason you suggest.

 

I'll note in passing that an email came across the bridge laws mailing list today in which Jeff Meckstroth is quoted as follows:

 

>I am on the ACBL Conventions Committee in the US,

>and we have been fairly restrictive, which has

>been criticized in other countries. We feel that

>it has to be that way, though, to protect the

>weaker players, who make up the majority.

>

>However, I am strongly against what has happened

>with the Macallan International Pairs.

 

[snip]

 

>we had won it two years in a row, and then the

>following year they brought in the system

>restrictions.

 

[snip]

 

>I like the competition, but Rodwell and I will

>not play together in a system-restricted

>tournament again.

[fred]

Bottom line is that if the financial conditions are right, the top

professional players will play in any tournament regardless

of the systems regulations in effect.

 

I can promise you that if each of the 16 pairs invited to the

Macallan were guaranteed a $20,000 "appearance fee" and

had a chance to win a lot more than that, that you would be

able to get Meckwell on the first plane to London even if only

Stayman and Blackwood were allowed in the event.

 

Of course Meckstroth would prefer to be able to play his whole

system, but he will go where the money is.

 

The reason he does not play with Rodwell in the Cavendish has

nothing to do with systems - it is all about money.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[lexica]

Gitelman/Moss 50000

Lindkvist/Fredin 50000

Sry Misho :blink:

[the hog]

Interesting to see the Wigodor team do so well:

 

(Charles Wigodor), Michael Cornell, Gunnar Halberg, Richard Jedyrchowski

 

Some background -

Charles Wigodor was Michael Courtney's partner when Courtney, (Aust) was living in England for many years. Courtney is one of the world's top rubber bridge players. He has many interesting, some would say eccentric, views on bidding and is a superb card player.

 

Cornell is a New Zealand international who plays frequently in Australia. Hallberg is another member of the high stakes London rubber bridge scene. Jedyrchowski is a Pole living in Australia. He plays a bit with Pzszkola these days. He and Pzszkola won the Aust Open Pairs in Canberra this year.

[cwiggins]

My reaction was not because I wanted to see unusual systems (I agree with drawing lines in pairs events) but because I was expecting to see the most intense competition possible between the world’s best pairs.

 

Clearly that is not happening. Many of the best pairs are not participating. Nor is the competition as sharp as could be. Some of the world class pairs are using unfamilar methods, a natural disadvantage, especially when other pairs are using their normal methods.

 

Fred is in a much better position than I am to know why that the best pairs are not participating. I read his earlier note saying that the root cause why the best pairs do not participate is that players have to purchase 10% of their auction price. It makes sense.

 

But even if the best pairs were participating, the competition would not be as instense as possible because of where the Cavendish draws the line on conventions. I suspect Fred is correct that Rodwell and Meckstorth would play SAYC in an event if the money were right. But is R-M playing Bocci-Duboin and both of them playing SAYC maximizing the competition between them? Wouldn’t an SAYC competition be susceptible to bidding accidents because they are not using their normal systems? And doesn’t the strain of using an unfamiliar bidding system detract from the energy they have to spend on play and defense?

 

If I understand Fred correctly, this is irrelevant: I am (or was) expecting the wrong thing. The purpose of the Cavendish is not to be yet another competition between the best pairs under World Championship rules with the only difference being that money is at stake. Per Fred, the purpose is to market bridge to social players and attract sponsors as a result. In addition, the assumption is that social players are put off by exotic bidding systems. Other considerations (like letting pairs play their normal systems) are secondary to these goals and this assumption.

 

Fair enough. Given this purpose and assumption, I will adjust my expectations. No longer will I expect the Cavendish to be a premier pair event without qualification. Instead, I will expect it to be a strong pair event participated in by the pairs that can (1) get past the money issue and (2) bid and play well with conventions much more restricted than they are in the World Championships.

 

Will the Cavendish achieve its goal of attracting social players and sponsors? I hope so. Something needs to help, especially in the U.S. I suspect that the money aspect gives the Cavendish appeal. I would love to see data from the target audience that tells whether they prefer seeing players use their usual systems or seeing only “standard” conventions.

 

One possibility is that the Cavendish will fail to achieve its goals regardless what is done about making pairs eligible on merit alone or using more restrictive, less restrictive or the same restrictions on conventions. I.e it is possible that bridge will never be widely popular no matter what is done. How will bridge survive if that turns out to be the case? What do we need to do now? Using the internet to aggregate bridge players into a large enough audience to survive is probably part of the answer. I.e. BBO (and similar organizations) may be more important to bridge long term than the Cavendish. Are there other things bridge players should do?

 

As for being seriously out of touch with reality, I talked to my psychiatrist, and he said I should just ignore such comments, at least until they’re not true. :( No offense taken. Hopefully none given.

 

Chris Wiggins

 

P.S. Good luck to Fred in the event.

[jillybean]

I am looking at the results from http://www.thecavendish.com/

 

Invitational Pairs 2nd Session May 5, 2004

Scores after 9 rounds Section 12

Pair Score Rank C/O Final

33 868.00 1 411.22 1279.22 Bob Hamman - Zia Mahmood

19 860.00 2 428.66 1288.66 Fulvio Fantoni - Claudio Nunes

etc

 

Would someone please explain what columns C/O and Final are?

