A taste of the future

November 21st, 2008  ~  Ray Lee  ~  No Comments 

I’ve been working for the last week or two on a book that we’ll be publishing next year, a collection of declarer play problems from Patrick Jourdain.  Patrick is well-known in Europe, but not as familiar a name to North American readers.  While he has represented his native Wales internationally, he is best known as a bridge journalist.  He is currently president of the IBPA and bridge correspondent for the London Daily Telegraph, as well as a regular in the press room at European and World events.  Since 1990, Patrick has contributed a monthly ‘Problem Corner’ to England’s BRIDGE Magazine, and it is from these articles that the contents of our book are selected.

Here’s a sample, just to whet your appetite:

♠	A K			♠	J 10 3
♥	2			♥	A Q J 10 9
♦	J 7 6 5 3 2			♦	Q 10 9
♣	A K Q 2			♣	5 3

How should West play 3NT on a low spade lead?

I’ll post the solution in a couple of days.

A learning experience

November 10th, 2008  ~  Ray Lee  ~  2 Comments 

Back in January, I posted part of an editorial from Australian Bridge by Paul Marston where he talked about his experiences playing in an NABC tournament in the USA.  He listed some of things he liked, and some of the things that he felt could stand improvement.  Having just spent a delightful 10 days in Sydney, Australia, one weekend of which was at the Spring Nationals there, I am now in a position to return the favour.

My overall impression of playing bridge in Oz was how friendly everyone was.  Part of that was engendered by the format (Swiss Pairs, playing 10 boards against each set of opponents), where we had time to chat.  But I’ve played many long team games here where barely even a ‘Hello’ was exchanged.    Nowhere was this relaxed atmosphere more evident than in the technical aspects of the event: alerts, explanations, and rulings.   The ABF is fairly permissive when it comes to conventions; we didn’t come across anyone playing forcing pass (not because it’s illegal, but because it’s outmoded), but we did, for example, encounter many flavours of two-bids that couldn’t be played even in the Spingold Final here.  No-one knew their alerting rules any better than anyone does here, so basically you alerted anything you thought the opponents should know about, and that was fine.  I was never afraid that I would be penalized for alerting a non-alertable bid, as has happened to me here. There were no silly announced bids, and no requirement to tell the opponents your notrump range every time you opened 1NT.  Stayman was categorically never an alert, whatever its nature or implications.  In other words, there was an assumption that both pairs knew something about bridge, and had a responsibility to understand some of the basic implications of the opposition bidding.  And of course, you were still entitled to ask questions at your turn.

We had two incidents which would probably have ended in committees in a N. American tournament.  One, which Linda has described elsewhere, occurred when I did not see her takeout double and thought I was passing out a partscore.  When I discovered that I had passed out a doubled partscore, my reaction made it clear to everyone that I was horrified (yes, I know it shouldn’t have, but it’s tough to maintain a poker face under those circumstances).  However, instead of recording some large minus number ending in 70, we actually scored up +500 due to a very lucky lie of the cards.  I just know that over here, the opponents would have screamed blue murder about UI affecting my partner’s defense, and it would have got very ugly.  The other situation involved a hesitation by an opponent and a completely ludicrous action by his partner subsequently.  After the director arrived, everyone agreed the facts amicably, accepted the ruling in our favour calmly, and we actually ended up having lunch with the opposing pair, a very nice retired couple.  Again, I am certain that here, there would have been a initial dispute over whether there had been a hesitation, and the final ruling would have been appealed.

It’s always been my feeling that part of the litigation problem in N. America is the large number of weak pro-client pairs, where the pro has to try to gain any edge he (usually it is a he, but not always) can to win his client a few points and ensure another payday.  Yet in Sydney, there were also a surprisingly large number of such pairs, and it didn’t seem to poison the atmosphere.

For me, it was a throwback to the days when I used to enjoy playing in tournaments, which alas are now long gone.  Another throwback was the non-proliferation of events — they basically run one at a time.  Remember those days here?  You went to a Sectional or Regional, and Saturday was the Open Pairs (or the one-session side games)?  The Sydney tournament started off with the Open teams, then came the Swiss Pairs, then the Senior and Women’s teams ran concurrently.  And while they like to have your entry in advance, they were able to accommodate Tom and Jenni Carmichael, who showed up unexpectedly for the Pairs event (right off the plan from Atlanta!), by the simple expedient of having an ‘house pair’, who would play or not as necessary to eliminate a half-table.

I’m sure there are all sorts of reasons why bridge can’t be this way over here again, but it doesn’t stop me feeling nostalgic.  However, let’s move on to something that we can and should do here, which is make much more and better use of technology.  What happened in Sydney is routine in tournaments there.  First, the pairings for each round of the Swiss Pairs were posted electronically, via a projector screen (in much the same way that the WBF uses TV screens at world events).  But the major thing was that immediately after each session, the hand records, board-by-board results and scores were available on the internet.  So not only could people around the world follow the event closely, but we could look at them in detail ourselves when we got home that night.  We didn’t have to hang around to stand by a dot-matrix printout, writing down our matchpoints, and trying to figure out what others did on each board from a raw score.  We could look at every contract and result throughout the room.  Now, how hard can this be to do?  The scoring is all done by PC, the deals are computer-generated, so all the data is there — it just has to be interfaced to the internet and uploaded promptly.  Oh yes — every tournament there uses pre-duplicated boards, even for large team events.  So not only are the same boards played across the field, the players aren’t making them up for the first 10 minutes of the game.

Now I know that N. American tournaments are an order of magnitude larger than those in Australia (at least some of them are — their Summer NOT event will draw between 400 and 600 teams), but I don’t think there’s anything I’ve just suggested here that couldn’t be done pretty easily.  And think how much it would add everyone’s enjoyment.

I do think the ACBL is very good at running tournaments — but there no reason it can’t get even better!

Why women lose at bridge

November 6th, 2008  ~  Ray Lee  ~  4 Comments 

For a feminine perspective on this same topic, go to linda.bridgeblogging.com.

Mmm.. I can feel the hackles of half my readers rising from the title alone. But bear with me – this is intended to be an objective discussion. And the title isn’t even mine – it was written by an ardent feminist.

On our recent trip to Australia, I took the opportunity to visit Paul Lavings’ treasure trove of old bridge books (Postfree Books), and came away with several nice additions to my collection. One of them was a book with the same title as this article, written in 1985 by Joyce Nicholson (who, I discovered while reading her book, used to be a bridge client of Paul’s – small world!).

Nicholson, who became both a fervent feminist and a keen bridge player in middle age, and seeing no reason why either gender should outperform the other when no physical factors are apparently involved, set about some research a little over 20 years ago on this sensitive topic. She had observed, as many have, that while there are some fine individual woman bridge players, at the very top of the competitive game the bridge world is totally male. She also found it curious that separate women’s events existed in a mind sport, and she wondered whether in the long run that was a good thing.

So far, so good. She lays out the state of affairs accurately – and indeed, the situation is not very different today, a generation later. The remainder of the book is devoted to examining the results of her research, which unfortunately was sociological rather than scientific. What she did was to distribute detailed questionnaires on the subject to the members of the IBPA – the International Press Association – a group of a couple of hundred or so which consists mostly of expert-level players who spend their time observing and writing about the game. She reasoned that their opinions on the matter would be useful and meaningful.

This may be true – but the quarrel I have with her is that they remain opinions. In other words, the survey doesn’t answer the question posed in the title, it tells what bridge journalists think is the answer – a very different kettle of fish. In addition, 75% of her respondents were men, and 25% women, adding a further skew to the sample. In the end, we get no great new insights, simply a range of replies scattered among the usual theories:

1. Men are more aggressive
2. Men are more competitive and ambitious
3. Men concentrate more
4. Men have more opportunities
5. Men are more logical and women too emotional

In her autobiography, I Love this Game, world #1 bridge player Sabine Auken suggests the problem relates to multi-tasking. She thinks women do that better than men, while men are demonstrably more focused and single-minded – a refinement of #3, perhaps. Some of these replies offend Nicholson (especially #5), and she spends some time trying to debunk those. In the end, her attitude is ‘So what?’ — since in the final analysis her aim is to prove that women’s inability to crack the top echelons of bridge has nothing to do with inferior mental capacity, but is the result of nurture and societal pressures.

Now while she may be absolutely right about this (remember, her survey simply collected opinions, and has no scientific validity in terms of proving or disproving anything), it is a topic I’ve given a lot of thought to over the years. I’ve lived for more than 36 years with an exceptional bridge player, and partnered her on many, many occasions. So I know that women as individuals can play bridge very well. This one can certainly play bridge better than I can. There are other mental pursuits that she can perform better than me – but there are also a number where I outshine her. Do we approach problems differently? I think so, and Sabine would seem to agree.

Let me digress slightly to a related topic, which I think is relevant. Ask any parent, and they will tell you that a child’s personality has more to do with nature than nurture. Children growing up in the same household, in more or less the same environment, show enormously disparate attitudes, personalities and even abilities in different endeavours. Any parent who has had both sons and daughters will also tell you that they are different from the outset – however much society may influence or enhance these differences, they are there from the very beginning. In other words, coming back to topic, I do not personally believe that women are differently-shaped men. It may not be politically correct to say so, but I see no reason that there should not be differences in mental abilities between the sexes, whereby women can turn out to be better at some things than men, and vice versa.

