2013 Bermuda Bowl

[bidule5]

Things may change fast, after 12 rounds:

 

Team VP Rnk AVGTop NTop AVGBot NBot

ITA 166.80 1 11.20 5 15.83 7

MON 158.15 2 9.61 4 14.96 8

JAP 157.68 3 8.32 4 15.55 8

POL 154.53 4 11.80 5 13.64 7

GER 154.02 5 12.73 4 12.89 8

US1 146.10 6 11.08 8 14.37 4

NET 137.09 7 8.75 4 12.76 8

CHI 133.90 8 8.59 5 12.99 7

ENG 127.80 9 7.72 3 11.63 9

INO 124.65 10 9.67 7 11.40 5

US2 122.69 11 8.99 7 11.95 5

CAN 120.90 12 7.87 8 14.49 4

BRA 117.29 13 9.27 7 10.48 5

ARG 115.19 14 6.82 7 13.49 5

AUS 109.14 15 7.01 4 10.14 8

SAF 97.13 16 6.84 8 10.61 4

GUA 87.47 17 4.36 5 9.38 7

IND 87.23 18 5.61 7 9.59 5

NZL 85.68 19 5.99 8 9.45 4

CHT 82.62 20 5.56 7 8.74 5

EGY 76.79 21 4.34 7 9.28 5

BAH 75.15 22 7.25 8 4.28 4

 

MON, JAP, GER & NET only played against 4 of the top 11 team.

 

yvan

 

PS: no idea how to format a table.

[Aberlour10]

 

MON, JAP, GER & NET only played against 4 of the top 11 team.

 

 

 

 

Poland played already against 5

[gwnn]

PS: no idea how to format a table.

With the "code" tag (+ square brackets).

 

Team      VP    Rnk     AVGTop NTop     AVGBot NBot
ITA	166.80	 1	11.20	5	15.83	7
MON	158.15	 2	9.61	4	14.96	8
JAP	157.68	 3	8.32	4	15.55	8
POL	154.53	 4	11.80	5	13.64	7
GER	154.02	 5	12.73	4	12.89	8

[y66]

From a story in the Daily Bulletin Issue No. 6 (pdf) by Mark Horton.

 

When it comes to bidding, one of the toughest areas, even for the best partnerships, is to diagnose the presence of a perfect fit, which will deliver a low-point-count slam. In Round 10 of the Venice Cup only one pair was able to solve the problem of this deal:

 

[hv=lin=pn|Willard,Simons,Cronier,Pasman|qx|c21,Board 21|rh||ah|Board 21|md|3S754HA73DA965CK96,ST32HQ965D742C842,SAK6HTDKQJ83CQJT7,SQJ98HKJ842DTCA53|sv|n|mb|1D|mb|1H|mb|2H!|mb|d|mb|3C|mb|p|mb|3D|mb|p|mb|3S|mb|p|mb|4C|mb|p|mb|4N|mb|p|mb|5H|mb|p|mb|6C|mb|p|mb|6D|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|pg||pc|h2|pc|hA|pc|h5|pc|hT|pg||pc|d5|pc|d2|pc|dK|pc|dT|pg||mc|12|pg||]400|300|[/hv]

 

North bid out her shape with 3♠ and as soon as she heard of a club control she asked for keycards and then bid a careful 6♣ to offer partner a choice of contracts.

 

That gave France 13 IMPs here in Bali, and in 12 months time I have a feeling it might just earn the French pair one of those highly prized IBPA awards.

 

In the Bermuda Bowl, 5 pairs got to 6♦, including Bathurst and Dwyer, who picked up 13 IMPs against Italy.

[32519]

Why are there no women in the Open Event? Is it because -

1. They are not good enough? or

2. They are excluded?

[chasetb]

Why are there no women in the Open Event? Is it because -

1. They are not good enough? or

2. They are excluded?

I have heard from 2 top USA Experts, who prefer to stay off the record, that it is because of not being aggressive enough. Players like Auken, Jenny Wolpert, Pamela Granovetter are very good players, but because of being women and that game, they can't hang with the men at a WC level because they lack that killer instinct, that putting the foot on the opponents' neck and applying pressure when they are down. Men in general are better at focusing on one detail over women, that is mostly genetics.

[Hanoi5]

I have heard from 2 top USA Experts, who prefer to stay off the record, that it is because of not being aggressive enough. Players like Auken, Jenny Wolpert, Pamela Granovetter are very good players, but because of being women and that game, they can't hang with the men at a WC level because they lack that killer instinct, that putting the foot on the opponents' neck and applying pressure when they are down. Men in general are better at focusing on one detail over women, that is mostly genetics.

 

You gotta be careful with that comment and Vampyr.

 

Anyway, Monday seems to be an interesting day at the BB. I think there are 8 teams fighting for 5 spots. It's gonna get interesting.

[barmar]

I've seen Sabine recently playing (and doing well) on a team in open events. But Jenny has been hired onto a team that has continued to enter into the fading women's events.