 

TYIA

[inquiry]

I am looking at the results from http://www.thecavendish.com/

 

Invitational Pairs 2nd Session May 5, 2004

Scores after 9 rounds Section 12

Pair Score Rank C/O Final

33 868.00 1 411.22 1279.22 Bob Hamman - Zia Mahmood

19 860.00 2 428.66 1288.66 Fulvio Fantoni - Claudio Nunes

etc

 

Would someone please explain what columns C/O and Final are?

 

TYIA

C/O stands for carry over. So for example, you have posted the result of the second session for these pairs. So in the second session, Bob/Zia won 868 imps, they were 1st in that session, they had a carryover of 411.22 points, so their "total" score is 1279.22... they call it final here, but there are what, three more sessions.

[Rain]

At the website, whenever I try to load the bulletin, it says, "Error reading linearised hint data". I asked some of my friends to do that and they got that error too. Can anyone read the pdf files? Anyone know what to do to solve it?

 

 

Thanks!

 

Rain

[the hog]

No. I have tried 3 different pdf readers with the same result.

 

Ron

[Rain]

Somehow, on 2 occasions out of the many that I tried, I was able to open the pdf bulletins. All other times I had the same error message, errrr...

 

-----------

Cascade has a solution for this problem. Right click the link, save target as something, and then you can read :) Works for me now!

 

 

 

Rain...

[mishovnbg]

I sow that Andrea Buratti - Massimo Lanzarotti Nightmare system is allowed in Cavendish? What about system regulations there, as posted even 2♦ multi was forbidden...

Misho

[paulg]

I sow that Andrea Buratti - Massimo Lanzarotti Nightmare system is allowed in Cavendish? What about system regulations there, as posted even 2♦ multi was forbidden...

Misho

"In general, it is our intent to allow methods with which other contestants are expected to be familiar. It is also our intent to allow reasonable artificiality in auctions where the bidding side has guaranteed sufficient (high-card) values to invite game."

 

I would have taken this to mean that anything on the ACBL Mid Chart would be fine ... but your comment about the multi suggests otherwise.

 

Actually I think they mean methods which world class players, not necessarily in a regular partnership, can cope with ....

 

Paul

[1eyedjack]

I am looking at the results from http://www.thecavendish.com/

 

Invitational Pairs 2nd Session May 5, 2004

Scores after  9 rounds      Section  12

Pair          Score  Rank     C/O   Final

33          868.00   1    411.22 1279.22 Bob Hamman - Zia Mahmood

19          860.00   2    428.66 1288.66 Fulvio Fantoni - Claudio Nunes

etc

 

Would someone please explain what columns C/O and Final are?

 

TYIA

C/O stands for carry over. So for example, you have posted the result of the second session for these pairs. So in the second session, Bob/Zia won 868 imps, they were 1st in that session, they had a carryover of 411.22 points, so their "total" score is 1279.22... they call it final here, but there are what, three more sessions.

I still don't quite understand this.

 

The "ranking" correlates to the column headed "score" but not with the column headed "Final". "Score" = "Final" - "C/O".

 

Does this mean that "ranking" only shows the ranking for that session and not overall ranking?

 

Also there are a few "-50" adjustments floating around, but no corresponding "+50" adjustments. Does this mean they are procedural penalties?

 

PS I also get that error message trying to read the pdf files but only when I left click on the link to open the file directly. If I right click on the link and choose Save As to download it to my hard drive and then open it from there it seems to work (for me).

Edited May 9, 2004 by 1eyedjack

[paulg]

I am looking at the results from http://www.thecavendish.com/

 

Invitational Pairs 2nd Session May 5, 2004

Scores after  9 rounds      Section  12

Pair          Score  Rank     C/O   Final

33          868.00   1    411.22 1279.22 Bob Hamman - Zia Mahmood

19          860.00   2    428.66 1288.66 Fulvio Fantoni - Claudio Nunes

etc

 

Would someone please explain what columns C/O and Final are?

 

TYIA

C/O stands for carry over. So for example, you have posted the result of the second session for these pairs. So in the second session, Bob/Zia won 868 imps, they were 1st in that session, they had a carryover of 411.22 points, so their "total" score is 1279.22... they call it final here, but there are what, three more sessions.

I still don't quite understand this.

 

The "ranking" correlates to the column headed "score" but not with the column headed "Final". "Score" = "Final" - "C/O".

 

Does this mean that "ranking" only shows the ranking for that session and not overall ranking?

 

PS I also get that error message trying to read the pdf files

Correct - the ranking was shown for the session and not the event to date.

 

However the latest files just put on the website for Session 4 are a lot better - just two files, one for the Session and a simple one with the current placings.

 

And I've had no problems downloading the PDFs using my Opera browser (http://www.opera.com)

 

Paul

[Dwingo]

Can someone help in explaining how the scoring is done in this event. I dont understand the negative Matchpoints. You can use the example below for explanation. I have taken this from the cavendish website.