I also thought about all this recently while I was watching a documentary called Word Wars, which is about competitive Scrabble players — turns out all the top players of that game are men too. Now, you might argue that women have too much sense to want to memorize thousands of 2, 3, 7 and 8-letter words, and I wouldn’t quarrel with you. On the other hand, it might be a parallel example to bridge. Moving to another mind sport, it’s been a while since I watched Wordplay, the documentary about crossword-solving tournaments, but one of the US National Champions featured was a woman, Ellen Ripstein – I’ll come back to that point, because I think it’s illuminating. However, while the situation has changed somewhat over the last 30 years or so, women historically have never been able to compete at the top in chess either – the Polgar sisters are perhaps a freak of nature, rather than illustrative of a general trend.

Now, when you poll women bridge players about the existence of separate women’s events, they are all for them. After all, they say, we would have no chance in Open competition, and so never to get to represent our country in (separate) world events and take all these great trips and (for some) earn our fees from sponsors. But I see this as simple cowardice, and the father (or mother) of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Let’s look a player in any sport – how do they improve? Simple—they take on tougher opponents, learning from them and learning how to beat them. The player who says to himself or herself, ‘I’m only a C tennis player, I’ll stay here and beat the other C players because the A and B players are too tough,’ is doomed to remain a C player for ever. And that, in my view, is what women’s bridge does to women.

Chess has gone the same route, and despite the fact that, as in bridge, there are vast numbers of female players, very few have ever been regarded as being in the top echelons of the game. But if I remember rightly, the competitive crossword tournaments are open – discrimination is only by ability level – and there have definitely been women champions.

Either women are equally capable at any mind sport, and all competitions should be open to everyone, or they’re not, and need to be protected, and therefore there should be separate events. I don’t think you can have it both ways.

world mind sports games – women’s bridge quarterfinal preview

October 12th, 2008  ~  Ray Lee  ~  No Comments 

I wonder what I could get for a slightly used crystal ball on eBay?  I got only 5 results right out of the 8 round of 16 matches in the Women’s event, correctly calling Germany, China, USA, England and Russia to make the quarterfinals.  However, I thought Poland would get closer to China than the 136-IMP final margin, and suggested Spain might even be able to upset the USA (they lost by 88).  I did say that France-Sweden would be close, but my prediction of a mild upset for Sweden did not come to pass (France won by 18).  Likewise Group winner Finland fell by 18 IMPs to Turkey.  The biggest upset, however, was the very experienced Dutch team going out to Denmark.  I thought this one would be tight too, but I thought the Dutch, who had all been there before many times, would pull it out.  Denmark prevailed by 12 IMPs, however.

In the quarters, Germany seem to be still firing on all cylinders, and I’m taking them to get past China, overcoming home field advantage.  Auken and von Arnim on form (which they appear to be right now) are the best women’s pair in the world, and are quite capable of carrying the team to a gold medal.  I was impressed with the Danish women’s performance against the Netherlands, and I think they can take the USA — especially since as usual the US team is carrying a client.  I’m also a little worried by England’s giving up 122 IMPs against Singapore.  If they do that tonight, they won’t be playing tomorrow, I would venture.  I think England-France will be a very close match, but Nicola Smith and Sally Brock seem also to be in top form at this event, and I’m going to pick them to go through.  Russia-Turkey is a match between two teams that can never be counted out, but Turkey gave up more IMPs than any other team that won in this round, and I would think that Russia will emerge the winners.

I watched the first quarter of the Round of 16 match between Denmark and the Netherlands, a set that saw the Danes end 19 IMPs ahead. The remaining quarters were very tight, and the match was essentially decided by those first 14 boards.  It was hard to tell that from the first deal, however, where the Dutch got to a nice slam that very few pairs in any of the events reached.

North   S  Q65  H AKQ92   D K982  C 2

South  S AKJ1072  H 1053  D A6  C J9

The Danish auction was simple:  1H-1S; 2D-4H.  Not a sniff at slam.  Compare the Dutch auction, where after an opening 1H Bep Vriend treated the South hand a strong jump shift (perhaps one of the few pairs to be playing them!).  So after 1H-2S; 3S-4D it was Carla Arnolds with the North hand who launched into Keycard and simply bid 6S.  Perhaps the Dutch pair play the jump shift as showing a self-sufficient suit and/or a heart fit – that would certainly help North picture the South hand very well.  Then once she hears a diamond cuebid, it’s off to the races.

So first blood went to the Dutch, but 3 boards later their opponents pushed their own noses in front — for good, as it turned out — with a pretty piece of defence.  Stense Farholt held, as East:

S 6  H A874  D Q953  C  9543

and heard the auction 1NT (on her right) – 2H (transfer); 2S – 3H; 4S all pass.  What would you lead?

