[DenisO]

Congratulations to all involved in giving us superb Vugraph coverage of the Camrose Trophy. Four table coverage of every session - and also using BBO for the onsite Vugraph. If a small Association like the CBAI (Contract Bridge Association of Ireland) can provide a show like this, you'd think it would be easy for ACBL and WBF with all their resources to do likewise.

Also a great website for the event with lots of pictures

http://www.norb.info/camrose.htm

Denis

[mrdct]

Yes, it's amazing what can be achieved with a decent internet connection and a little bit of planning and preparation.

I'm intrigued as to why screens aren't used. I must say, I find it hard to take an event seriously if screens aren't used. It makes it look more like a social get-together than a prestigious bridge event.

[Walddk]

Planning, well trained operators and a stable internet connection and you are bound to succeed. I couldn't agree more; our broadcast from Dublin was the best I have seen for a long time.

Congratulations to Norbert van Woerkom, Willem Mevius and the entire staff on site. Magnificent, nothing less!

Roland

[Walddk]

mrdct, on Jan 8 2006, 09:44 PM, said:

I'm intrigued as to why screens aren't used. I must say, I find it hard to take an event seriously if screens aren't used. It makes it look more like a social get-together than a prestigious bridge event.

It has been a tradition not to use screens after they were introduced in 1974. The matches between the 5 participating teams have always been regarded as "friendlies" with a congenial atmosphere at the table. The same applies to the Lady Milne Trophy (the equivalent event for women).

I agree with Dave Thompson in the sense that it's about time that they abandon that tradition and do what all others do in important international (and many national) events: use screens.

With this said, I don't think you should hold your breath for this to happen in Great Britain overnight

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

The Gold Cup semi & final also does not use screens.
One stated reason is that it makes it more attractive for kibitzers.

Having played quite a lot both with and without screens, I do not feel playing without them is a great loss for an event such as the Camrose which is primarily a friendly match, and which almost never has difficult TD rulings.

[joker_gib]

Playing with screens does not mean that the match is not friendly !

I always hear a lot of people (mainly those who never played with) saying that screens are anti-social ....

I strongly disagree with that and I much prefer to play with than without.

You are a lot more relax behind the screen and at least, you don't see all the grimaces of your partner ! LOL

Alain

[Gerben42]

My feeling is that those who say that screens are anti-social are those who have never played with screens. In my experience those who have say the opposite

[FrancesHinden]

I've played a lot with both.
Against good ethical partnerships I enjoy playing without screens more.

[mrdct]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 9 2006, 08:50 AM, said:

I've played a lot with both.
Against good ethical partnerships I enjoy playing without screens more.

It is much to better to reduce the volume of unauthorised information floating around than to put players under ethical pressure to evaluate their "logical alternatives"; regardless of how ethical your opponents are. There will always be grey areas with UI and screens eliminate a large portion of UI situations.

I generally find it far more relaxed with screens as you can do things behind the screen that would be quite awkward without screens for fear of passing unauthorised information to partner.

Playing with screens also allows you to engage in a level of social intercourse with your screenmate that would not be possible without screens. Screens also largely eliminate post-mortems making it much easier to move on to the next board after a bad hand.

[barmar]

mrdct, on Jan 9 2006, 04:57 PM, said:

Playing with screens also allows you to engage in a level of social intercourse with your screenmate that would not be possible without screens.

This could get very interesting in mixed pair events.

Oh, you said social intercourse!

[roghog]

Well, I suppose screens are good if you happen to have an ugly partner...

About the Camrose and Lady Milne. Having 5 teams is a real problem. At any time there are two head-to-heads, and the remaining team sits out. We really need to bring in a sixth team. The best suggestion I heard for the Lady Milne is to invite David Bird's nuns :-)




.

[Walddk]

roghog, on Jan 11 2006, 11:43 AM, said:

Well, I suppose screens are good if you happen to have an ugly partner...

About the Camrose and Lady Milne. Having 5 teams is a real problem. At any time there are two head-to-heads, and the remaining team sits out. We really need to bring in a sixth team. The best suggestion I heard for the Lady Milne is to invite David Bird's nuns :-)




.

And what's wrong with inviting The Abbot and his team for the Camrose?

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

roghog, on Jan 11 2006, 11:43 AM, said:

Well, I suppose screens are good if you happen to have an ugly partner...

About the Camrose and Lady Milne. Having 5 teams is a real problem. At any time there are two head-to-heads, and the remaining team sits out. We really need to bring in a sixth team. The best suggestion I heard for the Lady Milne is to invite David Bird's nuns :-)




.

The Camrose used to be played over more 5 weekends, with one team sitting out each weekend. It then got shortened to the current format because (I think) there was so much other bridge around they struggled to find good dates.

I also find the format uncomfortable. If you are part of a 3-pair team, you are then only playing just over half the time (2/3 * 4/5).

[lalislol]

1) At the risk of being repetitious, I must add my SPLENDID! to the Camrose presentation...excellent site reports, and almost fault-free. The operators deserve a hugh round of applause...did absence of screens make their job easier I wonder?

2) And even more repetiously, thank you, Roland, for displaying your remarkable organizational ability yet again...wonder how many specs realize their indebtedness to you?

3) On the subject of screens, they interfere with my philosophy: BIOAG...were not used when I started playing tourn bridge, despite the Reese affair. