[fred]

jdonn, on Mar 16 2009, 12:13 AM, said:

Well, I'll come out and say it. Of course people are picking Fred's team to advance far because, well I can be honest, two of the pairs are g0dly. But that third pair seems to me not up to the normal standards of the pairs he teams with, even for a third pair (nothing against them of course!)

IMO the third pair you refer to, John Diamond and Brian Platnick, are quite likely the strongest "sponsor pair" in the event.

When Geoff Hampson and I, playing for Canada, lost in the finals of the World Junior Championships in 1991, John and Brian played all the boards for the USA team that won the Gold Medal. My current partner, Brad Moss, was playing on the other USA team in that event (they finished 4th I think). The 6th member of our current team, Eric Greco, did not play in that particular WJC - he is several years younger than the rest of us.

For me it is very strange, at 44, to be the oldest player on my current team

Neither John nor Brian have played a lot of bridge since they were juniors which may be why you have not seen their names that much, but they have been working very hard on the partnership during the last year or so.

Not sure if you noticed but John and Brian finished 4th in the National Open Pairs that ended on Saturday. Anyways, even if you are not impressed by this, you may choose to take my word for it: these guys are GOOD.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

Well it's not like I want to go out of my way to have a long discussion to put someone down anyway. Suffice to say I definitely take your word for it, that what I thought was based on nothing more than my perception of their results, and that I hope you do well enough to doubly prove me wrong!

[655321]

Last 8:

1. Nickell
2. Cayne
3. Strul
4. Welland
7. Meltzer
8. O'Rourke
9. Lynch
10.Gromov

Gromov, on the assumption that Tomi2 is correct and they are essentially playing as a team of 4. If Gromov regularly plays all 3 of their pairs, I will pick (12) Diamond instead.

Don't know about the draw, so perhaps it is not possible for all 8 of these teams to get through.

I would be interested in seeing any of the above teams in action in the round of 32.

[TimG]

655321, on Mar 15 2009, 10:31 PM, said:

Don't know about the draw, so perhaps it is not possible for all 8 of these teams to get through.

In the round of 16: 1 v 16, 2 v 15, 3 v 14,..., 7 v 10, 8 v 9. So, 7 & 10 can't both make it to the round of 8, neither can 8 & 9.

[JanM]

hackenbush, on Mar 15 2009, 08:40 PM, said:

A guess here based on what I saw in earlier Spingold. Top 43 teams get a bye. The other 28 teams are divided into 7 groups of 4, and play 4-ways with 3 survivors?

Correct. And some of us agree that using an entire day to eliminate 7 teams is silly, but it appears that the majority like it.

Quote

QUOTE (Tomi2 @ Mar 15 2009, 07:30 PM)
How can Brink-Drijver be seeded 28?

It's based on ACBL results only. And theirs haven't been anything special, at least not yet.

This, on the other hand, is not correct. Foreign pairs are assigned seeding points for the Vanderbilt & Spingold based on their results in International events - those points decay in the same way as do regular seeding points (by 10% a year) and are (presumably) replaced by earned points. I'm not sure how long Brink & Drijver have been playing in US events, but I don't think it's long enough for all of their assigned points to have gone away. Ramondt & Westra may have been playing here long enough not to have any "foreigner" points remaining. The other pair has relatively few seeding points. Seeding is based on the average of the team, and the fields keep getting deeper and deeper. Also, the teams are "tossed" in groups, so 28 was in the 25-28 group.

[Aberlour10]

Tomi2, on Mar 15 2009, 07:30 PM, said:

also in the NABC events they officially were teammembers - so team 10 will be as strong as always

So far as I can remember team Gromov played exclusively 4-handed in all NABC main team events of last two years. ( =since B-Z have left team Welland). And it would be not possible/allowed if they were official registered as a "6er-team".

Robert

[jdonn]

JanM, on Mar 16 2009, 12:44 AM, said:

hackenbush, on Mar 15 2009, 08:40 PM, said:

A guess here based on what I saw in earlier Spingold. Top 43 teams get a bye. The other 28 teams are divided into 7 groups of 4, and play 4-ways with 3 survivors?

Correct. And some of us agree that using an entire day to eliminate 7 teams is silly, but it appears that the majority like it.

Giving 43 teams a bye really seems absurd. Without getting into how, I would like to see it such that if you have to eliminate fewer than 20% of the field to get to the next power of 2, then instead you go halfway to the following power of 2. In other words, if you start with between 65 and 79 teams then you get down to 48 teams (halfway between 32 and 64) after the first day (because the 15 teams you would need to eliminate to get to 64 is less than 20% of 79), then 32 teams the following day. But if you start with between 80 and 128 teams then you get down to 64 after the first day. I know, people will object to any plan including that one (probably on the basis of having three-ways on the second day, something that doesn't bother me at all). But seriously, 43 byes and an entire day to eliminate 7 teams?

