news from Italy - Fantoni-Nunes out of the Italian team
belem...@gmail.com
interview with Maria Teresa Lavazza, manager ("Commissario Tecnico")
of the Italian team. She is responsible for choosing the players that
represent Italy in major international competitions.
I thought I would relay the main bits here for the non Italian-
speaking. Two main items:
1. Fantoni-Nunes will not be part of the Italian team at the European
Championship in Pau in June 2008; the pairs will be Lauria-Versace,
Bocchi-Duboin and Sementa-Angelini;
2. Bocchi-Duboin are terminating their partnership after Pau.
(This was reported earlier in "IMP Bridge Magazine" - in Dutch, link
here:
http://www.imp-bridge.nl/manasite/mas/imp/index/20957.htm
and relayed by Henk Uiterwaal in this forum:
Maria Teresa Lavazza:
"In Shanghai I started to think it was time to make some changes. The
Italian team needed a jolt. Something that would bring back that
hunger for winning that has always been characteristic of the Blue
Team (...) Aside from the bitterness about the bad result in Shanghai,
I noticed from the start of the tournament a certain atmosphere within
the team. My impression was that our players, some more, some less,
had started to think that all they had to do, in order to beat
anybody, was just to sit down at the bridge table. A little bit of
self confidence doesn't hurt, but complacency can be really harmful
(...)"
"If changes had to be made I couldn't go about it without including in
the team a player that, according to all the other members of the
team, is truly great. I am talking, of course, about Antonio Sementa
(...)"
"At the same time Bocchi and Duboin told me they wanted to terminate
their partnership. As I was already looking to include Sementa, I
thought too much change could be destabilizing (...) So I have asked
Bocchi and Duboin to play one last time as a partnership for the
Italian team. Both agreed fully (...)"
Interviewer: "So I guess that if you didn't want to exclude Lauria-
Versace and include Sementa, you had to sacrifice Fantoni-Nunes"
"I don't like the word 'sacrifice'. It's true: I never considered
excluding Lauria-Versace. Apart from anything else, Lauria is like a
great wine: the more he ages the better he is. I will always call him
to the national team, as long as he is available (...)"
"Fantoni and Nunes have contributed a lot to the national team in the
past and I am sure they will continue to do so in the future"
Interviewer:"Why did you choose Angelini? He hasn't played with
Sementa for over a year."
"True. But before that they had played together for over 10 years.
Between 1998 and 2006 they won a Rosenblum, a European Championship,
four Champions Cups, and an infinite numbers of Italian Championships
and Coppa Italias (...)"
"Angelini joins the team for these European Championships in
recognition of his great passion and dedication to bridge. After all,
equal to mine. To be even clearer, I deny in the most absolute terms
that his joining the team has brought any financial rewards to the
Italian bridge federation (...)"
Full text of the interview, in Italian, here:
http://www.federbridge.it/bdionline/articolo.asp?artfile=944.pdf
Kenny McCormack
<belem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The online magazine of the Italian bridge federation published an
>interview with Maria Teresa Lavazza, manager ("Commissario Tecnico")
>of the Italian team. She is responsible for choosing the players that
>represent Italy in major international competitions.
>
>I thought I would relay the main bits here for the non Italian-
>speaking. Two main items:
>1. Fantoni-Nunes will not be part of the Italian team at the European
>Championship in Pau in June 2008; the pairs will be Lauria-Versace,
>Bocchi-Duboin and Sementa-Angelini;
>2. Bocchi-Duboin are terminating their partnership after Pau.
There seems to be something missing here.
Text later on indicates that Fantoni-Nunes were not "fired" (for cause),
nor did they quit, but that rather, there just wasn't room on the team
(for 4 pairs). Text also indicates that Lauria-Versace would be
retained in any case, and that Bocchi-Duboin has to be talked into
staying together for one last hurrah (Pau).
So, obvious question then, why not let Bocchi-Duboin go now, and retain
Fantoni-Nunes? Note that I am not analyzing this from any bridge or
personality perspective (as I know nothing about it other than what I
have read here), but merely from an analysis of this text.
Jürgen R.
"Kenny McCormack" <gaz...@xmission.xmission.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:g1u5ul$cf2$1...@news.xmission.com...
