USA over Poland in Rosenblum Cup Finals
B.Y.
: In the final match of the Rosenblum Cup, the USA team headed
: by Seymon Deutsch defeated a strong Polish team 141-110 [...]
The less euphemising "USA team carrying Seymon Deutsch" might have
been more suitable. So much for journalism. I should note here that
this is NOT the Polish national team, and FAR from the strongest
Polish team possible, since Otvosi is a prominent client from
Australia. Martens-Szymanowski, teammates of Balicki-Zmudzinski and
Gawrys-Lasocki in their many triumphs, were elsewhere.
: The winners: Seymon Deutsch, Michael Rosenberg, Chip Martel,
: Lew Stansby, Gaylor Kasle, Roger Bates
: Runners-up: Erwin Otvosi, Krysztof Lasocki, Adam Zmudzinski,
: Marek Borewicz, Piotr Gawrys, Cezary Balicki
As an unabashed fan of the "Passing Poles" (B and Z), I can't help
being downcast at this result. It is unfortunate that they had to
suffer the inequity imposed on by the Ayatollah as well as carry a
client in an event that they certainly had the capability to win.
: The match was transcribed on the ImagiNation Network
: by Karen Allison [...]
I hope that a transcript of the final can be had on the internet.
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Bridge is a Science, they said hopefully." ... of M. Miles & E. Kantar. |
| "ACBL is for Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons." ... Edgar Kaplan. |
| "System is to Judgment as Strategy is to Tactics." ... Eric Rodwell. |
| "Only wimps are afraid to prepare!" ... <after '90 WOPC> Adam Zmudzinski. |
| >>>> Professor WHO??, Bridge Enthusiast: yan...@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Kent Burghard
the gold medal. It was a close match, tied a couple of times
in the 3rd quarter, with the USA slowly pulling ahead at the
end. Commentators reported that the match was well played
with very few errors, unusual for the final match of a marathon
event like this (competitors played 64 boards a day for 9 days!).
The winners: Seymon Deutsch, Michael Rosenberg, Chip Martel,
Lew Stansby, Gaylor Kasle, Roger Bates
Runners-up: Erwin Otvosi, Krysztof Lasocki, Adam Zmudzinski,
Marek Borewicz, Piotr Gawrys, Cezary Balicki
The match was transcribed on the ImagiNation Network by Karen
Allison (who won a silver medal in the McConnell Cup yesterday).
Karen sat in the RAMA auditorium and typed in all of the bidding,
the hands, much of the play and commentary. INN members really
enjoyed watching this from our homes.
Here is one hand from the 4th quarter when the USA led 99 - 93.
Bd 21, NS Vul, North Deals
S AKQJx
H Tx
D -
C QJ9xxx
S xx S xx H KQJxx H xx
D AKQxx D J9876
C K C Txxx
S T9xx
H A9xx
D Txx
C Ax
In the closed room North opened 1S, raised to 2S by South, and West
bid 2NT. E/W (USA) wound up taking a sac in 6D going for 500.
In the open room, it went like this (at least according to INN):
North East South West
1C P 1H 2D
2S 5D * P
5S P 5NT P
6C P 6S 7D P P *
7D doubled went for 800, 7 IMPs to the USA. N/S in the open room
at this point were Michael Rosenberg and Gaylor Kasle with Chip
and Lew in the closed room. Hope I have this right. I'm no
expert analyst, but 6S looks kind of tough to bring in unless
you drop the stiff king offside.
There did not seem to be too many of these action hands, but
both sides had their chances to win. Just this one hand could
have been a 11 IMP loss for the USA instead of a 7 IMP win.
The US team was picking up one IMP at a time with Chip's defence
and Michael's play, and built up an edge to get them through the
occasional diasaster. Congratulations to rgb contributor Chip
Martel, and the rest of this fine team.
If you read the earlier bulletins, you may recall that early in
the event, in fact the first round-robin, it looked like the
team was not going to make it out of the 8-team round-robin.
Seymon Deutsch went home to Texas. When his team managed
back to back blitzes in the last two matches to win 50 of 50
possible VPs to move into a tie for the very last qualifying
place. The three teams that tied, then played another tie-break
and the Deutsch team won. The team called their captain late
at night and soon Mr. Deutsch was on a plane back to Albuquerque.
Kent Burghard, Rochester, MN
burg...@delphi.com
Henk Uijterwaal (Oxford)
yangboy@newton (B.Y.) writes:
>Kent Burghard (burg...@delphi.com) wrote:
>: In the final match of the Rosenblum Cup, the USA team headed
>: by Seymon Deutsch defeated a strong Polish team 141-110 [...]
> I should note here that this is NOT the Polish national team,
> Martens-Szymanowski, teammates of Balicki-Zmudzinski and
>Gawrys-Lasocki in their many triumphs, were elsewhere.
During the 1993 European championships, the Poles had lots of internal
troubles all caused by Gawrys' star-attitude. Contrary to the French,
it didn't keep them from winning the tournament but Martens didn't like
this at all. After the tournament, M/S told the captain that either
Gawrys (a.k.a. Piotr the Terrible) had to change his attitude or they
would not play for Poland again.
Gawrys didn't change his attitude, so M/S left the team. In Santiago
they were replaced by two "tourists", which might explain the poor
results of the Poles there.
After all this, I'm not suprised that M/S were not back on the team in 1994.
>As an unabashed fan of the "Passing Poles" (B and Z), I can't help
>being downcast at this result. It is unfortunate that they had to
>suffer the inequity imposed on by the Ayatollah
I guess that you are referring to their suspensor system? But didn't
the conditions of contest allow these methods in the finals? At least,
that is what I seem to remember from one of the DB's. Can anybody (Chip?)
confirm this?
Henk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal Email: he...@vxdesy.desy.de
University of Oxford 13364::henk
DESY-F01 Phone: +49.40.89983133
Notkestrasse 85 Fax: +49.40.89983092
Hamburg, D22603, Germany Home: +49.40.3898954
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended.
B.Y.
KB> In the final match of the Rosenblum Cup, the USA team headed
KB> by Seymon Deutsch defeated a strong Polish team 141-110 [...]
I(B.Y.) said (aside to remarking that Deutsch did NOT head the team):
BY: I should note here that this is NOT the Polish national team,
BY: Martens-Szymanowski, teammates of Balicki-Zmudzinski and
BY: Gawrys-Lasocki in their many triumphs, were elsewhere.
Uh, small correction. It appears that the regular team of
Gawrys-Lasocki; Balicki-Zmudzinski won the Polish Trials in most of
the contests from 1988-1993 and then added Martens and Szymanowski,
seasoned internationalists in their own right, into the team.
Henk Uijterwaal (Oxford) (uij...@zow.desy.de) wrote:
HU> During the 1993 European championships, the Poles had lots of
HU> internal troubles all caused by Gawrys' star-attitude. [...]
HU> didn't keep them from winning the tournament [...]. M/S told the
HU> captain that either "Piotr the Terrible" had to change his
HU> attitude or they would not play for Poland again.
Presumably that should be "won't play with Gawrys again".
HU> Gawrys didn't change his attitude, so M/S left the team. In
HU> Santiago they were replaced by two "tourists", which might
HU> explain the poor results of the Poles there. After all this, I'm
HU> not suprised that M/S were not back on the team in 1994.
Aha, that's the answer. Having to play 4-handed must have hurt them.
Given that they needed room for the client (Otvosi), perhaps just to
pay their way to Albuquerque, no wonder M/S did not come in 1994.
BTW, I should add that Borewicz, who played with the client Otvosi,
seems to be a Polish international player of long standing, having won
a European Junior Championship on the same team with Gawrys.
Also, I commented:
BY: As an unabashed fan of the "Passing Poles" (B and Z), I can't help
BY: being downcast at this result. It is unfortunate that they had to
BY: suffer the inequity imposed on by the Ayatollah
To which Henk said:
HU> I guess that you are referring to their suspensor system? But
HU> didn't the conditions of contest allow these methods in the
HU> finals? At least, that is what I seem to remember from one of
HU> the DB's. Can anybody (Chip?) confirm this?
So called HUMs (it's an older system than Precision, just like the
elegant Wilcosz two diamonds being order than Terence Reese's version
of Multi) are barred throughout the Rosenblum. I have no doubt that
the late Julius would be turning dervishly in his crypt or what-has-he
if he knew about this sacrilege against the REALLY OPEN KNOCKOUT
CHAMPIONSHIP of the world that he had wanted so much.
