[Walddk]

Starting on Friday we will be having 8 consecutive days of live vugraph broadcasts from Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) and the Netherlands. First up is the prestigious Yeh Brothers Cup with a star-filled field from all over the world. Our boss, Fred Gitelman, is one of the many stars taking part in this event. See for yourself by clicking on this link:

http://www.ywt.com.t...6yeh/index.html

As some of you may recall, the event last year took place in China, and due to serious technical difficulties we were not able to show just one hand on BBO. We hope for much better luck this time.

Roland

[Aberlour10]

Walddk, on Mar 12 2006, 05:28 PM, said:

First up is the prestigious Yeh Brothers Cup with a star-filled field from all over the world.

The List of Participants is very impressing and promises a great VUG week
for all of us.

An interesting detail.... C.Balicki & A. Zmudzinski will play again
(after many years) for Team Lavazza.

Robert

[andych]

Is it one of the biggest money prize? US$40,000 for team champion....

What are the other high money prize bridge tournament?

Does Bermuda/Olympaid offer any money prize?

[csdenmark]

Many strong names with strong credentials. Unfortunately they mostly will face competition from mixed teams - many only with 4 persons.

I wonder the reason why Versace-Lauria will be playing for Team Garozzo instead of Team Lavazza.

Whats the point of Verhees without Jansma?
Whats the point of Helgemo without Helness?
Whats the point of Hampson without Greco?
Whats the point of Sundelin without Sylvain?

I will be looking forward again to see strongest polish pair Balicki-Zmudzinski and the always frankly playing Auken-Von Arnim.

I will be very surprised unless Team Lavazza will be able to destroy all contenders. I think India and Team Garozzo will have good chances as 2/3. The chinese teams I noticed performed well in last Bermuda but I am unable to keep track of the names.

[joker_gib]

csdenmark, on Mar 13 2006, 10:35 AM, said:

I wonder the reason why Versace-Lauria will be playing for Team Garozzo instead of Team Lavazza.

Lauria-Versace don't play for Lavazza.

They normally play for Tennis Club Parioli (sponsored by Angelini)

Alain

[Aberlour10]

andych, on Mar 13 2006, 12:20 AM, said:

Is it one of the biggest money prize?  US$40,000 for team champion....

What are the other high money prize bridge tournament? 

Does Bermuda/Olympaid offer any money prize?

I have found this information on the "YEH-Site" too:

Subsidy : Effective from 2006

　 Reigning Bermuda Bowl / Team Olympiad

　 Gold Medalist US$30,000/team
　 Silver Medalist US$20,000/team
　 Bronze Medalist US$10,000/team
　 　 　

　 Reigning Zonal Championships ( Zone 6 / other WBF Zones )

　 Gold Medalist US$5,000/team
　 Silver Medalist US$4,000/team
　 Bronze Medalist US$3,000/team
　 　 　

[Walddk]

andych, on Mar 13 2006, 06:20 AM, said:

Is it one of the biggest money prize?  US$40,000 for team champion....

What are the other high money prize bridge tournament? 

Does Bermuda/Olympaid offer any money prize?

The richest money tournament, by miles, is the Cavendish Invitational in Las Vegas.

http://www.thecavendish.com/

A contributing factor is, of course, that there is an auction where some people spend (and earn) lots of $$. However, the entry fees are quite significant too:

Cavendish Invitational Pairs:
Entry Fee: $2,500 US per pair
Minimum Bid: $12,500 US per pair

John Roberts Teams:
Entry Fee: $10,000 US per team
No auction

WBP Pairs:
Entry Fee: $750 US per pair
Minimum Bid: $1,000 US per pair

WBP Teams:
Entry Fee: $1,000 US per team
Minimum Bid: $1,000 US per team

The Cavendish will be played in early May, and if all goes according to plan, we will be broadcasting from the two main events.

.....

Regarding the Bermuda Bowl and Olympics the answer is "no". You compete for medals and fame .... but no fortune.

Roland

[csdenmark]

joker_gib, on Mar 13 2006, 11:44 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Mar 13 2006, 10:35 AM, said:

I wonder the reason why Versace-Lauria will be playing for Team Garozzo instead of Team Lavazza.

Lauria-Versace don't play for Lavazza.