 

 

RESULTS OF BOARD 1

 

  SCORES      MATCHPOINTS        NAMES

  N-S      E-W    N-S        E-W

            100    14.00    -14.00    16-Shenkin-Tudor vs 48-Fallenius-Welland

  100            126.00  -126.00    49-Deutsch-Soloway vs 17-Glubok-Robison

            150    -23.00    23.00    18-Chemla-Ferraro vs 50-Gitelman-Moss

            150    -23.00    23.00    19-Fantoni-Nunes vs 46-Casen-Kasle

            150    -23.00    23.00    20-Elahmady-Sadek vs 47-Ekeblad-Rubin

              50    47.00    -47.00    23-Miller-Wold vs 11-Freed-Larsen

            150    -23.00    23.00    24-Passell-Strul vs 12-Balicki-Zmudzinski

            100    14.00    -14.00    13-Hayden-Passell vs 25-Multon-Quantin

            500  -204.00    204.00    14-Baze-Whitman vs 21-Lev-Pszczola

            150    -23.00    23.00    22-Altschuler-Birman vs 15-Johnson-Meckstroth

            100    14.00    -14.00      6-Jacobs-Katz vs 28-Bramley-Compton

  110            127.00    -127.00  29-Buratti-Lanzarotti vs  7-Levin-Weinstein

            100    14.00    -14.00    8-Grabel-Wittes vs 30-Stansby-Stansby

            300  -106.00    106.00    26-Grue-Moss vs  9-Fleisher-Martel

  110            127.00    -127.00  27-Levy-Mouiel vs 10-Samuel-Samuel

            510  -204.00    204.00    31-Blanchard-Gawrys vs  3-Stewart-Woolsey

            500  -204.00    204.00    32-Goren-Rosenberg vs  4-Gromov-Petrunin

            150    -23.00      23.00    5-Lewis-Lewis vs 33-Hamman-Mahmood

  150              151.00  -151.00    1-Bocchi-Duboin vs 34-Cohler-Schwartz

  100              126.00  -126.00  35-Bertheau-Nystrom vs  2-Kaminski-Levit

            100      14.00    -14.00    43-Meltzer-Weichsel vs 36-Saporta-Zimmermann

            100      14.00    -14.00    44-Cohen-Smith vs 37-Garner-Weinstein

            300  -106.00    106.00  38-Dawson-Rodwell vs 45-Fredin-Lindkvist

            50      47.00    -47.00    39-Greco-Hampson vs 41-Hallberg-Wigoder

  110              127.00  -127.00    40-Cornell-Jedrychoski vs 42-Doub-Wildavsky

 

[paulg]

Can someone help in explaining how the scoring is done in this event. I dont understand the negative Matchpoints. You can use the example below for explanation. I have taken this from the cavendish website.

 

 

RESULTS OF BOARD 1

 

   SCORES      MATCHPOINTS        NAMES

  N-S      E-W    N-S        E-W

            100     14.00    -14.00    16-Shenkin-Tudor vs 48-Fallenius-Welland

  100             126.00   -126.00    49-Deutsch-Soloway vs 17-Glubok-Robison

            150    -23.00     23.00    18-Chemla-Ferraro vs 50-Gitelman-Moss

            150    -23.00     23.00    19-Fantoni-Nunes vs 46-Casen-Kasle

            150    -23.00     23.00    20-Elahmady-Sadek vs 47-Ekeblad-Rubin

              50     47.00    -47.00    23-Miller-Wold vs 11-Freed-Larsen

            150    -23.00     23.00    24-Passell-Strul vs 12-Balicki-Zmudzinski

These are not matchpoints but IMPs as the event is scored as if teams.

 

Each table is scored as if it is having a team match with every other table. So, for a single result, there are 24 comparisons to be made ... and this is why the scores are so large.

 

So, looking at the scores above ....

 

Shenkin-Tudor, playing North-South, scored -100 on this board. Let us compare this to table 2, where Deutsch-Soloway, the NS pair scored +100. This means that Shenkin-Tudor are -200 compared to Deutsch-Soloway and this is worth -5 IMPs.

 

Comparing with table 3, Chemla-Ferraro, Shenkin-Tudor scored -100 compared with -150 so their score on this table is +50, or 2 IMPs.

 

Repeat for every table and you get their total IMPs on the board.

 

Inversely, their opponents will get the opposite score.

 

HTH

 

paul

[jillybean]

Hi, does anyone have the log from Saturdays Cavendish where Roland is talking about Yarboroughs. I wanted this for the BIL news update but I have inadvertently deleted my log.

 

Thanks!!

[mishovnbg]

Can somebody write a final position and prises? Will be interesting to count how much anybody lose/win in our virtual auction :o

Misho

[Cascade]

No. I have tried 3 different pdf readers with the same result.

 

Ron

Sorry I didnt see this sooner.

 

I was unable to open the pdf files too.

 

But I was consistently able to download them and open them from my machine.

 

Not sure what is going on but I hope that this helps.