Farholt found the winning lead of a low heart.  This could work two ways — declarer could misguess with KJ in dummy, or partner might hold a spade entry and a side winner.  The latter was close to the actual case — partner had a doubleton heart, and both minor-suit aces.  North held KQJ tight of spades, and with the suit breaking 4-1 declarer had to let the opponents in when trying to return to hand to draw a fourth round of trumps. The defense were able to score three aces and a heart ruff.  In the other room, the Danish pair were playing weak notrumps, so the auction was different:  1D- 1S;  1NT – 2D (checkback); 2S – 4S.   West was on lead here, and had no particular reason to lead her doubleton heart.  After the trump lead, this declarer had an easy time.  A well-deserved swing.

The other deal that impressed me was the following, which illustrates some of the nice judgment that is required in competitive auctions.

North  S  72  H AQJ852  D 2  C AJ75

West  S J954  H 3  D KJ6  C KQ642                               East  S A3  H 964  D AQ87543  C 9

South  S KQ1086  H K107  D 109  C 1083

With N-S vulnerableand West dealer, the closed room auction started pass-1H-3D.  I’m not a big fan of this call with two aces and seven diamonds, but Jet Pasman has been around a long time, and maybe she was trying to walk the dog a little opposite a passed partner.  South doubled, and Anneke Simons made a superbly judged pass.  You or I might leap to 5D with this hand, but there’s time for that later if you decide it’s right.  And from her hand, there may be no defense against the slam you might push the opponents into by bidding.   North had a problem now: overbid with 4C, or underbid with 3H?  She chose the latter, no doubt not wanting to hang a partner who had been placed under pressure by the 3D call.  Now it was South’s turn to evaluate her hand.  Despite the undisclosed heart fit, she decided she had done enough with the three-level double, and passed.  She may have feared wasted diamond values opposite, and certainly expected two quick losers there.  So the Danish pair found themselves playing partscore when a vulnerable game was an easy make — although the par 5D save would be down only one, and would actually make without a spade lead or early spade shift.

The Open Room auction started differently: pass-1H-4D, a call on the East hand I like much better than 3D.  South might still have made a negative double, but why bother? — as Marty Bergen used to say ‘Support with support.’  Bep Vriend bid a simple 4H.  With the heart fit established, Maria Rahelt raised to 5D and put Carla Arnolds to the question.  With a singleton diamond, aces and an extra heart it is easy to see why she decided to bid on to 5H — indeed, she didn’t think very long about it at all.   This was passed out, and the defense had no trouble collecting their three tricks.  So aggressive bidding in both rooms, and 7 IMPs to Denmark as a result.

The Danish women won this match the old-fashioned way — they earned it.  If they play the same way against the USA, they may well earn a win there too.

Thanks Stacy

October 10th, 2008  ~  Ray Lee  ~  2 Comments 

There’s an old saying that the exception proves the rule.  Stacy Jacobs  http://stacyjacobs.com/2008/10/10/tgif/ and I continue to spar about whether playing sponsors are world-class players, and she comments today that Nick Nickell placed highest in the WMSG Open Butler of the 3 US pairs (well, ahem, of course there are other possible explanations for that, but we’ll overlook them), thereby, she seems to imply, disproving my point.

Well, Stacy, if you actually read what I wrote on either occasion that I talked about this subject, I said that the sponsors usually weren’t bad players, just that they were rarely world-class players.  Nick is an exception, and I can think of one other I would put in that category (so I suspect can Stacy, but we may not agree on the name…).  In her recent post on judy.bridgeblogging.com in my support, Judy Kay-Wolff (who is in a position to know, at least vicariously) talks about a sponsor who is an exception, without naming names — but if you didn’t guess, it was Nick she was referring to.

So no, Stacy, naming one of the very few exceptions doesn’t make your case, it makes mine — do you want to swap lists of non-world-class playing sponsors, or shall we leave it there and stay away from libel suits?

world mind sports games — women’s round 15 match

October 10th, 2008  ~  Ray Lee  ~  1 Comment 

China and Denmark, respectively first and fourth in Group F when the round began, faced each other in Round 15.  China probably felt comfortable as far as qualifying went, but they had a tough final day, and certainly couldn’t afford to lose blitzes.  Denmark were going to have to play Scotland and France in their last two matches, so it was critical that they pick up some VPs here.

After an uneventful first board, the second deal produced a small swing to China.  The BBO records are incomplete, so we can only guess at the auctions.  Just as well, perhaps.  The Chinese N-S pair subsided in a normal-looking 2H down one, while the Danes climbed all the way to 4S, with a paucity of high cards and a tenuous 4-3 fit.   Three down vulnerable (no double, no trouble) left China ahead by 6.  They added to it swiftly on the very next deal.

West       S QJ62  H 105  D AQ2  C AKQ2            East   S  AK105  H AK9862  D J54  C —

The Danes took seven rounds of bidding to get to the inferior slam: 6H.  The Chinese Precision auction allowed East to describe a major 2-suiter with longer hearts, and they took one round fewer to get to the spade grand.  With both majors breaking 3-2, the play presented no problems.