I assume you are aware that Maria Teresa Lavazza pays for
this team. So it strikes me as completely unamerican to
suggest that she shouldn't hire whom she chooses to
hire.
Next you are going to be making suggestions whom Rose
Meltzer should be paying, I suppose.
henry...@yahoo.com
> "Kenny McCormack" <gaze...@xmission.xmission.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:g1u5ul$cf2$1...@news.xmission.com...
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <8295d4d2-deb1-46e8-93f3-44e0b0d67...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Ah, but would it be unethical, even though not grounded in either law
or propriety??
/disable sarcasm/
Henrysun909
MMB = misogynistic misologic blowhard
brsri...@gmail.com
henrysun...@yahoo.com wrote:
They were very disappointed by their team overall results in Shangai,
however from reading some of his articles I suspect that Bocchi was
particularly disappointed by the attitude of some of his teammates. He
is talking about lack of concentration and devotion to the game.
Boris
David Babcock
> Next you are going to be making suggestions whom Rose
> Meltzer should be paying, I suppose.
I suspect that someone, somewhere, is making just such suggestions.
Meltzer's team didn't survive the qualifying stages of the US team
trials last week.
David
BBO expert
> "Kenny McCormack" <gaz...@xmission.xmission.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:g1u5ul$cf2$1...@news.xmission.com...
>>
>> There seems to be something missing here.
>>
>> Text later on indicates that Fantoni-Nunes were not "fired" (for cause),
>> nor did they quit, but that rather, there just wasn't room on the team
>> (for 4 pairs). Text also indicates that Lauria-Versace would be
>> retained in any case, and that Bocchi-Duboin has to be talked into
>> staying together for one last hurrah (Pau).
>>
>> So, obvious question then, why not let Bocchi-Duboin go now, and retain
>> Fantoni-Nunes? Note that I am not analyzing this from any bridge or
>> personality perspective (as I know nothing about it other than what I
>> have read here), but merely from an analysis of this text.
>>
>
> I assume you are aware that Maria Teresa Lavazza pays for
> this team. So it strikes me as completely unamerican to
> suggest that she shouldn't hire whom she chooses to
> hire.
Of course she can choose who she wants - but like Kenny, I wonder _why_ she
chose who she chose.
Jürgen R.
"BBO expert" <n...@test.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1313700.b...@cedar.serverforest.com...
And you thought you might get a reliable answer on usenet...
OK. I'll try to explain the situation to you. Suppose you were
married to money and the idea had occurred to you that it
ought to be fun to have not just one fat old man, but 5 or 6
handsome young studs, to do your bidding.
In this situation there are not very many socially acceptable
options. You might acquire a sailboat complete with crew or you
might do what the Mme Lavazza does. I can't think of many other
satisfactory alternatives.
Once having chosen bridge as the solution, you will probably
want your team members to be cheerfully entertaining and
discreetly deferential, and you might have other more
subtle requirements; proficiency at bridge is obviously a
prerequisite, though it tends to be in conflict with the
'handsome young' part; there might also be limits on
the available funds; etc etc
You will undoubtedly agree that, for all these and similar
reasons, it might be difficult to determine
objectively, in retrospect, which criteria determined which
decision.
Hank Youngerman
chairs" among the top teams. I can understand some of the normal ways
things happen. Some players pass their prime while others join the
bridge scene or move themselves into the top echelon. The demand for
pros (i.e. supply of sponsors) changes. And I suspect that money,
personality, and bridge ability all play a role. I know of one player
who was fired simply for being rude and insulting to the team
sponsor. If I am rude and insulting to my boss, I expect to get fired
too!
But I would normally have thought that Nickell-like arrangements would
be the rule rather than the exception - a player who assembles a
strong team that he is comfortable with, and keeps it together. Now
admittedly, the team's results have been exceptional, so there is less
tendency to look for a new "formula." Maybe every other sponsor is
constantly looking for the right "formula" to equal or pass Nickell,
hoping that swapping Laurel and Hardy for Abbott and Costello will put
the team over the top.
I can't say what I would do if I were in that situation, because I am
not and never will be. But I speculate that if I were, I would look
for the two best pairs I could find, and commit to them that as long
as they turn in results that are in the top echelon, I will pay them
competitively with the top echelon and make a mutual commitment to
keep the team together. But perhaps if the team keeps coming up
against a brick wall named Nickell, the results will never be "good
enough."
On Jun 1, 9:36 am, Jürgen R. <jurg...@web.de> wrote:
> "Kenny McCormack" <gaze...@xmission.xmission.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:g1u5ul$cf2$1...@news.xmission.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <8295d4d2-deb1-46e8-93f3-44e0b0d67...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Meltzer should be paying, I suppose.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Babcock
significance regarding the Mind Sports games in Beijing? I recall
that only the top 6 from last year's Europeans went to the Bermuda
Bowl -- is anything like that operating here, or does every European
country get to send a team to Beijing regardless of Pau? I'm just
trying to get an idea of whether this Italian line-up really points in
a new direction or may just be a one-time thing. Maria Teresa Lavazza
did talk about attitude issues, but she also mentioned Fantoni and
Nunes maybe making future contributions. The latter may just have
been diplomatic eyewash, of course.
Gerben Dirksen
In the Olympiad, all countries can send a team. In previous Olympiads
there have been teams from quite unknown bridge countries. I remember
in Maastricht there were about 75 teams.
Gerben
Kenny McCormack
...
>> So, obvious question then, why not let Bocchi-Duboin go now, and retain
>> Fantoni-Nunes? Note that I am not analyzing this from any bridge or
>> personality perspective (as I know nothing about it other than what I
>> have read here), but merely from an analysis of this text.
>>
>
>I assume you are aware that Maria Teresa Lavazza pays for this team. So
>it strikes me as completely unamerican to suggest that she shouldn't
>hire whom she chooses to hire. Next you are going to be making
>suggestions whom Rose Meltzer should be paying, I suppose.
As I said, I wasn't analyzing it from any bridge or personality perspective.
And, as stated, I know nothing of any of it.
I wasn't even saying she was wrong to do it. What I said was that there
was something missing - i.e., some piece of data was missing from the
writeup. That's all.
BBO expert
> "BBO expert" <n...@test.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:1313700.b...@cedar.serverforest.com...
>> Jürgen R. wrote:
>>
>>> "Kenny McCormack" <gaz...@xmission.xmission.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>> news:g1u5ul$cf2$1...@news.xmission.com...
>>>>
>>>> There seems to be something missing here.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I assume you are aware that Maria Teresa Lavazza pays for
>>> this team. So it strikes me as completely unamerican to
>>> suggest that she shouldn't hire whom she chooses to
>>> hire.
>>
>> Of course she can choose who she wants - but like Kenny, I wonder _why_
>> she chose who she chose.
>
> And you thought you might get a reliable answer on usenet...
Nope. Kenny might have. I just wondered...
Jürgen R.
"David Babcock" <dp...@fastmail.fm> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:fbe8d2e3-dad8-4736...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Can someone here clarify whether the results at Pau will have any
> significance regarding the Mind Sports games in Beijing?
Evidently not. This is a pseudo-Olympic event, i.e. one for national
representatives.
This Mind Sports Thing is a truly weird idea, conceived in the
imagination of an advertising agency. I predict an early demise -
and evidently am not alone. Why else would there be the following
condition:
<Quote>
Participation in the World Bridge Games in Beijing is a prerequisite for
participation in the 2009 World Team Championships (NBOs with an open team
in Beijing will be eligible for the 2009 Bermuda Bowl; while NBOs with a
women's team in Beijing will be eligible to compete in the 2009 Venice Cup).
<End quote>
Hank Youngerman
contest in the past, but I do know that the number of teams a zone can
send to the Bermuda Bowl has been related in the past to their
performance in the Olympiad. I know there was at one time a rule of
some sort about losing a slot if no team from the Zone finished in the
top third of their round-robin group in the prior Olympiad.
Possibly a more singificant reason for this rule is to avoid
politicizing the event. That is, providing a meaningful penalty
should a country decide to take a pass based on one or more perceived
disagreements with Chinese policy. We know that politics NEVER NEVER
intrudes on sports or games. At least not since the mid-1980's, when
South Africa discreetly decided not to enter world events, and a team
(Indonesia, I believe) reported that they were "searching for rice" at
the time they failed to appear for their match against Israel.
