2013 Bermuda Bowl

[32519]

This thread has been started for you to start posting anything interesting that you have noticed leading up to, and during the 2013 Bermuda Bowl.

 

To get the thread going, here is my opening gambit:

Paul Thurston (representing Canada) wrote a book on 2/1. Yet perusing the "System Summary" on his CC, it would appear that what he plays now has deviated somewhat from his book.

 

Wonder if he intends bringing out a new book with what he is playing now?

[barmar]

The systems that bridge champions play themselves, with other champion players, are not necessarily the same ones they would recommend to students.

[32519]

Some useless information regarding the open CCs:

 

England has registered the most CC - 5 in all

South Africa (my home country) the least - only 2

Australia, China and New Zealand - 4 each

 

All the other participants in the open event - 3 in all

[blackshoe]

So 20 CCs. How many participants?

 

How many and what different systems?

[JanM]

So 20 CCs. How many participants?

 

How many and what different systems?

 

There are 22 teams in the Bermuda Bowl. South Africa has 4 players (2 pairs, thus 2 convention cards). All of the rest have 6 players. Most are playing as 3 fixed pairs. The ones with more than 3 convention cards have some additional partnerships. I believe there are a total of 70 convention cards. As for how many different systems, that depends on your definition of "system." And as I'm only about halfway through summarizing convention cards, I can't tell you anyway. Plenty of different variants of all of strong club, Polish club, unbalanced diamond, 2/1.

[chasetb]

A great example of a mish-mash would be the CC that 32519 posted - they have a strong 2♣, a forcing but not necessarily strong 1♣ and a limited (but not sure how limited, could a 25+ HCP 4414 bid it?) 1♦. I think I would classify it as Swedish-like as per their CC.

[DJNeill]

Good to see Balicki-Zmudzinski playing for once. I forget how they were selected, but I think they opt out most of the time.

[bd71]

Good to see Balicki-Zmudzinski playing for once. I forget how they were selected, but I think they opt out most of the time.

 

During the Spingold final, one of the commentators with connections to the Polish team mentioned that the Polish Bermuda Bowl squad was simply chosen. The Spingold winners didn't even get a chance to play for the spot.

[gnasher]

During the Spingold final, one of the commentators with connections to the Polish team mentioned that the Polish Bermuda Bowl squad was simply chosen. The Spingold winners didn't even get a chance to play for the spot.

That's quite a common way to select international teams. It makes sense for countries that lack strength in depth. Imagine that you have only three world-class pairs and they play in three different teams. With a winner-takes-all trial, the best you can achieve is to get one of your three top pairs into the team. With a selected team, you get all three.

 

I'm not sure that this method is right for Poland, though.

[mgoetze]

That's quite a common way to select international teams. It makes sense for countries that lack strength in depth. Imagine that you have only three world-class pairs and they play in three different teams. With a winner-takes-all trial, the best you can achieve is to get one of your three top pairs into the team. With a selected team, you get all three.

 

I'm not sure that this method is right for Poland, though.

Then again I wouldn't be any sure any method which lead to Balicki-Zmudzinski not playing was the right one either.

[PhilKing]

Good to see Balicki-Zmudzinski playing for once. I forget how they were selected, but I think they opt out most of the time.

 

Yep - they haven't played for Poland in the World Championships since, er, 2012 (they got to the final). And before that, they haven't played in the Europeans since ... oh wait, they played in the last two.

 

It's true they have opted out in the past in order to guarantee availability for the Transnationals, but that could never really be allowed to continue from a Polish perspective.

[mfa1010]

Good to see Balicki-Zmudzinski playing for once. I forget how they were selected, but I think they opt out most of the time.

 

 

Yep - they haven't played for Poland in the World Championships since, er, 2012 (they got to the final). And before that, they haven't played in the Europeans since ... oh wait, they played in the last two.

 

It's true they have opted out in the past in order to guarantee availability for the Transnationals, but that could never really be allowed to continue from a Polish perspective.