Chip Martel
--
yangboy@newton (B.Y.) writes:
>Kent Burghard (burg...@delphi.com) wrote:
>: In the final match of the Rosenblum Cup, the USA team headed
>: by Seymon Deutsch defeated a strong Polish team 141-110 [...]
> I should note here that this is NOT the Polish national team,
> Martens-Szymanowski, teammates of Balicki-Zmudzinski and
>Gawrys-Lasocki in their many triumphs, were elsewhere.
It is worth noting that Erwin Otvosi- Marek Borewicz the third pair
did not play in
the final (I think they only played when the team was already far ahead).
In case you think this was a fatigue factor for the Poles, I won't disagree.
However, since Lew and I played almost every board (including a playoff),
I can't feel it put them at a disadvantage.
Balicki-Zmudzinski were not allowed to play their forcing pass system.
They instead played the polish club, which we killed since we WERE
prepared to play against that system.
For those who object to this I strongly disagree. There was no opportunity
for their opponents to prepare to play against theie system. If you
think it is reasonable to try and prepare a defense to a complicated
artificial system when your prior match finishes at 9:30 PM and you
must eat dinner, and then start play again at 9:30 AM the next day,
you are of course entitled to your opinion. However, it suggests your
ability to reason effectively is pretty minimal. For those who want
to spend hours preparing defenses during after playing 10 hours a day
for 12 straight days, well you have lots more stamina then I have.
Free plug: For an exciting day by day account of my adventures at
the world championships, get next months bridge Today.
Chip Martel
Christer Enkvist
|> Balicki-Zmudzinski were not allowed to play their forcing pass system.
|> They instead played the polish club, which we killed since we WERE
|> prepared to play against that system.
Maybe your system/methods against Polish Club can be posted? This would be
of great intrest since similar methods (as pol. c.) seems to be 'tomorrows
standard'.
|> There was no opportunity for their opponents to prepare to play against their system.
|> If you think it is reasonable to try and prepare a defense to a complicated
|> artificial system when your prior match finishes at 9:30 PM and you
|> must eat dinner, and then start play again at 9:30 AM the next day,
|> you are of course entitled to your opinion.
There is a possibility that I mat be out one my own here, but, do you really
need to prepare a special defence against every HUM system? As far as I can tell
they are pretty much the same all of them (flame-proof suit on) so some standard
defences shouldn't be that much to discuss in advance. Good general defence systems
exists (such as the Carrot-teams). This 'has to have time to eat' sounds more like
'why prepare when we can ban?' to me.
But on the other hand, I'm not even near playing on this level...
christer enkvist
Chip Martel
|> Balicki-Zmudzinski were not allowed to play their forcing pass system.
|> They instead played the polish club, which we killed since we WERE
|> prepared to play against that system.
>>Maybe your system/methods against Polish Club can be posted? This would be
>>of great intrest since similar methods (as pol. c.) seems to be 'tomorrows
>>standard'.
Sorry, I'm not willing to publicize the defense now. I don't want to
discourage others from playing these methods after all.
|> There was no opportunity for their opponents to prepare to play against their system.
|> If you think it is reasonable to try and prepare a defense to a complicated
|> artificial system when your prior match finishes at 9:30 PM and you
|> must eat dinner, and then start play again at 9:30 AM the next day,
|> you are of course entitled to your opinion.
>>There is a possibility that I mat be out one my own here, but, do you really
>>need to prepare a special defence against every HUM system? As far as I can tell
>>they are pretty much the same all of them (flame-proof suit on) so some standard
>>defences shouldn't be that much to discuss in advance. Good general defence systems
>>exists (such as the Carrot-teams). This 'has to have time to eat' sounds more like
>>'why prepare when we can ban?' to me.
>>But on the other hand, I'm not even near playing on this level...
>>christer enkvist
While there are some common elements to most HUM systems, each one
has its own quirks which require different preperation. (For example,
some passes are strong, others medium. Some 1H openings are weak, others
8-12 with short hearts or long hearts, others different still).
In part this is true because pretty much all of these systems have
failed miserably when the opponents were prepare. Thus the history is that
a system crops up, gets some success when the opponents are surprised
and unprepared, then as soon as the opponents catch on it largely
disappears, and something new crops up.
