USBF 2014

[mike777]

KONERU TEAM - Koneru-Krekorian, Stewart-Woolsey 1192

BERKOWITZ TEAM - Berkowitz-Shi, Brady-Ganzer 349

BRAMLEY TEAM - Bramley-Stansby, Grabel-Weinstein, Hamman-Lee 1357

PARRISH TEAM - Parrish-Humphreys, Datloff-McNay 1739

NICKELL TEAM - Nickell-Katz, Levin-Weinstein, Meckstroth-Rodwell - Bye to Round of 8 345

FIREMAN TEAM - Kranyak-Wolpert-Lall, Hurd-Wooldridge, Fireman, NPC 442

BITTERMAN TEAM - Bitterman-Cappelli, Lowe-Harris 1635

BASEGGIO TEAM - Baseggio-Stark, McAllister-zur Campanile 918

SELIGMAN TEAM - Seligman-Lair-Gu, Bertens-Cheek 2054

HUNG TEAM - Hung-J. Stansby, Feldman-Watson 292

GORDON TEAM - Gordon-Pratap, Berkowitz-Sontag, Pszczola-Seamon, Bye to Round of 16 1082

HARRIS TEAM - Harris-Morgan, Aker-Parker, Milgrim-Rigal 370

KOLESNIK TEAM: Kolesnik-Etter, Sher-Lo, Richter-Ramos 1209

SHERMAN TEAM: Coren-Kamil, Dwyer-Ekeblad, Jacobus-Passell, NPC Sherman 473

DIAMOND TEAM - Diamond-Platnick, Greco-Hampson, Bathurst-Moss 1796

FLEISHER TEAM - Fleisher-Martel-Cohler, Rosenberg-Willenken - Bye to Round of 8 1108

MELTZER TEAM - Meltzer-Mohan, Boyd-Robinson, Garner-Smith 1071

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/66400-usbf-2014/

[mike777]

DAILY BULLETIN PDF Print E-mail

 

 

Our wonderful Daily Bulletin editor, Suzi Subeck, will be producing a Daily Bulletin each day. The full pre-bulletin will be available in hard copy in the Hospitality Suite at the tournament. The first 4 pages of subsequent bulletins will also be available there. To see all of the bulletins after the first one, you must get them online. The bulletins are listed here; click on the one you want to download it in PDF format. Although it will look as if there are links for future bulletins, they will only work after Suzi has uploaded each bulletin to the website, probably sometime in the middle of the night before the Bulletin's date. If you click on a link and are taken to a page saying Error - page not found, that means the bulletin isn't yet available; try again later.

 

Pre-Bulletin

 

Friday, May 9th

 

Saturday, May 10th

 

Sunday, May 11th

 

Monday, May 12th

 

Tuesday, May 13th

 

http://usbf.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1158&Itemid=531

[mike777]

Weinstein, President of the United States Bridge Federation, welcomes you to the Embassy Suites, Phoenix, AZ, for the 2014 United States Bridge Championships.

Ed. note: For those who are not aware, George Jacobs, former USBF President, has resigned from office and Howie has been elected to fill George’s unexpired term

In addition, Sylvia Moss has been elected to fill Howie’s unexpired term as Vice President.

Both Howie and Sylvia are experienced volunteers and great assets to the organization. We welcome their leadership. We miss George and wish him well. We know he will still be a driving force in the USBF.

FORMAT

The format of the 2014 USBC will be 5 2-day stages: the first stage will be a Round Robin among all teams except those with byes to the Knockout phase; the other stages will be 120 board Knockout matches, starting with the Round of 16 on Sunday, May 11 and Monday, May 12 and ending with the Finals on Saturday, May 17 and Sunday, May 18.

Sixteen teams have entered the 2014 USBC. Three teams have byes. The remaining 13 teams will play a two day complete Round Robin to select eleven teams to join Gordon in the Round of 16.

BYES

The Nickell team earned the top seed and a bye to the Round of 8. The Fleisher team earned a bye to the Round of 8 and will be the 2 seed. The Gordon team earned a bye to the Round of 16. They will originally be seeded 3 but will be randomly shuffled with the highest-seeded team that emerges from the Round Robin to determine whether they are the 3 or 4 seed.

Volume 8, Issue 1

The

[mike777]

round of 16 results

 

http://usbf.org/docs/vugraphs/USBC2014/Bracket.php?stage=Roundof16

[y66]

I'm enjoying kibbing Lee/Hamman vs Meckwell almost as much as Lee/Hamman vs Lall/Kranyak. That was awesome.

[rogerclee]

I'm enjoying kibbing Lee/Hamman vs Meckwell almost as much as Lee/Hamman vs Lall/Kranyak. That was awesome.

The Nickell team isn't giving us anything, but we aren't giving them much either. Been a really good match so far, hopefully we run it up on them tomorrow.

 

Also worth mentioning that jlall played amazingly well in our R8 match (as usual).

[aguahombre]

The Nickell team isn't giving us anything, but we aren't giving them much either. Been a really good match so far, hopefully we run it up on them tomorrow.