Only fair to mention also that B-Z haven't played in a Bermuda Bowl since Paris 2001.

[gnasher]

Then again I wouldn't be any sure any method which lead to Balicki-Zmudzinski not playing was the right one either.

Yes, that's a good argument for using a committee.

 

In England we also select teams by committee, for equivalent reasons. If we did have a trial it would basically be the same event as the Premier League. In the past few years, that would have given us teams of:

2010 (European): Crouch-Liggins, Forrester-Allfrey, Patterson-Whittaker

2012 (European and Olympiad): Allfrey-Robson, Crouch-Patterson, Forrester-Gold

2013 (Bermuda Bowl): Hinden-Osborne, Allerton-Jagger, and another pair added by some means

 

MickyB would have been unlucky, in that his team won the 2010 Premier League but England hadn't qualified for the 2011 Bermuda Bowl.

[gnasher]

During the Spingold final, one of the commentators with connections to the Polish team mentioned that the Polish Bermuda Bowl squad was simply chosen. The Spingold winners didn't even get a chance to play for the spot.

Another consideration is that Poland had to qualify for the Bermuda Bowl by finishing in the top seven at the European Championship. It would be rather odd to make a team which had earned a Bermuda Bowl spot play in a trial for the right to use it.

[PhilKing]

Another consideration is that Poland had to qualify for the Bermuda Bowl by finishing in the top seven at the European Championship. It would be rather odd to make a team which had earned a Bermuda Bowl spot play in a trial for the right to use it.

 

I presume as a selector, you would take a dim view if a pair played in the Europeans, qualified for the Bowl, and then announced they were playing in the Transnationals instead ...

[gnasher]

I presume as a selector, you would take a dim view if a pair played in the Europeans, qualified for the Bowl, and then announced they were playing in the Transnationals instead ...

Not particularly (speaking for myself). The Bermuda Bowl is a separate event from the European Championships, and playing in the former doesn't constitute a commitment to be available for the latter, just as the Selection Committee don't promise to pick the same team for both events.

 

Professional bridge players have to earn a living. I don't think this is materially different from an amateur player making himself unavailable for selection because it would cost him too much to take the time off work.

 

I would take a dim view of someone saying "I can't be bothered with the Europeans. Send some other team to that, then if they get through I'll come in for the Bermuda Bowl", but that's not very likely to occur. Similarly, I know that some people (not necessarily on the Selection Committee) disapprove of partnerships making themselves available for the World and European Championships but not for the Camrose. But this is the opposite to those scenarios.

 

I'd also be surprised, of course, at someone choosing the Transnational over the Bermuda Bowl, though I know it happened.

[paulg]

I would take a dim view of someone saying "I can't be bothered with the Europeans. Send some other team to that, then if they get through I'll come in for the Bermuda Bowl", but that's not very likely to occur.

I guess it is more likely that a pair might say that they do not wish to play a major event with players X&Y, but if they were not in the team ...

[gnasher]

I guess it is more likely that a pair might say that they do not wish to play a major event with players X&Y, but if they were not in the team ...

Yes, that feels wrong, because now the players are trying to usurp the role of the selectors. Though obviously the selectors should welcome (and indeed actively seek) any opinions that the players have to offer.

[32519]

Bocchi/Madala have made some interesting changes to their CC (2011 Bermuda Bowl v 2013 Bermuda Bowl)

In 2011 this is what the CC said -

2♣ 18-19/23+ Artificial, any Balanced

2♦ 5-11 Weak 2 in either major

2♥ GF Unbalanced, ♣ or ♦ as main suit

2♥ 5-11 4♥ + 5m

2♥ 5-11 4♠ + 5m

2♠ GF Unbalanced, ♥ or ♠ as main suit

2NT 20-22 Balanced / Semi Balanced

 

In 2013 the CC now reads like this -

2♣ 18-19 Artificial, any Balanced

2♦ 23+ Any GF, or 23+

2♥ 4-10 6-card suit (V)

2♥ 4-11 5+/4+ both majors (NV)

2♠ 4-10 6-card suit (V)

2♠ 4-11 5+/4+ both minors (NV)

2NT 20-22 Balanced / Puppet

[mike777]

That's quite a common way to select international teams. It makes sense for countries that lack strength in depth. Imagine that you have only three world-class pairs and they play in three different teams. With a winner-takes-all trial, the best you can achieve is to get one of your three top pairs into the team. With a selected team, you get all three.