--
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Chip Martel Professor and Chair, Department of Computer Science
(916)752-2651 University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Henk Uijterwaal (Oxford)
Chip Martel writes:
>
>|> Balicki-Zmudzinski were not allowed to play their forcing pass system.
>|> They instead played the polish club, which we killed since we WERE
>|> prepared to play against that system.
> Somebody replied:
>>>Maybe your system/methods against Polish Club can be posted? This would be
>>>of great intrest since similar methods (as pol. c.) seems to be 'tomorrows
>>>standard'.
>Sorry, I'm not willing to publicize the defense now. I don't want to
>discourage others from playing these methods after all.
I think I'm missing something here. Polish Club as I know it is a natural
system except for the 1C and 2D openers. The 1C opener is easy to defend
against, in first order do what you do against a SA 1C opening bid since this
is what opener holds in 90% of the times anyway. The 2D opener (7-11, 55
major-minor) requires a little more discussion but the Wilkosz 2D opening has
been around for years and is being used by lots of pairs in one variation
or another. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that standard Polish
Club is not a HUM.
So, what does Polish Club do in a discussion about defences to HUM methods?
Or have the Ayatollahs suddenly defined a natural system where 1D promises 4
and 1C is used for all other hands to be HUM?
Lars Andersson
using 5CMAJ and weak 1NT have successes.
In article a...@mark.ucdavis.edu, mar...@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu (Chip Martel) writes:
>In article <36q2ke$m...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, mar...@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu (Chip Martel) writes:
>
>|> Balicki-Zmudzinski were not allowed to play their forcing pass system.
>|> They instead played the polish club, which we killed since we WERE
>|> prepared to play against that system.
>
>>>Maybe your system/methods against Polish Club can be posted? This would be
>>>of great intrest since similar methods (as pol. c.) seems to be 'tomorrows
>>>standard'.
>
>Sorry, I'm not willing to publicize the defense now. I don't want to
>discourage others from playing these methods after all.
>
I have only seen 10+ hands or so from the finals but these does not
support the "killed Polish Club" statement. What separates PC as used
by Smud.-Bal. from 2/1?? The 1C opening (more limited 1D/1MAJ) and the
two-bids. From what I have seen luck and judgement determined the match.
Examples follow.
48. T9xx/K/Kx/AKQTxx opp. AJ8x/Axx/xx/Jxxx
The polish pair (undisturbed) got to 6C. I would call that bad judgement
or insufficient preparations (they were not allowed to play their normal
system).
49. US won 3 imps instead of losing a lot when the polish declarer
missed a (double) squeeze (in a superior? contract).
(And opening 1NT on AJ/ATxx/xx/AKTxx,
is that Standard American? though I realize the problems after 1C)
52. RHO opens 1H, you hold Kxxx/Qxx/KJx/Axx (game all).
I think it is close, but would pass (but put the HQ in another suit ...).
Gawrys doubled and payed dearly
when partner took him seriously (and the cards were extremely foul)
So bad judgement and a little luck.
53. Poland lost 7 imps when Lasocki payed an insurance. Hard to judge since I
don't understand their sequence.
54. US won 13 when Poland bid a 50% slam.
62. Poland won 9 when Gawrys could use the limited nature of a 1MAJ opening
in Polish Club to his advantage.
I look forward eagerly to more samples from the final. Already noticed
2 hands were the Polish 2MAJ were very effective.
>In part this is true because pretty much all of these systems have
>failed miserably when the opponents were prepare. Thus the history is that
>a system crops up, gets some success when the opponents are surprised
>and unprepared, then as soon as the opponents catch on it largely
>disappears, and something new crops up.
>--
This is a statement that assumes that the purpose of HUM:s is
to fool the opponents. One could argue that most bridge hands fall in
the intervall 8-12 hcp and that it pays in the long run to start
the bidding with these hands. You can find your own contracts
and prevent the opponents from finding theirs. I wonder why so many play
10-12/9-11 1NT nowadays :-).
As for the diminishing success of HUM:s;
There are mainly 2 european countries who has used HUMs with success.
Poland (with an outstanding record the last 10 years) and Sweden.
In Sweden the Top Pairs of the 80s playing Carrotti are no longer
playing together. Thus the national team has become somewhat weaker
Trend in the european championships 87: 1st, 89: 3rd, 91: 2nd
with Carrotti and 93: 5th without. In the Olympics 88: 3rd,
92: 4th (without Carrotti but with minimajor). Bermuda Bowl
87: 3rd, 91: 3rd
In our country (sort of) we have exactly 1 professional bridgeplayer.