 

Also worth mentioning that jlall played amazingly well in our R8 match (as usual).

extremely enjoyable watching you and BH...and of course Sweinlevin. Keep up the good work.

 

Extremely disappointing, however, on that 4th segment....even though it was low-scoring, the play/decisions were still worthwhile to observe. HOWEVER, we could have used a lot less of the youngster commentators prattling on about personal things only of interest to them.

 

The main problem is sorting through the chat for something meaningful to the event or the match at hand.

[Phil]

The last set of Bramley / Nickell was pretty epic. For the first bunch of boards there were barely any swings and the set included a grand, two 590's and a 550. The grand swung two imps. The doubled games were all pushes.

[olien]

Excuse me aguahombre, but we were just trying to add some entertainment during the "boring" hands. If you have some constructive criticism, it would be much appreciated. Commentating is not the easiest tthng, its a fine balance between entertainment and what the commentators are dealt (for lack of a better term).

[aguahombre]

Excuse me aguahombre, but we were just trying to add some entertainment during the "boring" hands. If you have some constructive criticism, it would be much appreciated. Commentating is not the easiest tthng, its a fine balance between entertainment and what the commentators are dealt (for lack of a better term).

What you were dealt was a match between elite teams. It is all about those players, their style differences, their decisions, their reads. Expert commentators at any age can provide entertainment in the form of insights about the players and the problems they are facing.

 

The hands might have been "boring" to you; I am surprised you considered hands where swings were attempted or were possible to be boring. The fact that few IMPs were exchanged attests to the quality of play by both teams.

 

I consider it "constructive criticism" when I suggest we don't need as much personal chat-room style banter as was provided, in order to be entertained by the Bridge being shown.

 

I have mentioned on these fora my observations that young players today display much better manners and upbringing at the table (live) than they did many years ago...you included. I thought you could have done better as a viewgraph commentator.

[rogerclee]

People who don't do vugraph commentary don't realize how hard it is, they think that just because you are a strong expert player, you will do fine. Here's what it's actually like being a vugraph commentator:

 

1) The players are taking forever, and you feel like passing the time by mentioning something small.

2) Some random kibitzer says something you know is wrong. You ignore it.

3) Some random kibitzer says something you think is wrong, but you don't know. You choose not to address it.

4) Some expert kibizer says something that you think might be right, but it's complicated and you don't know. You spend some time thinking about whether or not what they said is true.

5) While this is happening, the play continues and you want to comment on what the expert kibitzer says, but now it's too late and it doesn't matter anymore.

6) You're commentating for meckwell, so you sort of know their system, but not really. You spend some time finding an old convention card of theirs, but you don't know if it's up to date.

7) Oops, you missed the bidding while you were looking this up, and now you have to commentate on the play, and you try to do it single-dummy (like a good commentator would), but you are only human and there are now 1500+ kibitzers, so you don't want to say something stupidly and obviously wrong.

 

I mean, it's basically like this the whole time. I used to want to be critical of vugraph commentators who I think didn't contribute much, but honestly, it's a hard and thankless job, and most people should feel fortunate that anyone is willing to do it at all.

[mike777]

The players are taking forever, and you feel like passing the time by mentioning something small.

 

 

Wow I did not know there is so much time to fill, they take so much time, but yes they must fill the time, yes.

 

Filling the time is much more important than what is going on at the table 99%

-------

 

Look at Football, filling the time is so much more important than on the field.

[Zelandakh]

I saw a segment of the match against Justin's team and it seemed like the only time they could get IMPs was when he was declarer. The rest of the time you were outplaying them. Was also impressed at how well you and Bob handled Meckwell in the segment of the Nickell match I saw. If you are able to keep up that level of intensity to the end then I expect you to win, but that is naturally a big if.

 

When I watched vugraph a lot and there was a system pair but noone from the panel was sure of the methods, I used to try to help out by passing a commentator the meanings off the latest CC. That tended to go down well so hopefully it was of some help. I do like it when commentators provide a link to CCs if the event has one though. Perhaps I am strange in that I quite like it when the commentators are active and have a little banter. I feel quite capable of filtering out what is of interest to me from the rest and quite often those "personal things" are interesting to me, even if not to 90+% of the rest of the audience.

 

Anyway, good luck for the rest of the tournament Roger - go kick some ass!

[helene_t]

Echo Roger. I have been commentating a few times and always felt like an elephant in a china store. OK, it would of course be a bit easier for an expert player than it is for mee, but still.

[broze]

I used to want to be critical of vugraph commentators who I think didn't contribute much, but honestly, it's a hard and thankless job, and most people should feel fortunate that anyone is willing to do it at all.

 

Agree with everything you said but this I take issue with. It certainly seems like a tough job to do - similar to Vugraph-operating I think in that people underestimate how difficult it is. I am certainly very grateful to the people who do do it.

 

But don't the commentators do it because they enjoy it? And I hardly think it is a thankless job; I imagine most of the kibs find the comments insightful and I make a point to thank commentators whom I have particularly enjoyed. The commentators make sure to thank one another and BBO at the ends of the sets too which is nice. I'd hate to think I was listening to someone who didn't want to be there.