An overtrick on the next deal added an IMP to the lead, and then came Board 5.  Tina Ege for Denmark held

S 87 H  AK876  D J97   C 1063

RHO opened 1NT (13-15) red on white, and after two passes her partner balanced with 2C, showing majors.  After another pass, what do you do?  She contented herself with 2H, and the auction ended there.  West had

S AKJ52  H J1092  D K84  C 5

The HQ was stiff onside (in fact it was led), and the SQ, although offside as expected, was doubleton, so declarer had no trouble arriving at 10 tricks.  The auction in the other room is unrecorded, but we can hazard that it began with 1C from North and a 1H overcall by East.  South may have raised clubs preemptively (she had KJxx and not much else, along with the stiff HQ), but whether voluntarily or under pressure, the Chinese pair bid to 4H.  This time the lead was a diamond, but two diamonds and a club is the limit for the defense, so add 6 more to the lead, and China is ahead by 26.

In these situations, it’s important to get on the scoreboard at least, and Denmark did that on the next deal — competing to 3C and making an overtrick, while their counterparts were selling out to 2D and beating it two, undoubled.  Just 1 IMP, but a start at least.

On the next deal, Sun Ming picked up as dealer S QJ  H AJ109876 D 6  CAQ10, everyone white.  Well, are you a (wo)man or a mouse?  This must be the Year of the Mouse, for she opened a simple 1H.  The auction continued 1S-pass-2H, and she rebid 3H.  North bid 3S, and East, holding S 1052  H 3  D A10742  C K765 still could not be persuaded to produce anything but a green card.  West was done, and 3S quietly drifted down 2. I would have thought after an initial pass East’s hand is worth a double, even if she felt 4H on a singleton was a bit rich.  Sometimes, though, forcing club players get mesmerized by the thought that partner is limited…

The Danish mouse, I mean player, who held these cards also opened at the one level, but this time over 1S she heard her partner double.  Shedding her fur coat, she leapt to 4H over South’s 2S raise, and a fortuitous trump position (stiff king onside this time) made ten tricks fairly routine (don’t you love those heart spots?).  Denmark had stemmed the tide somewhat, and now trailed 26-9.

The next few deals produced little to note, an IMP changing hands here and there, but there was one last sting in the tail left for Denmark.  Again, it was the East-West players who were featured.

West   S  AK2   H 9   D K764   C Q9753                East  Q643    H KQ8   D Q1095   C AJ

It was Professor Silver who mused some years ago, “Why do they call it ‘duplicate’ bridge when the same thing so rarely happens at both tables?”  This surely looks to be a flat board — but no.  The Danes bid to a routine 3NT:  1D – 2C; 2NT – 3NT.  South led a spade, declarer set up clubs (which were conveniently 3-3) and made a trick in each red suit for ten altogether.

At the other table, East opened 1NT (13-15), and now technology reared its ugly head.  Either Ming was unhappy about playing notrump with a stiff heart, or she had visions of a minor-suit slam.  Anyway, for whatever reason, she had a gadget and she used it: 3H, showing a 4-1-4-4 hand with heart shortness.  Partner, who might have saved her with a clairvoyant retreat to 3NT, forgivably raised spades (who knew, maybe there was a slam there?).  And when spades failed to be as friendly as clubs, the declarer had to lose one trick in each suit, along with 10 IMPs.

Now to be fair, this is a tough hand to be opposite a (weakish) notrump opening.  Give East AQJx of diamonds and three small hearts, and six diamonds is on a finesse while they cash out hearts to beat 3NT.  The trick somehow is to construct an auction that will let partner decide that her hearts are good enough to play 3NT opposite a stiff, which isn’t easy.  For example, forcing Stayman will almost certainly get you to 4S or 5D, while minor-suit Stayman will liely get you to 5D too: 1NT-2D; 2S (denying four hearts) – 2NT; 3D and now what should West do?  Perhaps 3H should be enquiring, but I don’t have any agreements on that sequence… maybe partner would think it was a heart card or even a slam probe in diamonds.    Ming actually did have Minor-suit Stayman available — so perhaps she just had a club in with her spades!

The final score was 29-23 China — a result that probably pleased both captains, who were nicely on their way to the KO stages.

world mind sports games — women’s round robin wrap-up

October 10th, 2008  ~  Ray Lee  ~  No Comments 

Phew — 17 rounds done, and the field is reduced to 16.  How did I do on my predictions, both before the event and the ones that should have been easier, after Round 14?

Group E finished England, USA, Poland, Italy, Brazil.   This one was close to my forecast, but I had Egypt originally instead of Poland.  The Egyptian anchor pair ran into trouble, and they ended up playing in different partnerships — rarely a formula for success in these things.   I managed to get this one right with 3 rounds to play.