They normally play for Tennis Club Parioli (sponsored by Angelini)

Alain

Nice to be informed. I am not familiar to the economic structures in bridge. I have noticed that normally Maria Teresa Lavazza is non-playing captain for Italy with these players:

Bocchi-Duboin
Fantoni-Nunes
Lauria-Versace

I think I have read somewhere Lavazza is a coffee company.

Would be really nice if somebody would be able to inform more of the economic structures. To me it looks like somewhere there are big money involved but mostly not enough money to have an equalized strong world elite.

The outcome of such is the appaling many regulations to see to that amateurs(those who need to have a civil job outside bridge) have a somewhat fair chance against the very few professionals.

[Walddk]

csdenmark, on Mar 13 2006, 10:35 AM, said:

Whats the point of Verhees without Jansma?
Whats the point of Helgemo without Helness?
Whats the point of Hampson without Greco?
Whats the point of Sundelin without Sylvain?

Why is this so strange if

Jan Jansma
Tor Helness
Eric Greco
Johan Sylvan

are unavailable for the occasion? Are you saying that their regular partners should not compete (be invited) because thay are much weaker when they play with other partners?

In my view, very strong partnerships can be formed of world class players who have not played together before. 60 minutes of system talk will normally be enough because they will not agree on fancy systems or gadgets. Their bridge skills will take care of the rest.

Roland

[joker_gib]

csdenmark, on Mar 13 2006, 12:53 PM, said:

I think I have read somewhere Lavazza is a coffee company.

Yes Lavazza is a fine Italian coffee !

Have look at this link (a bit of history) :

http://www.greatbrid.../GBL030102.html

Alain

[csdenmark]

Walddk, on Mar 13 2006, 02:22 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Mar 13 2006, 10:35 AM, said:

Whats the point of Verhees without Jansma?
Whats the point of Helgemo without Helness?
Whats the point of Hampson without Greco?
Whats the point of Sundelin without Sylvain?

Why is this so strange if

Jan Jansma
Tor Helness
Eric Greco
Johan Sylvan

are unavailable for the occasion? Are you saying that their regular partners should not compete (be invited) because thay are much weaker when they play with other partners?

In my view, very strong partnerships can be formed of world class players who have not played together before. 60 minutes of system talk will normally be enough because they will not agree on fancy systems or gadgets. Their bridge skills will take care of the rest.

Roland

Are you saying that their regular partners should not compete (be invited) because thay are much weaker when they play with other partners?
Certainly not Roland but I am not going to involve into a renewed discussion with you regarding strong versus weak systems. But they certainly are much weaker, they think themselves too - else their systems make no sense at all.

It is fairly obvious that not all of the world elite will be available for any tourney. But 1 hour - you can't be serious! Such is sunday bridge.

The elite is so thin. So from a spectator position I would prefer casual teams based on partnerships. Looks to me as the the way for the italians.

Maybe Helgemo's old partner Glen Groetheim might have been available as an example or perhaps Rodwell or Meckstroth would be available to replace Greco. Last year paired Gitelman/Hampson - not so succesful as I remember. This year Brad is available so Fred will be able to play their system - we look forward to that.

[Walddk]

csdenmark, on Mar 13 2006, 03:04 PM, said:

Certainly not Roland but I am not going to involve into a renewed discussion with you regarding strong versus weak systems. But they certainly are much weaker, they think themselves too - else their systems make no sense at all.

It is fairly obvious that not all of the world elite will be available for any tourney. But 1 hour - you can't be serious! Such is sunday bridge.

The elite is so thin. So from a spectator position I would prefer casual teams based on partnerships. Looks to me as the the way for the italians.

Maybe Helgemo's old partner Glen Groetheim might have been available as an example or perhaps Rodwell or Meckstroth would be available to replace Greco. Last year paired Gitelman/Hampson - not so succesful as I remember. This year Brad is available so Fred will be able to play their system - we look forward to that.

Excuse me, but this is rubbish, Claus! A system is exactly as strong or weak as it is handled by the players who decide to play it. I am convinced that world class players like Helgemo and Hampson are quite capable of adopting to whatever system they agree on with their partners.

And no, I don't think they need more than 1 hour to go through the various aspects of that system. In most cases good judgement is what's needed, and the players in this league get it right much more often than others.

It's not good enough to know 14 different systems if you don't know how to play the contract you arrive in. The players in this event agree to play one system they are comfortable with, and after the auction is over, they certainly know how to declare.

So in this context it doesn't matter one bit if Helgemo plays with Helness or Justin Hackett .... or Geoff Hampson with Greco or Steve Landen.