Of could there have been a more recent case of a political message
being made via world bridge events. Hmmm, now let me see.......
The Mind Sports thing is not a "weird idea, conceived in the
imagination of an advertising agency." It is actually a sensible way
for games to try to elevate their status to Olympic level without
having to decide what is a "sport," not to mention the absurd spectre
of applying the sane anti-doping rules to games as they do to
athletics.
On Jun 2, 10:33 am, Jürgen R. <jurg...@web.de> wrote:
> "David Babcock" <d...@fastmail.fm> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:fbe8d2e3-dad8-4736...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Charles Brenner
> I assume you are aware that Maria Teresa Lavazza pays for
> this team.
I may be the only one, but I admit I did not know that. And it puzzles
me.
The legal situation is approximately this, is it not: some official
bridge body in Italy is accredited by the WBF to send a team to the
world championships. Did that body decide that paying team expenses is
too great a burden and consequently sell the privilege to Lavazza? I
would think that there would be many members of the Italian bridge
federation who would justifiably object that such an arrangement
unfairly sells an equity in representing the country out from under
them.
Can you clarify? Is the arrangement in fact completely fair and legal?
One or the other? Controversial?
Charles
Adam Beneschan
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <8295d4d2-deb1-46e8-93f3-44e0b0d67...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Good grief, you're reading an awful lot that isn't there. I thought
he was just wondering why she made the judgment she did---not
suggesting that someone else should prevent her from doing so.
-- Adam
Kenny McCormack
Adam Beneschan <ad...@irvine.com> wrote:
...
>Good grief, you're reading an awful lot that isn't there. I thought
>he was just wondering why she made the judgment she did---not
>suggesting that someone else should prevent her from doing so.
>
> -- Adam
1) Yes.
2) Yes, but in a sense, not even that much (see my previous post).
3) This "Jurgen R" character has already shown himself to be a nutcase,
so we should read and interpret his posts in that light.
henry...@yahoo.com
wrote:
3) This "Jurgen R" character has already shown himself to be a
nutcase,
so we should read and interpret his posts in that light.
**************
Careful there, Kenny.
Jurgen might say that calling him a "nutcase' is unethical and then
not bother to cite either the laws or the proprieties in support of
his alleged view.
Henrysun909, TFMMB
Jürgen R.
<henry...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:9907af74-0cf6-40b9...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Quite the opposite: I would be offended if you and Kenny
didn't think me a nutcase.
Jürgen R.
"Charles Brenner" <cbre...@berkeley.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1106b2e7-e944-47f9...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
You want me to 'clarify' Italian Bridge politics? I don't think anybody
can do that. I can't even clarify ACBL or WBF politics.
What does 'fair and legal' have to do with anything?
>Charles
dranon
As opposed to a right-wing vigilante nutcase, I suppose.
Charles Brenner
> "Charles Brenner" <cbren...@berkeley.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:1106b2e7-e944-47f9...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Why the bluster?
Charles
Kenny McCormack
Charles Brenner <cbre...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
...
>Why the bluster?
>
>Charles
See my other post. Jurgen is proud of his nutcase-hood.
And, once you get this, his posts become quite well understood and
amusing.
Tim
> I can't say what I would do if I were in that situation, because I am
> not and never will be. But I speculate that if I were, I would look
> for the two best pairs I could find, and commit to them that as long
> as they turn in results that are in the top echelon, I will pay them
> competitively with the top echelon and make a mutual commitment to
> keep the team together. But perhaps if the team keeps coming up
> against a brick wall named Nickell, the results will never be "good
> enough."
It is possible that the pay Nickell provides is not merely
competitive, but rather a notch above. I recall that before Soloway
joined the Nickell team he first determined that he could not get
comparable compensation elsewhere for the Soloway-Goldman
partnership. Of course, it is also easy to argue that the Nickell
team has been the most successful team out there for quite a few years.
Eric Leong
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <8295d4d2-deb1-46e8-93f3-44e0b0d67...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Is Lavazza playing with the team? If not paying six members of a team
who might not otherwise play would be a particular act of generousity.
Eric Leong
Ron Johnson
> chairs" among the top teams.
Mostly because of the emotional aspects of the game. Bobby Wolff is
reasonably clear that he was fired (at least in part) because of
friction with Meckwell.
And that kind of thing happens all of the time. Sharp words
when comparing -- which then escalates to a him or me situation.
(The classic in this regard comes from the Bermuda Bowl
defenders in 1977. Two members opted not to return. I
suspect Ira Rubin was a big reason)
I can only thing of a few really long running teams before Nickell.
Kaplan/Kay; Root/Pavlicek (and Root/Roth before that)
Martel/Stansby; Ross/Pender
And the Washington area teams featuring Woolsey and company
(which weren't constantly together)
I think it's really tough to keep any team together as soon
as you introduce the sponsor dynamic.
Alan Malloy
No, Lavazza does not play on the Italian team. They are like the Dallas
Aces - paid by a sponsor to improve their bridge and give Italy a strong
national team, not because Lavazza wants to play with some pros. It is
indeed quite generous of her, though I believe that's how the Blue Team
has always operated, and how the Aces operated when they were around.
Perhaps one day America will have such a team again.
--
Cheers,
Alan (San Jose, California, USA)
David Babcock
> and how the Aces operated when they were around
when they were successful, but Corn had been on the team earlier.
According to Bobby Wolff in his book, it fell to him to break the news
to Corn that he wasn't up to it -- maybe it is all the more credit to
Corn that he accepted that and continued to sponsor the team anyway.
> Perhaps one day America will have such a team again.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are both active supporters of the game,
and either could easily support a team and a jet to fly them around
in. The notion must certainly have occurred to them, but for some
reason not taken root, alas.
David
Hank Youngerman
One would guess that he realizes his game isn't up to the level of
Nickell, Jacobs, Meltzer, etc. and that he doesn't want to do the work
to get it there. After all, he has his hands busy giving away $30
billion. And I would also guess that when it's known that you are the
richest man in the world (OK, right now Gates is down to #2) and can
"buy anything you want' you realize that maybe you're happier having
the reputation as someone who doesn't flaunt his wealth.
It seems pretty clear that the current Nickell team with Zia replacing
Compton will be stronger than any other 3 pairs you could put
together. So to improve the US National team you have to start by
prying Meckwell away from Nickell. Now, if you took Meckwell, Hamman/
Zia, and added Martel/Stansby rather than Nickell/Freeman, do you have
a better team? Yes, probably. A LOT better? Probably not. Clearly,
one thing that has made the team so successful is that Nickell/Freeman
are a very strong pair in their own right. (Let's remember that they
have won the Life Master Pairs, and that Nickell won the GNT in the
late 1970's playing on a peer team, and I think he and Hamman have won
both the Blue Ribbon Pairs and the Cavendish..)
So I'm not sure the US isn't fielding a team that is at least close to
as strong as possible. I didn't start playing bridge until 1982, so I
have no idea what the situation was in the late 1960's. I do know
that the partnership aspect of the game was less emphasized in the
1940's and 1950's, and players relied more on intuition and table feel
(and perhaps a bit of what Edgar Kaplan called "Black Magic"). Part
of what Corn did was to make the team form cohesive partnerships and
also require a certain amount of discipline (yes, they even had
curfews and bed checks - it's no accident that the team's coach was a
former Marine officer!). I think that todays' top pairs do work very
hard on partnership, and that the days of carousing at night and
playing hung over are perhaps not gone but are less prevalent.
Maybe most of all, the top pairs know that if they work hard on their
game and keep themselves disciplined while playing, they will get
hired to play on strong teams. They don't have to play in a pairs
trial and hope that both they finish in the top 3 AND that the other 2
pairs are strong. And, while pride and reputation no doubt provided
significant incentive in the past, knowing that if you work hard
enough on your bridge game you won't have to work for a living is a
pretty good incentive.
Of course, I'm just speculating. Maybe Bobby Wolff addresses some of
this in his book, which I haven't read. It would be nice if we could
get the perspective of players from that era.
Ron Johnson
> It seems pretty clear that the current Nickell team with Zia replacing
> Compton will be stronger than any other 3 pairs you could put
> together.
It may be clear to you, but I wouldn't want to bet against
Martel/Stansby, Berkowitz/Cohen, Sontag/Weischel
(and there are some other pairs whose track record suggests
that could do the job as third pair.)