Group F was the toughie, with all the top teams playing each other pretty much.  The final standings were Finland, Russia, France, China, Denmark, and Spain the lucky top 6th.  My first picks for this group were France, China, Spain, Denmark and Russia, but I although I gave Finalnd a mention, I didn’t think they would be close to winning the group, so I take no credit there.  Wednesday night I correctly called the top six, but not in the right order.  And I did say the 16th qualifier would come from this group.

Group G finished Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Turkey, Singapore.  I had this one right from the start, with the exception of calling New Zealand instead of Singapore.  Indeed, as late as Wednesday, I still didn’t think Singapore would make it ahead of Hungary.  A big loss to Barbados killed Hungary, while Singapore blitzed Mexico to qualify comfortably.

There are several matches in the Round of 16 that are very tough to call.   If we concede Germany (over Brazil) and England (over Singapore) each a place in the next round, we get to some much closer matches.  Poland-China will I think go to China, but not without a struggle.  Likewise USA-Spain could be an upset, but in the end I think the Americans will just make it through.  France-Sweden is a close call, and I’m going to go for Sweden — Cat Midskog has one medal already, so why not another?   Finland is an in-form team right now, and I have to believe they will dispose of Turkey.  Russia is a team that started slowly, as they did in Istanbul, and finished strong, so I’ll take them to beat Italy.  Finally, Netherlands-Denmark will be close, but the Dutch ladies are a very experienced squad, and I think they’ll emrge on top.  So — going for the overdogs with the exception of Sweden; if you are looking for other potential upsets, take Poland over China and Spain over the USA.

Now for a look at the Canadian team, and some evaluation of their results.  To be honest, looking at the team we sent (only two of whom had played at this level before, and neither of those very much) I didn’t expect a much better finish, and said so in one of my earlier posts.  Even given that, though, it’s hard not to be somewhat disappointed.  This is a team that got drawn in the easiest of the three sections — 6 teams out of the 18 finished at 201 VPs or under.  Yet we couldn’t break into the top half of the field.  It didn’t actually matter much whether we played good or bad teams: we averaged 14 VPs against the top 9, and just over 16.6 against the bottom 8.  The collapse on the final day was disheartening too — 36 VPs against lower half of the table opponents when we were at least in remote contention for a playoff berth.   Yes, it turned out that we would have needed 298 to qualify, but that wsn’t impossible; however, once we got blitzed by the Philippines in Round 15, it was all over.

It was all eerily reminiscent of four years ago in Istanbul.  In 2004, again the Olympiad team had scored an upset victory in the CWTC by a narrow margin over much more experienced (and at least on paper, much stronger) opposition.  Again, they struggled in the round robin, played inconsistently, and finished just below half way.  I’m not going to repeat the views I expressed after last year’s Venice Cup on how we select wonen’s teams.  But I will say that if my methodology had been followed, we’d have fielded a team this year that, looking around this event, would have had an excellent chance of bringing home a medal.  And it’s possible that team would have been stronger than any of those who contested the 2008 CWTC in Montreal.  But being Canadians, we probably want to continue to be egalitarian in our qualification procedure, and accept 10th in group as a reasonable finish.

It’s worth a quick look at the Butler to see how our individual pairs performed.  I’m not a great believer in absolute Butler scores, because these depend on the opposition you face among other things, but they do give you a good indicator of gross trends.  Clearly Fung-Culham turned the best results, with Nesbit-Cumpstone in the middle, and Lacroix-Gaudreault somewhere down the track.  Our top two pairs faced more of the top teams than Lacroix-Gaudreault, so that was not a factor.  Fung-Culham’s Butler was inflated by two or three very big scores against tailenders, but overall they had plus scores in 7 out of 11 matches.  Nesbit-Cumpstone played the toughest schedule, by a hair, and recorded 5 out of 12 plus sessions.  Lacroix-Gaudreault, with the easiest set of opponents, managed only 4 plus sessions out of 11.

Undoubtedly it will be ‘all-change’ for CWTC teams make-up in 2009, as it is almost every year.  Let’s see if someone can’t come up with a group that will go to Brazil with a serious chance at a medal for once.

world mind sports games — women’s bridge — the final push

October 9th, 2008  ~  Ray Lee  ~  2 Comments 

As we come to the end of the Yom Kippur pause in the competition, I thought I’d try to analyze the Women’s event as it stands after 14 rounds.  Tonight (Eastern time) the teams wll play the final 3 rounds of the Round Robin, and the 16 qualifiers wil be determined.  Let’s take a look at who those are likely to be.

In Group E we can concede the top two spots to England and USA, while Italy have no-one left to play who is currently in the top half of the table.  They should have no trouble picking up the 50-odd VPs that it will take to make the next round.  The remaining two spots will go to two out of Brazil, Poland and Japan, none of which has a straightforward last day.  All play tailenders, with the following exceptions:  Brazil has to play England, Japan faces off against USA, and Poland and Japan play one another.  So Poland has the easiest time and Japan the hardest.  Their current scores are Poland 243, Japan 242 and Brazil 232.  You would have to rate Poland as favourites to make it, but Japan will have to get some points out of two tough matches; if they get beaten badly by Poland, for example, they may find themselves finishing 6th.  Sixth place in this group is unlikely to be much above 290, and may be as low as 280 (this will be significant later).

Group F is much less clear, partly because China has come back to the pack somewhat (although still leading) and partly because some of the top teams spend the next three rounds playing one another.  China, for example, faces Denmark(4), France (3) and finally Finland (2).   However, I can’t see them getting fewer than 40 VPs, which at worst will see them finish with 308.  Finland have Australia (10) and Serbia (14) as well as China, and should end up with a similar total in the 305 range, say.  France have got steadily better in the last week, but they have a tough finish against Australia, China and Denmark; 300 may be their limit.  Denmark face China, France and Scotland (7), and will do well to finish much above 292.   Defending champions Russia are currently tied for 5th, but have a really easy schedule against Kenya, Serbia and Philippines.   I would expect them to pick up somewhere around 60 VPs and finish close to China and Finland in the 305-310 range.   Spain similarly should be on cruise control against India, Bermuda, and Estonia, and 60+ VPs there will see them joining the leaders in the 305-310 bracket.   Scotland play Denmark, Venezuela and Estonia, so will do well to finish much above 290 VPs.  Likewise Australia have to play France, Finland and Canada, and probably will not break 275.  Venezuela get Indonesia, Estonia and Scotland potentially 60 VPs, and about 288 total.  So let’s look at where that leaves us, and how Canada might fare as a result:

China 308, Russia 308, Finland 305, France 300, Denmark 292,  Scotland 290, Venezuela 288, Australia 275

Canada starts Round 15 at 227 and finishes against Philippines, Serbia and Australia.  Clearly, they need some big scores to have any chance, but they’re not out of it.  Averaging 21VPs per match takes them to 290, which in some scenarios might just grab 5th (but isn’t likely to).  So let’s give them an optimistic 291 and see where that leaves us.

Germany is far ahead of Group F that they could actually default their last three matches and still be in the top five.  What they will certainly do is rest their anchor pair of Auken and von Arnim before the playoffs, although with today off that’s less important than usual.  It would take a cataclysm to knock the Netherlands out of a Q spot too, so the two places are spoken for in this group already.  Turkey get to play the Netherlands, as well as Greece and Korea, so 290 is a reasonable prediction for their finish.  Sweden face the German juggernaut plus Jamaica and Morocco; we’ll give them 55 VPs for a 288 finish.  Hungary have Ireland, Barbados and Netherlands — another 60 VP prediction, and a 288 total.  Morocco have been sliding down the table, and with Sweden, Mexico and Singapore today will drop further.  I would think 265-270 would be their limit.  South Africa have Greece, Taipei and Germany, so are another team unlikely to get more than about 45 more — that will give them 266.

So here’s how that all shakes out:  Germany (1), Netherlands (2), Turkey 290, Sweden 288, Hungary 288, and the rest don’t count.  Sixth place in this group will be well below the scores in the other two.

I’ve thought form the beginning that 290 was the Q-score in any group, and it looks as though that will turn out to be true.  It’s going to be very tight for 5th and 6th in both groups E and F, and who gets through, both within the group and as best 6th, will be a matter of very few VPs.  Canada has done well to pull themselves back into at least having a chance with two good wins yesterday.  Now they need three more to make it interesting — if they can get to my 291 score, they well squeak through to the last 16.  Should be exciting tonight — wish I could stay up to watch

World Mind Sports Games — Women’s Bridge Day 4

October 7th, 2008  ~  Ray Lee  ~  1 Comment 

I was hoping to bring you a write-up of yesterday’s USA-Egypt contest this morning, but unfortunately BBO lost the feed from one of the tables, so that’s not possible.  So this blog will just be a round-up of the standings after 4 days, with 12 out of 17 rounds complete.

Group E finds England well on top with 254 VPs to date, and USA a comfortable second at 236.  Italy, Poland and Japan currently occupy the other three Q-spots, with scores ranging from 209 to 205.  The chase pack is headed by Brazil (196) , and includes Norway (191), Belarus (184) and Hong Kong (180).  I don’t give any team lower than that any realistic chance of getting past this stage of the contest.  Remember that as always, the VP scale starts at 15-15, and maxes at 25 for the winning team, while the loser can get as few as 0.  However, it’s a tough scale to score big on, over 16 boards, so if you get too far behind in the VP table it’s hard to catch up.  This is especially true since most teams will pick up 10-15 VP’s even in a losing cause. My original picks from this group were USA, England, Italy along with Brazil and Egypt, with Japan and HK mentioned as possibles.  So far so good, other than Egypt who are clearly going to finish somewhere in the middle.