Frankly, I am surprised that the professionals from the US
and France are not more dominant. Could it be that the 5CMAJ/strong
1NT approach is not good enough:-)
>*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
>
>Chip Martel Professor and Chair, Department of Computer Science
>(916)752-2651 University of California, Davis, CA 95616
--lars
B.Y.
KB: In the final match of the Rosenblum Cup, the USA team headed by
KB: Seymon Deutsch defeated a strong Polish team 141-110 [...]
I made various disparaging remarks about Deutsch and then added:
BY> I should note here that this is NOT the Polish national team,
BY> Martens-Szymanowski, teammates of Balicki-Zmudzinski and
BY> Gawrys-Lasocki in their many triumphs, were elsewhere.
And Chip Martel (mar...@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu) waxed eloquent:
CM: [...] Erwin Otvosi- Marek Borewicz [...] only played when the
CM: team was already far ahead [...] fatigue factor for the Poles.
CM: [...] Lew and I played almost every board (including a playoff),
CM: I can't feel it put them at a disadvantage.
More power you, Chip. My post was not intended to denigrate your
accomplishment, even though it may have been taken that way.
CM: Balicki-Zmudzinski were not allowed to play their forcing pass
CM: system. They instead played the polish club, which we killed
CM: since we WERE prepared to play against that system.
The Polish Club has its weaknesses and strengths, but like most Vienna
family opening bids (the other chink in the armour is the 2C opening
which I think is precisionish as B-Z plays it?) it is not something
that one KILLs. Everyone plays Polish in Poland and some people, B-Z
themselves included, have evolved complicated interference methods
over a Polish 1C. If you could KILL them that easy one wouldn't
expect the Swedes and the Brits, who have plenty of experience against
it in European Championships, to lose to the Poles so often. If
anything, that B and Z lost heavily over their own 1C opening points
up to the injustice perpetrated against B and Z in denying them their
preferred methods. It is quite possible that they simply were
UNPREPARED because of the forced change in methods. [In case anyone
thinks that this is impossible for someone using Suspensor, yes, it is
possible. As Chip himself related once, they had a blind-spot in
designing their overcalls against a natural one club because they did
not think 1C can be passed!]
CM: For those who object to this I strongly disagree. There was no
CM: opportunity for their opponents to prepare ... [explanation as
CM: to how hard it is deleted.]
There was plenty of time before the world championships ever begun.
As one of the worlds best players and a top theorist, it is hard to
imagine Lew and Chip NOT being able to evolve an enhanced powerful
SOAP if they have to face unAmerican methods on an everyday basis.
Let's see how No Name, parent of Suspensor (there are changes),
compares to TRS played by Forrester-Armstrong in the 1987 BB, and for
which Martel-Stansby came up with a defense more or less on the cuff:
No Name TRS
P 13+ 11-15
1C 7-12, 3-5 cards each major 16+
1D 0-7 0-6 or 7-10 w/ 3-4 in both Ms
1M 7-12, 2-M or 6+M 7-10, 2-M or 5+M
1N 7-12 5+S 4+D or 5+H 4+C 14-16 BAL
2C 7-12 5+S 4+C or 5+H 4+D 16+ 3-suited or 22+ BAL
2D 8-12 5M332 11-15 Multi, usu. H PRE
2H 7-12 4H 6+m 3-suited w/ H
2S 7-12 4S 6+m 7-10, 5-5 up w/ C
2N 7-12 55+m's 7-10, 5-5 up w/o C
3m 7-12 7+m Normal PRE
If anything, I would think that TRS is more random (that's what its
name stands for: The Random System) and harder to deal with. Note
that both these methods include either-or major openers and
Martel-Stansby certainly can't claim no prior experience. The 2M
openings are legal under the current WBF rules. CRASH 2-suiters are
well-known and Martelsby have seen them (Minimajor does the same;
anyway, Soloway-Wold-Passell use 2HSN as CRASH 2-suiters), and in any
case they could have been changed to 1N=4+D 5+M, 2C=4+C 5+M and those
would have been legal. The 2D opening bid isn't more than a Multi.
What I am getting at isn't that it is fair to expect someone who has
NEVER heard of Suspensor to prepare a defense in a couple of hours.