Now Martel/Stansby and either of those pairs plus client
partnership is a different story. Though the nature of the
team as currently made up is such that they're beatable
any time Meckwell are below form.
> So to improve the US National team you have to start by
> prying Meckwell away from Nickell. Now, if you took Meckwell, Hamman/
> Zia, and added Martel/Stansby rather than Nickell/Freeman, do you have
> a better team? Yes, probably. A LOT better? Probably not. Clearly,
> one thing that has made the team so successful is that Nickell/Freeman
> are a very strong pair in their own right. (Let's remember that they
> have won the Life Master Pairs, and that Nickell won the GNT in the
> late 1970's playing on a peer team, and I think he and Hamman have won
> both the Blue Ribbon Pairs and the Cavendish..)
I think you're over-stating their strength a tad.
Nickell/Freeman's Butlers have been consistently slightly below
average for the round robin at the world championship (worse than
that once you factor in strength of opposition)
All in all, I'd put them at International master strength.
(Or about two cuts below world class)
Which ain't too shabby of course considering. It's not like
the sponsor at Rye -- where Sheinwold didn't feel it was safe
to play him even with a huge lead.
>
> So I'm not sure the US isn't fielding a team that is at least close to
> as strong as possible. I didn't start playing bridge until 1982, so I
> have no idea what the situation was in the late 1960's.
You mean prior to the rise of the Aces? Teams selected generally
either had a pair that the captain had no confidence in or
there were poisonous relations between some team members (the worst
being Ira Rubin/Lew Mathe)
I'd say that something close to the best possible team was fielded
about twice in the 60s.
> I do know
> that the partnership aspect of the game was less emphasized in the
> 1940's and 1950's, and players relied more on intuition and table feel
> (and perhaps a bit of what Edgar Kaplan called "Black Magic"). Part
> of what Corn did was to make the team form cohesive partnerships and
> also require a certain amount of discipline (yes, they even had
> curfews and bed checks - it's no accident that the team's coach was a
> former Marine officer!). I think that todays' top pairs do work very
> hard on partnership, and that the days of carousing at night and
> playing hung over are perhaps not gone but are less prevalent.
>
> Maybe most of all, the top pairs know that if they work hard on their
> game and keep themselves disciplined while playing, they will get
> hired to play on strong teams. They don't have to play in a pairs
> trial and hope that both they finish in the top 3 AND that the other 2
> pairs are strong. And, while pride and reputation no doubt provided
> significant incentive in the past, knowing that if you work hard
> enough on your bridge game you won't have to work for a living is a
> pretty good incentive.
>
> Of course, I'm just speculating. Maybe Bobby Wolff addresses some of
> this in his book, which I haven't read. It would be nice if we could
> get the perspective of players from that era.
Worth noting. Wolff explicitly calls Goren a client -- and since
he played on Goren's team he's in a position to know.
Also worth noting that George Rosenkranz (better known as a
billionaire
client) was a member of Goren's team -- in fact he was supposed to
be Goren's partner but Goren simply wasn't up to playing.
Georgiana Gates
> On Jun 5, 1:47 pm, Hank Youngerman <dontspa...@redtopbg.com> wrote:
>
>
> I think you're over-stating their strength a tad.
>
> Nickell/Freeman's Butlers have been consistently slightly below
> average for the round robin at the world championship (worse than
> that once you factor in strength of opposition)
>
> All in all, I'd put them at International master strength.
> (Or about two cuts below world class)
>
> Which ain't too shabby of course considering. It's not like
> the sponsor at Rye -- where Sheinwold didn't feel it was safe
> to play him even with a huge lead.
>
>
>> So I'm not sure the US isn't fielding a team that is at least close to
>> as strong as possible. I didn't start playing bridge until 1982, so I
>> have no idea what the situation was in the late 1960's.
>
> You mean prior to the rise of the Aces? Teams selected generally
> either had a pair that the captain had no confidence in or
> there were poisonous relations between some team members (the worst
> being Ira Rubin/Lew Mathe)
client), Jordan-Robinson, and Don Krauss and his partner. These were two
youngsters who were widely perceived as having lucked into the Trials
and then lucked into the team. IIRC, the rules were changed the next
year so that this wouldn't happen. And this third pair only played
against the Netherland Antilles.