 

I'm not sure that this method is right for Poland, though.

 

 

This brings back the issue of what should be the number one priority for Poland or England or Italy or the USA when it comes to a team and for that matter who should decide what that priority is.

 

It seems for many NBO's the number one priority is not an open competition even if that means 6 unknown players win it by beating the pros. The fact that the so called 6 best players may or may not split up and not play on the same team sounds like a positive thing, not a negative that so many postulate.

 

OTOH if the membership much prefers that a tiny group of people make the decision rather than an open competition ok, it just sounds like winning is more important than the actual competition even if that results in failure.

 

Anyway I am very happy if a team sport has the ability to have an open team competition and, we do in bridge, that the USA does it. The fact that in other team sports that is not an option should not apply to bridge.

[JanM]

Bocchi/Madala have made some interesting changes to their CC (2011 Bermuda Bowl v 2013 Bermuda Bowl)

 

In 2013 the CC now reads like this -

2♣ 18-19 Artificial, any Balanced

2♦ 23+ Any GF, or 23+

2♥ 4-10 6-card suit (V)

2♥ 4-11 5+/4+ both majors (NV)

2♠ 4-10 6-card suit (V)

2♠ 4-11 5+/4+ both minors (NV)

2NT 20-22 Balanced / Puppet

 

I'm not sure where you're seeing the "Artificial, any" for 2♣. I see 18-19 BAL on both the front and back of the card they filed on Aug. 7th, pretty much the same as 2 years ago. 2♦ is 23+ Balanced or any GF. So they've put the very strong (and infrequent) hands in 2♦ instead of 2M and use 2M for weaker (and more frequent) hands, especially NV.

[GreenMan]

Seems to me that any NBO's goal for the WC would be to have the best possible showing by their representatives, and you'd think that would mean having the best possible team. In the U.S. and other countries there are up to a couple of dozen players among whom the differences are quite small, so you avoid the politics of a selection committee by having open trials and effectively letting the players sort it out. If your tolerance for politics is high and for surprises is low, you go with selection by the NBO.

[mike777]

Seems to me that any NBO's goal for the WC would be to have the best possible showing by their representatives, and you'd think that would mean having the best possible team. In the U.S. and other countries there are up to a couple of dozen players among whom the differences are quite small, so you avoid the politics of a selection committee by having open trials and effectively letting the players sort it out. If your tolerance for politics is high and for surprises is low, you go with selection by the NBO.

 

 

I strongly disagree that this should be the number one overriding priority, but I understand you disagree. Failure to have the best possible showing is ok, it is important just not number one goal :)

 

In any event in Poland's example I don't think we can say with such surety that they have achieved that stated goal. But if that is what the membership wishes, so be it and good luck.

[GreenMan]

I strongly disagree that this should be the number one overriding priority, but I understand you disagree. Failure to have the best possible showing is ok, it is important just not number one goal :)

 

I didn't mean to say it should be, I meant that I expected it would be. :) Whatever the individual members' priorities, I can't think of something that would be more important to the organization as a whole.* Of course organizations don't always do what one might expect.

 

*Setting aside things like financial considerations, which I envisaged would be accounted for under "best possible".

[mike777]

Again if this is what the membership wishes ok.

 

I just think in this case open competition rather than a tiny group of selectors leads to a process that benefits more.

 

A system benefits from shocks; they thrive and grow when exposed to volatility, randomness, disorder and stressors, risk and yes uncertainty and failure.