Group F is more competitive.  China leads with 243, as I expected.  They have done consistently well in WBF events over the last 6-8 years, and are always in contention at the late stages.  After that, Finland (221), Spain (220),  Denmark(219) and France (215) are scrambling for position, with Russia (208) just behind, and Scotland (197), Australia (192) and Indonesia (191.5) not completely out of it.   Canada picked up another 52 VPs yesterday and currently sit 11th, with 182 VPs.  With only 5 matches left, and a lot of teams to climb over, it looks as though a mid-table finish is the best they will do.  That was more or less what I expected — I guess I should have taken up Mike Yuen on his bet offer (see earlier comment)!  My picks out of this group were France, China, Spain, Denmark and Russia, so again not bad — I did give Finland a call, but honestly did not expect them to do this well.  The French team, although not the one we’re used to seeing, is clearly competitive although probably not really a medal shot, and Russia looks good to Q as the best 6th as of now.

Group F is also pretty close, once you get past the leaders (Germany 262 and Netherlands 223).  Third place Sweden have 205, and they are followed by Hungary (203), Morocco (!) 201, Singapore (198) and Turkey (195).  South Africa (189) are still in touch also, but there is a half-match gap after that, and the rest of the field is probably essentially playing for pride now.  This was a harder group to call, but I had predicted Germany, Netherlands and Sweden for the top 3 spots, with Turkey and New Zealand rounding out the qualifiers.  Certainly didn’t see Hungary doing this well, not to mention Morocco and Singapore, but this Olympiad-type event has so many teams, including some very weak ones, that there is always a surprise or two.  I have to say I thought NZ would do better.  They started very well in Shanghai, and then ran into a very bad patch which included getting blitzed by Canada (Pamela Nesbit was really quite pleased to be part of that, I remember!).  This was the same squad, and I thought they would be particularly suited to the ‘kill the pooches’ bridge which is so important in the round robin here — especially with the experience of Shanghai to build on.  What can I say? I was wrong.

There are two matches on Day 5 (tonight for North Americans), then the tournament goes into a one-day break for Yom Kippur, resuming Thursday night our time for the last 3 matches and the final push to the finish.  Tonight’s BBO feeds are supposed to include Spain-Russia and Poland England, so if all goes well I’ll bring you one of those tomorrow.  For night owls, the Canadian Senior team is due to be featured in the second BBO match at about 2.30 am.  Stay tuned.

World Mind Sports Games — women’s event Day 3

October 6th, 2008  ~  Ray Lee  ~  No Comments 

The data feed from Beijing is improving on the WBF site, although we still have no detailed play records.  Still, remote journalism is becoming a little easier!

The Women’s event is now just over half way through the round robin, with 9 of 17 rounds complete.  Time to see how the groups are shaping up.  Remember, the top 5 from each group qualify for the KO stages, along with the best 6th place team.

Group E sees England, USA and Italy looking comfortable in the top three spots, with Poland, Hong Kong, Japan and Brazil fighting for the fourth and fifth qualifying places.  These seven are half a match or more clear of the rest.  No real surprises — I even warned readers that Hong Kong might prove to be a contender…

Spain, China and Finland continue to lead Group F; France and the surprising Philippines are a little back, essentially tied for fourth, while you could throw a blanket over Russia, Denmark, Venezuela, Australia and Scotland half a match further back.  Canada made some progress up the table, but yesterday’s haul of 54 VPs was in my estimation at least 10 short of what they needed from a day against relatively weak opposition.   There are a lot of teams ahead of them, and with Spain and Venezuela on the menu for today, it’s time to come up big if they’re going to.  My team last year recovered from a slow start by beating good teams — the turning point was when we blitzed England and then beat Germany.  Now this year’s model is going to have to do much the same thing, but I’ll be surprised if they can do so.

Germany racked up 74 VPs out of 75 to take a firm group on Group G yesterday.   Sweden, Hungary, Singapore (!) and the Netherlands occupy the next 4 spots, and again, about a one-half match gap has opened up ahead of the next few teams.  New Zealand, who played so well in Shanghai last year and were one of my picks to make it through, continue to struggle, and are third last.

So the universe is (mostly) unfolding as it should, or at least as I predicted it to do.  Tonight (our time) will the fourth full day, and tomorrow night there are only 2 matches.  After that the WMSG takes a 1-day break for Yom Kippur, and resumes Thursday for the last 3 rounds, and the final scramble for playoff spots.  Stay tuned.