Of course the majority like what was done. Tons of byes for the better teams and tons of making the second day for the worse teams. I don't find any of those situations particularly desirable, but there is no doubt they would be popular among the players. I mean, if 65 teams enter are we going to give 61 byes and eliminate 1 team?

[Stephen Tu]

I think it's perfectly fine like this. Just think of the first day as the qualifying tournament for the real event main draw like they do in tennis grand slams. Just like tennis you have "lucky losers" also, people who lose a match but get in later.

If there are 65 teams maybe you have a single play-in match like they do for NCAA March Madness, the time is right for that anyway

[TimG]

Another option is to return to the days of Swiss and/or round robin qualifying for the first X days before the KO stage. (I am aware that there is strong sentiment in favor of keeping the Vanderbilt and Spingold as straight KOs, but I thought I'd mention it.)

As someone who would get one of the very last seeds if I entered the Vanderbilt, I would not be upset to miss the opportunity of a full day match against one of the top seeds in favor of a full day (or two) of play against a variety of good teams.

It seems very strange to me to enter an even that starts on Sunday only to find that I won't be playing until Monday (as happened to over half the field in this year's Vanderbilt).

[PeterGill]

1 Nickell
2 Cayne
3. Strul
52. Zhuang
12. Diamond
36. l'Ecuyer
7. Meltzer
8. O'Rourke

Best early matches:
R32: 52 Zhuang (despite Fu-Jack being taken by another team) versus anyone
R16: O'Rourke - Rosenthal
Matches involving 12 Diamond, 28 Ivatury or Seed 5

John Diamond also came 2nd in the LM Pairs in Boston 3 months ago.
My best friend asked me a few months ago what happened to Diamond - Platinick, the "gun pair" of the USA team which won the 1991 World Junior Championship.

Gromova and Ponomareva of Team Gromov anchored Russia to win the World Women's Chmpionship a few years ago, but the Vanderbilt is much tougher.

Peter Gill
Australia

[bid_em_up]

Does anyone have the bracket layout handy? (ie team #1 vs #?, team 2 vs. ?, etc)

With the seeds alerady filled in, where possible?

thanks.

[kfay]

fred, on Mar 15 2009, 09:20 PM, said:

World Junior Championships in 1991

ANN ARBOR!!! W00T!

[Gerben42]

Quote

Does anyone have the bracket layout handy? (ie team #1 vs #?, team 2 vs. ?, etc)

It's very simple. For the round-of-N, two teams meet whose sum is N+1. For example for the round of 32, if two team numbers add up to 33, they meet, the horror example being of course 5 vs 28 (my pick for the Round-of-32).

[keylime]

I'll just predict the final three matches.

Gromov's team has three pairings that I think can go the distance. No weak links in that lineup.

Nickell: What else needs to be said.

I am pulling for Rubin and Sabine of course (it's a canape thing).

Mahaffey, the Chinese women's team, Uday's squad: dark horses

Fred's team: I know of John's bridge skill; that pair is going to show up some folks. I think at least a quarterfinal appearance.

I'd in for Gromov vs. Nickell. Semis of Nickell vs. Uday , and Gromov vs. Rubin.

Winner: Nickell, in a very closely played affair. 104-90.

[kfay]

I'm going with:

1) Nickell
2) Cayne
3) Strul
4) (13) Mahaffey (Shoot... didn't see they were going up against the Blanchards in Rd 1)
5) (12) Diamond
6) (11) Schwartz
7) (10) Gromov
8) (25) Rosenthal

Final Four:

1) Nickell (finally back in form... if you can call it 'finally' or 'back in form')
2) Gromov
3) Schwartz
4) Diamond

Finals:

Nickell over Schwartz, and it's not close... 190 to 105

All this tournament talk has me geared up for March Madness!! Where the Maize and Blue will be making a comeback after giving the country a decade off. GO BLUE!

[barmar]

Anyone have an idea why there are so few entrants? Last summer's Spingold had over 100 entrants, despite the fact that there are two concurrent Mini-Spingolds that draw away most of the teams with no chance.

[jdonn]

barmar, on Mar 16 2009, 02:04 PM, said:

Anyone have an idea why there are so few entrants?  Last summer's Spingold had over 100 entrants, despite the fact that there are two concurrent Mini-Spingolds that draw away most of the teams with no chance.

It's the summer.....

By comparison, the last few Vanderbilts had 75, 82, and 72 teams, and the economy is likely making things a little worse, at least perhaps as far as some of the non-expert teams for whom entering is a luxury.

[keylime]

In DC for the Spingold, I am practically certain there will be a larger pool - there's going to be some local teams that do well in that. Hopefully a team with a certain fruit is amongst them.

[Phil]

I like the top 3.

4-11 have a lot of good players but untested partnerships.

12 through about 20 (with a few exceptions) are scary good.

My dark horses are:

#31 - Kodayam who has gone deep recently.
#34 - Hollman who deserves a higher seed IMO.

My final is Strul beating Nickell.

[mike777]

ok pls stop...just post who has top 8.