That clearly isn't fair. But it is clearly not infeasible to come up
with defenses to each class of artificial opening bids as a general
scheme (like Marston's SOAP, not an optimised structure or intended to
be, or the intricate Swedish or British structure), especially if
there is constant exposure. It is not any fault of the Passing Poles
that the ACBL does not let their (perhaps our-- I _AM_ American too)
top players get experience, and B and Z shouldn't suffer for it.
CM: Free plug: [...] get next months bridge Today.
Let's just hope that it won't pay so much homage to the client.
In case anyone takes this the wrong way, Chip was, and still is, a
hero in my impressionable mind. But this is something on which I
cannot agree with him now. Since my views are far from unknown on
this issue, I will henceforth shut up about it on RGB, but if Chip
or anyone else want to comment (here or via email) I would still
very much appreciate.
Chip Martel
--
>
>|> Balicki-Zmudzinski were not allowed to play their forcing pass system.
>|> They instead played the polish club, which we killed since we WERE
>|> prepared to play against that system.
>
>>>Maybe your system/methods against Polish Club can be posted? This would be
>>>of great intrest since similar methods (as pol. c.) seems to be 'tomorrows
>>>standard'.
I should clarify a bit that what we were very successful against was the
1C opening in the Polish club system (the 2H/2S openings showing two
suiters with the suit opened were big winners for the Poles, other
openings were largely neutral since they were similar to methods
used at the other table).
The 1C opening is either a weak NT, a 4-4-1-4 hand, 16+ with clubs or
18+ any hand. The fact that it is so wide range and forcing makes it vulnerable
to preemption. Almost every time Balicki-Zmudzinski opened 1C with
a strong hand we climbed into their auction and gave them a hard time.
On these boards they were always guessing and lost a total of over
30 imps (just about the margin of victory). Even on the hands where
they did not lose imps they were taking a stab at the final contract
(in fairness however two points: 1) some of their losses came from
bidding reasonable contracts which failed, and 2) There was an
unusually large number of strong clubs compared to weak NTs. In fact
Balicki remarked that he thought the hands were fixed).
Now for a short discussion of planning a defense to this type of forcing
multi-way club. I won't give my defense, but this will tell you how I
formed it:
The defense to the Polish club has three goals:
1) Be able to get into the auction to compete for a game or
partial when you have a decent hand
2) Get in on light hands to disrupt the auction for the other
side (this disruption can be effective against both the
weak NT and strog club hands. It will be very effective
when the 1C bidder is strong, since responder cannot
assume a strong hand).
3) Extract a penalty when the opponents have a weak NT opposite
a weak hand (particularly when you are at favorable).
The low level opening (1C) combined with the fact that
1C is forcing (so you can pass with some good hands),
allows you to do all 3 fairly effectively
if you structure your bids properly.
One final note: There was some confusion as to the Polish Club
being a HUM system. It is NOT, and was allowed in all events
including the pairs (where the Polish did VERY well winning 2 gold
medals and a bronze). Certainly Poland had the best performance of
any country at this tournament.
Chip Martel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Henk Uijterwaal (Oxford)
B.Y. writes:
>CM: For those who object to this I strongly disagree. There was no
>CM: opportunity for their opponents to prepare ... [explanation as
>CM: to how hard it is deleted.]
>
>There was plenty of time before the world championships ever begun.
I hate it when bidding methods are banned but I have to agree with Chip
here. There were a least 100 teams playing in the Rosenblum and each
of them could be your next opponent. As long as bridge is mainly an
amateur sport, one cannot ask that the players spent forever preparing
defences against systems against which they never might have to play.
Things are different for the BB, teams Olympiad, European championsships
etc, where there are less opponents and where it is known against which
teams you will (not) play weeks before the tournament starts. With a
little work from the ACBL, this could apply to the Spingold/Vanderbilt
too.
Asya
Henk Uijterwaal (Oxford) <he...@vxdesy.desy.de> wrote:
>etc, where there are less opponents and where it is known against which
>teams you will (not) play weeks before the tournament starts. With a
>little work from the ACBL, this could apply to the Spingold/Vanderbilt
Do you have *any* familiarity with the Spingold? Entries of over 100 teams
for many years in a row now?
--
Asya Kamsky Life is hard, you have to change
Santa Cruz, CA