 

Re: agua's comment: as for "prattling" I quite enjoy some of the non-bridge comments, and it's nice to see a friendly light-hearted dynamic between the commentators. As Roger said I am just glad that there is anyone commenting at all.

 

My one peeve however is the commentators consistently moaning about how boring the hands are. This goes back to what I was saying about not wanting to be there. In-jokes are also irritating for obvious reasons.

 

Some are certainly better than others as well. Kit Woolsey is always excellent. He finds something insightful to say about almost every deal and he is absolutely pro in his approach despite not getting paid a dime.

[Fluffy]

to add to roger, it is even harder when you are ocmentating people that are above your skill

[uday]

And when it is the team trials, they're usually above the avg. commentator skill level.

 

I think Roger's last point is the most significant for me - it is hard to say stuff when you don't know if you're about to sound like a moron. Trying to edit every comment carefully makes the commentary stilted and dull.

 

Hey, I just had a thought. What if the commentator was anonymous? Then perhaps he could speak out loud w/o fear :) I know I would be more likely to try do commentary under those circumstances. I can analyze many hands just as well as many of the commentators ( ok, not so well single dummy, or I'd be playing) but it is a little like public speaking. hard.

 

As a kib, sometimes i'd like to toss my 2 cents in, but it feels rude to bother the commentator with my "insights" when they might contradict what she's just said, or just bec. I know she's busy typing.

 

I think voice commentary might be easier in some ways.

[aguahombre]

Yes, the job of a Vugraph commentator is tough and sometimes thankless. Yes, I appreciate their volunteering their time for us.

 

That, IMO, doesn't mean they couldn't benefit from feedback. There is a difference between light-hearted off-topic banter and continued "Zac-the-Ripper", or repeated complaints about how boring the hands are.

 

I found the set to be anything but boring, and am not the only person who thought Zac, Owen, and Harmon had a lot more to offer than what we saw and might be interested in feedback.

[DJNeill]

It would be interesting to see the results of some market research on what most kibs like to see and hear in their commentary.

 

To me, there is Kit, Larry, and George, and then everyone else, but everyone has their own opinion.

[Phil]

I've commentated more matches than I can count. I've made some incredibly insightful comments about the play or defense. I've made my share of silly comnents as well. So a few suggestions for would-be commentiors:

 

1. (Mentally) disable GIB during the play. It clouds your objectivity. No one is interested in your 'expert analysis' that involves dropping doubleton queens offside. The only time I would ever use GIB is if some annoying kibitzer kept stating their line was correct or I wasn't sure.

 

2. Better yet, hide the opposing hands during the play and try to forget what you say during the bidding. Try to explain the thought process of a defender or declarer.

 

3. Don't result in the bidding. If a slam requires three finesses and a 3-3 split don't rant on how 'biddable' it is and how you'd find it playing your favorite methods.

 

4. A sense of humor and self-deprecation really helps. If you made a comment and Danny Sprung, John Carruthers and ten other learned kibitzers disagree you probably misanalyzed. It's fine to backtrack but if you are doing it too much get another cup of coffee.

 

5. Above all, maintain a high level of tact and respect for other commentators and the players. This especially applies to youth and juniors. Commentators that make inflammatory remarks should be insta-unmic'd. There's ways to disagree with someone or even to state they are wrong without making them feel stupid.

 

As far as my opinion regarding banter like last night I encourage it as long as it doesn't get in the way. I'd much rather listen to Harmon and Owen getting chippy than a blank text field.

[gnasher]

Hey, I just had a thought. What if the commentator was anonymous? Then perhaps he could speak out loud w/o fear :) I know I would be more likely to try do commentary under those circumstances.

I would be much less likely to read the commentary under those circumstances. And how would it fit with my "enemies" list, which is carefully tailored to maximise the quality of my vugraph experience?

[neilkaz]

Phil "3. Don't result in the bidding. If a slam requires three finesses and a 3-3 split don't rant on how 'biddable' it is and how you'd find it playing your favorite methods."

 

Agreed that there can be too much of this and especially in our forums here.

[GreenMan]

My one peeve however is the commentators consistently moaning about how boring the hands are. This goes back to what I was saying about not wanting to be there.

 

I believe the commentators would rather the boards be entertaining for the spectators' sake, just as some occasionally seem to be hoping for a match score to tighten so subsequent boards will be more consequential. I don't have a problem with either of those.

[awm]

If you don't like the commentating, you can just enemy the commentators and turn the volume off on your machine, and you won't have to hear/see any of it. Personally I almost always do this!

 

Good or bad, the commentators are volunteers for a thankless job. When they're so easy to ignore, criticizing them seems out of line.

[jjbrr]

Good or bad, the commentators are volunteers for a thankless job. When they're so easy to ignore, criticizing them seems out of line.

 

No one should ever be embarrassed for their genuine effort to contribute to the community, but some people pretty obviously need to be pulled aside and told they're doing more harm than good. It's out of line for some of them to volunteer in the first place.

 

(I have no one specific example in mind because, as Adam said, it's easy to ignore them. I'm just saying that simply ignoring the problem only makes it worse even if it doesn't really affect anyone in a significant way.)