[mycroft]

Well, I'll have to tell Judith Gartaganis that he's a man now. At least, in Canada, same-sex marriage is legal, so he won't have to get divorced :-)

 

(Oh, and there's another one on the Indian team. Note, I'm cheating, having read the bulletin this morning. Thanks, Ms. Lund Hansen)

 

I think a lot of the reason we don't have many women on the Open team is that there are Women's Teams events at championship level. I make good money at my (real) job, even though there's more prestigious and more lucrative jobs in my field available, that I may (or may not) be good enough to do. Why *should* they play in the open if they can live very comfortably (likely more comfortably) not?

 

I also think that in many countries' cases, the Women's championships (the big national events and the "qualify for National Team" ones) are held simultaneously to the Open, so the women have to choose (unlike the Seniors' events, which are frequently carefully timed that appropriate men (usually) can attempt to win the Open, then attempt to win the Seniors (not with the Spingold, though, which is odd)). I think this also is a disincentive to women playing in the Open.

 

In countries with selectors, they're men. And they play in the open game, and there's a women's game played simultaneously, and they don't know how good the winners are. Or there's parallel team leagues, same deal. Same problem.

 

Edit: I'm not saying that by and large, the best women aren't less skilled than the best men - at the moment, that's almost certainly true. But with the current setup actively providing incentives for the best women to not compete against the best men, that can't be *helping* the women's games.

[gnasher]

In countries with selectors, they're men. And they play in the open game, and there's a women's game played simultaneously, and they don't know how good the winners are. Or there's parallel team leagues, same deal. Same problem.

In those circumstances, I don't think one should ascribe the selectors' decision to sexism or ignorance. If a pair chooses to play in restricted events rather than open events at national level, they can't reasonably expect to be selected for open events at international level.

[Mbodell]

Why are there no women in the Open Event? Is it because -

1. They are not good enough? or

2. They are excluded?

 

A woman (I think only 1, but there may be more) made the KO stage of the BB. The one I know about is on the Canadian open team.

[Zoe171]

I would like to see Women's events eliminated. Personally, I think it is insulting that these events still exist. I have watched the Chinese women's team on a number of occasions and think they could take on many of the world class open teams.

I have read that some of the well known women in the U.S. like these women's events because it helps them get and retain clients, as professionals. It is definitely true that it is easier to achieve recognition when you arent playing the best of the best. I am encouraged to see more and more women, slowly, edging their way into open events and being successful. Very proud that the Canadian team, (with a female member) made the top 8 in BB 2013. Go Canada**

[barmar]

I would like to see Women's events eliminated. Personally, I think it is insulting that these events still exist. I have watched the Chinese women's team on a number of occasions and think they could take on many of the world class open teams.

What's stopping them?

 

If women stop entering these events, they'll go away by attrition. They're already so poorly attended in ACBL national events that they've decided to stop counting winning the Wagar KO and Machlin Swiss as qualification for Grand Life Master. As a result of this change, I predict these events will be gone within 5 years.

 

A good question is whether we'll see many women-only teams enter the open events. Probably many of the pairs that have been established within the women's field will stay together, but I'd be surprised if many of the teams would be able to.

[mycroft]

In those circumstances, I don't think one should ascribe the selectors' decision to sexism or ignorance. If a pair chooses to play in restricted events rather than open events at national level, they can't reasonably expect to be selected for open events at international level.

While I agree with you here, I'm not ascribing anything to sexism. Ignorance, however, I'll cop to.

 

The selectors are men - show me a case where they're not, (ok, Maria Theresa Lavazza, but that's the "special case" to mark all special cases), and they don't play against the best women, because the events the best women are being hired to win are the events the men can't play in, and they're being held simultaneously with the open event.

 

You can compete for an open national title, or you can make your money and go home - and it's not like the women sponsors can hire men to play the Women's Teams. I think that berating the women pros for that is like berating the pros for taking the cash (and the much smaller chance of winning the open event) over putting together a sponsorless team and going for The Gold (you'll notice that the team that won the RR consists of just such a team. You'll also notice that they took a tremendous financial risk (including going 4-handed) to do it. My guess is that they thought that putting together a creditable showing (that included "you know, if they'd been able to take a rest, they might have won this") was going to mean a big jump in the calibre of sponsors they could get next year, both in terms of bridge skill and outlay-per-year. They were incredibly lucky (given the no rest) - even with their obvious great skill - and won straight up. I'll also note that you could look a *long time* to find the last time this was attempted).

 

I blame the system. I also noted that the segregating of Women's events against the "big ones" means that the chance to play in the best competition - if you're being paid to make someone a Champion in the most likely event for the sponsor - goes down, and therefore their skills don't improve as much as they could. That's also the system's fault.

 

"If you don't like the Conditions of Contest, get them changed."

[chasetb]

I feel I have to slightly clarify my remark. When I made it, I was talking about individuals, and I stand by that remark. When I say World Class, I mean the top 20-25 players in the world. I am not saying that women can't crack that, but because of nature (and currently women's events) there will inevitably be more men. There are a bunch of experts that happen to be women, and quite a few make the top 100.