The other player? Bob Hamman.
pumpk...@hotmail.com
> On Jun 5, 1:47 pm, Hank Youngerman <dontspa...@redtopbg.com> wrote:
>
> > It seems pretty clear that the current Nickell team with Zia replacing
> > Compton will be stronger than any other 3 pairs you could put
> > together.
>
> It may be clear to you, but I wouldn't want to bet against
> Martel/Stansby, Berkowitz/Cohen, Sontag/Weischel
> (and there are some other pairs whose track record suggests
> that could do the job as third pair.)
Agreed. I'd also take Martel-Stansby/Levin-Weinstein and Sontag-
Weichsel over Zimman/Nick'n'Dick and Meckwell.
The fact that Meckwell now play every single set of the US Team Trials
speaks volumes about the other 2 pairs.
>
> Now Martel/Stansby and either of those pairs plus client
> partnership is a different story. Though the nature of the
> team as currently made up is such that they're beatable
> any time Meckwell are below form.
>
> > So to improve the US National team you have to start by
> > prying Meckwell away from Nickell. Now, if you took Meckwell, Hamman/
> > Zia, and added Martel/Stansby rather than Nickell/Freeman, do you have
> > a better team? Yes, probably. A LOT better? Probably not. Clearly,
> > one thing that has made the team so successful is that Nickell/Freeman
> > are a very strong pair in their own right. (Let's remember that they
> > have won the Life Master Pairs, and that Nickell won the GNT in the
> > late 1970's playing on a peer team, and I think he and Hamman have won
> > both the Blue Ribbon Pairs and the Cavendish..)
>
> I think you're over-stating their strength a tad.
>
> Nickell/Freeman's Butlers have been consistently slightly below
> average for the round robin at the world championship (worse than
> that once you factor in strength of opposition).
>
> All in all, I'd put them at International master strength.
> (Or about two cuts below world class)
Seems about right.
Nick'n'Dick's philosophy appears to be to bid conservatively (i.e.
within their trick-taking capacity) and they aim to not lose (as
opposed to win) the match at their table.
>
> Which ain't too shabby of course considering. It's not like
> the sponsor at Rye -- where Sheinwold didn't feel it was safe
> to play him even with a huge lead.
I think you mean Sanders, not Sheinwold.
>
>
>
> > So I'm not sure the US isn't fielding a team that is at least close to
> > as strong as possible. I didn't start playing bridge until 1982, so I
> > have no idea what the situation was in the late 1960's.
>
> You mean prior to the rise of the Aces? Teams selected generally
> either had a pair that the captain had no confidence in or
> there were poisonous relations between some team members (the worst
> being Ira Rubin/Lew Mathe)
>
> I'd say that something close to the best possible team was fielded
> about twice in the 60s.
(snip)
The teams selected for 1966 (Hamman-Mathe/Murray-Kehela/Rubin-
Feldesman), 1967 (Kaplan-Kay/Root-Roth/Kehela-Murray) and 1968 (Kaplan-
Kay/Root-Roth/Jordan-Robinson) were pretty good. Each of these teams
give the Italians a good run for their money, and in some quarters it
has been suggested that the Blue Team would have ended up with some
silver medals had Pabis-Ticci and D'Alelio been required to play
behind screens.
Cheers.
Nick
Ron Johnson
wrote:
> On Jun 5, 5:01 pm, Ron Johnson <john...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote:
>
> > I'd say that something close to the best possible team was fielded
> > about twice in the 60s.
>
>
>
> The teams selected for 1966 (Hamman-Mathe/Murray-Kehela/Rubin-
> Feldesman), 1967 (Kaplan-Kay/Root-Roth/Kehela-Murray) and 1968 (Kaplan-
> Kay/Root-Roth/Jordan-Robinson) were pretty good.
I had in mind 1967 and 1968. The 1966 contained 3 world class pairs
to be sure but the relationship between Mathe (and Hamman to
a lesser extent) and Rubin (and Feldesman to a lesser extent)
was so bad that I just can't see counting them as a "close
to be possible team"
There are third party reports of Mathe rooting for Rubin to fail.
Simply can't be good for the team.