Roland

[fred]

csdenmark, on Mar 13 2006, 02:04 PM, said:

Walddk, on Mar 13 2006, 02:22 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Mar 13 2006, 10:35 AM, said:

Whats the point of Verhees without Jansma?
Whats the point of Helgemo without Helness?
Whats the point of Hampson without Greco?
Whats the point of Sundelin without Sylvain?

Why is this so strange if

Jan Jansma
Tor Helness
Eric Greco
Johan Sylvan

are unavailable for the occasion? Are you saying that their regular partners should not compete (be invited) because thay are much weaker when they play with other partners?

In my view, very strong partnerships can be formed of world class players who have not played together before. 60 minutes of system talk will normally be enough because they will not agree on fancy systems or gadgets. Their bridge skills will take care of the rest.

Roland

Are you saying that their regular partners should not compete (be invited) because thay are much weaker when they play with other partners?
Certainly not Roland but I am not going to involve into a renewed discussion with you regarding strong versus weak systems. But they certainly are much weaker, they think themselves too - else their systems make no sense at all.

It is fairly obvious that not all of the world elite will be available for any tourney. But 1 hour - you can't be serious! Such is sunday bridge.

The elite is so thin. So from a spectator position I would prefer casual teams based on partnerships. Looks to me as the the way for the italians.

Maybe Helgemo's old partner Glen Groetheim might have been available as an example or perhaps Rodwell or Meckstroth would be available to replace Greco. Last year paired Gitelman/Hampson - not so succesful as I remember. This year Brad is available so Fred will be able to play their system - we look forward to that.

Actually we lost in the semi-finals (by 2 IMPs if I recall correctly) and then tied the match to determine who would be 3rd and who would be 4th.

I would not call this one of the best results of my career, but given the size and strength of the field, we did OK.

Whether or not you think 3rd/4th is a good finish in this tournament, did it occur to you that factors like:

- how well we played
- how well our teammates played
- how well our opponents played
- luck

might have contributed to the result as well?

Did you know that Hampson and I were regular partners for several years in the early 1990s?

Did you know that some players have more than one regular partner?

Have you noticed that it is far from rare for occasional or even first time partnerships to win major events together?

You might be interested in knowing that Hampson and I played what you would probably call a "strong system". In fact, we played almost exactly the same (Precisionish) system that Hampson normally plays with Greco. I learned this system on the flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo. I did not need the whole flight for this (in fact, if I recall correctly, it took me less than 3 hours). I do not recall having any serious bidding misunderstandings with Hampson.

Strong players are able to do this. It takes even less time when you play a natural system. In January I played in a week-long tournament with Eddie Wold. We spent maybe 30 minutes figuring out our system.

We did not lose a match the entire week and played against several teams that included what you might call "world elite" pairs.

Claus, I have given up convincing you that you are wrong about this. I respect your ongoing study of "strong systems", but I think you are out of touch with reality in terms of how important such systems are to winning.

For the rest of you who have not made up your minds on this issue and may have been influenced by the confidence with which Claus makes his assertions, let me say this (again):

My experience (which includes roughly 12 years of playing in every North America Championship, most World Championships, and dozens of major invitational tournaments all over the world with and against "elite" players and partnerships) strongly suggests that choice of bidding system does not determine who wins these things.

Watch great players like Helgemo and Hampson play with anyone and you will see what is important.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

fred, on Mar 13 2006, 05:43 PM, said:

I learned this system on the flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo. I did not need the whole flight for this (in fact, if I recall correctly, it took me less than 3 hours). I do not recall having any serious bidding misunderstandings with Hampson.

Strong players are able to do this. It takes even less time when you play a natural system. In January I played in a week-long tournament with Eddie Wold. We spent maybe 30 minutes figuring out our system.

Not to be snarky or anything, but do you differentiate between constructive and defensive bidding?

I've seen a number of other strong players like Hamman and Cohen complaining that they require an enormous amount of preparation to defend against insidious systems like Polish Club...

[csdenmark]

fred, on Mar 13 2006, 04:43 PM, said:

Actually we lost in the semi-finals (by 2 IMPs if I recall correctly) and then tied the match to determine who would be 3rd and who would be 4th.

I would not call this one of the best results of my career, but given the size and strength of the field, we did OK.

Whether or not you think 3rd/4th is a good finish in this tournament, did it occur to you that factors like:

- how well we played
- how well our teammates played
- how well our opponents played
- luck

might have contributed to the result as well?

Did you know that Hampson and I were regular partners for several years in the early 1990s?

Did you know that some players have more than one regular partner?

Have you noticed that it is far from rare for occasional or even first time partnerships to win major events together?

You might be interested in knowing that Hampson and I played what you would probably call a "strong system". In fact, we played almost exactly the same (Precisionish) system that Hampson normally plays with Greco. I learned this system on the flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo. I did not need the whole flight for this (in fact, if I recall correctly, it took me less than 3 hours). I do not recall having any serious bidding misunderstandings with Hampson.

Strong players are able to do this. It takes even less time when you play a natural system. In January I played in a week-long tournament with Eddie Wold. We spent maybe 30 minutes figuring out our system.

We did not lose a match the entire week and played against several teams that included what you might call "world elite" pairs.

Claus, I have given up convincing you that you are wrong about this. I respect your ongoing study of "strong systems", but I think you are out of touch with reality in terms of how important such systems are to winning.

For the rest of you who have not made up your minds on this issue and may have been influenced by the confidence with which Claus makes his assertions, let me say this (again):

My experience (which includes roughly 12 years of playing in every North America Championship, most World Championships, and dozens of major invitational tournaments all over the world with and against "elite" players and partnerships) strongly suggests that choice of bidding system does not determine who wins these things.

Watch great players like Helgemo and Hampson play with anyone and you will see what is important.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Actually we lost in the semi-finals (by 2 IMPs if I recall correctly) and then tied the match to determine who would be 3rd and who would be 4th.
Congratulations Fred - I see my memory is no longer as good as I prefer it to be. I would really have loved to watch you and Geoff playing Meckwell system. Unfortunately no Vugraph from China last year.

Did you know that Hampson and I were regular partners for several years in the early 1990s?
Now you call up my mind - I have read but forgotten. I was aware you played in same club in Toronto - hope this is correct memory at least.

Claus, I have given up convincing you that you are wrong about this. I respect your ongoing study of "strong systems",
Wise to do so I think. We don't need to agree - and I hope you like me enjoy our divergenses in views. I think we share the view to do what we intend to do seriously and best possible.

Did you know that some players have more than one regular partner?
Certainly it is something like that. But a discussion of this I am not fit for and I assume it very easily will evolve into dispute of words instead of content. Those kind of finetunings my english vocabulary is not good enough for.

[fred]

hrothgar, on Mar 13 2006, 03:04 PM, said:

fred, on Mar 13 2006, 05:43 PM, said:

I learned this system on the flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo. I did not need the whole flight for this (in fact, if I recall correctly, it took me less than 3 hours). I do not recall having any serious bidding misunderstandings with Hampson.

Strong players are able to do this. It takes even less time when you play a natural system. In January I played in a week-long tournament with Eddie Wold. We spent maybe 30 minutes figuring out our system.

Not to be snarky or anything, but do you differentiate between constructive and defensive bidding?

I've seen a number of other strong players like Hamman and Cohen complaining that they require an enormous amount of preparation to defend against insidious systems like Polish Club...

When Eddie and I played against Balicki-Zmudzinski (who play Polish Club) we spent maybe 30 seconds discussing how we would deal with it.

I agree with Hamman and Cohen that there exist methods outside the North American mainstream that require significant preparation time in order to come up with comprehensive and effective defenses. However, I do not think that Polish Club falls into this category (and I suspect that Hamman and Cohen would agree).

Most methods that I would put into this category would not have been legal in the tournament that I played with Eddie (an ACBL Regional).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Walddk]

I know you are leaving today and will be busy with live tourneys for the best part of 4 weeks. Good luck to you, Brad and your team!

Roland

[fred]

Walddk, on Mar 13 2006, 03:53 PM, said:

I know you are leaving today and will be busy with live tourneys for the best part of 4 weeks. Good luck to you, Brad and your team!

Roland

Thanks Roland

[twcho]

Why the broadcast only starts at the 2nd day of the tournament?

[Walddk]

I can't be certain, but I suspect that it has something to do with operator availability. Long time ago the organisers in Taiwan asked us to list the event from round 10 and onwards and get English speaking expert commentators for those sessions (2 tables throughout).

We can't and have no wish to interfere with that decision. It's entirely up to the organisers, and BBO will accept any decision they come up with.

Roland