 

However, bridge is NOT AN INDIVIDUAL GAME! The best players don't always win, the best partnerships do consistently, and occasionally other good pairs/teams in luck. Sabine may not be World Class by my book, but not only is she no doubt in the top 50, she makes an excellent partner, so the sum is more than the parts. The Gartaganis' aren't WC either, but being very good players, a husband and wife that probably get along great at the bridge table, and knowing their system pat makes them far more formidable than at first glance.

 

I am glad that Canada placed top 8 and would root for them, but USA 1 is my team and my pick, so good luck mates.

 

**How about the fact that the teams that finished 1-4 in the Round Robin in the open ALL had negative carryovers going into the Quarter Finals?

[iviehoff]

**How about the fact that the teams that finished 1-4 in the Round Robin in the open ALL had negative carryovers going into the Quarter Finals?

It has long been the case that successfully navigating the round robin can be more about getting lots of imps out of the weaker teams, which appears to be a different skill from beating the stronger teams. It is quite normal that if you cross VP the top half of the field, you get a very different ordering.

In fact if we cross VP the top 11 in the BB we get

Italy, USA1, England, Monaco, China, Indonesia, Poland, Netherlands

as the leading 8 in that order, which is quite different as an order from the actual result, but includes 7 of the actual qualifiers (who included Canada rather than Indonesia).

 

In the Venice Cup, the top order isn't disrupted quite as much, it becomes

Netherlands, USA1, France, China, USA2, Poland, Japan, Turkey

again with 7 of the actual qualifiers, though the one to drop out of the top 8 is England (instead of Japan), which perhaps is surprising given their recent level of success : though they are currently a long way ahead of USA1 after 2 rounds of their head to head - but a long way to go yet.

[WellSpyder]

The selectors are men - show me a case where they're not, (ok, Maria Theresa Lavalla, but that's the "special case" to mark all special cases), and they don't play against the best women, because the events the best women are being hired to win are the events the men can't play in, and they're being held simultaneously with the open event.

The English selectors are chaired by a woman, I believe, and she plays regularly against the best players of both (all?) sexes.

[paulg]

The selectors are men - show me a case where they're not,

The chairman of the Scotland selectors is a woman. Although the Scotland Seniors playing in the quarter-finals in Bali are all men, at least three women were in contention for the team. But there is not a professional scene, at least in the US sense, in Scotland.

[mycroft]

Hmm, then I was wrong. I apologize.

[gnasher]

Hmm, then I was wrong.

But not about everything. I agree that the way the ACBL holds important open events in parallel with important women's events is counterproductive. That wouldn't happen in England (or Scotland, I expect), so women players can play in both categories of event if that's what they want to do.

[32519]

Of all the conventions which form part of the modern game, which ones were developed by women?

[ArtK78]

But not about everything. I agree that the way the ACBL holds important open events in parallel with important women's events is counterproductive. That wouldn't happen in England (or Scotland, I expect), so women players can play in both categories of event if that's what they want to do.

The way the ACBL holds important women's events parallel to important open events is a direct result of the lawsuit filed by the women who wanted to play in the stronger men's events. At the time, there were parallel men's and women's events. A number of women perceived this to be discrimination for one of several reasons - (1) the men's events were generally perceived to be stronger, and they wanted to play in the stronger event; (2) they had regular partners who were men, and they could not play with their regular partners when there were no events available that allowed women to play with men; or (3) some other reason. So, faced with a lawsuit, the ACBL did what the WBF had done for many years - the men's events became open events and the women's events continued to run parallel to them.

 

By the way, the exception to this rule is the Wagar Women's KO teams which is run parallel to the Spingold Teams. The Wagar Women's KO teams was a completely new event added to run opposite the Spingold Teams. As far as I know, there has never been an NABC+++ Men's KO teams.

 

So, to say that the way the ACBL holds its important open events parallel to its important women's events is counterproductive, consider the reason.

[Aberlour10]

Who says these are higher objectives (apart from you)? In any NBO, if you were to ask the ordinary members why they send a team to a World Championship, I expect they would say that the primary objective was to win or to do as well as possible.

 

Its true, but if you ask all these ordinary members how to achive it.....: Do they agree with paying top pro's using their annual membership fees for it, I would expect the majority says "NO". What to do if there is not a corporate sponsorship?

 

In Poland the only way to realise it was the agreement with a playing sponsor who pays 5 pro's in Bali. Many people were sceptic about this , but it worked, the sponsor did not bad = playing 176 boards in RR >>>average -0,13 ( many renowned pro's finished a deal worse ) No matter whether they win or loose in SF, to get back into the top four is a great achivement for the team.

[gnasher]

Its true, but if you ask all these ordinary members how to achive it.....: Do they agree with paying top pro's using their annual membership fees for it, I would expect the majority says "NO".

 

I don't think many NBOs pay their players, in the sense of paying them a fee to play. Many NBOs do pay their player's expenses - entry fee, air fare, accommodation, food, etc. I would expect most ordianry members to be happy with this.

[billw55]

So we will see Italy and Monaco in the final. Any thoughts on this matchup? I was a little surprised how easily Italy brushed aside Poland.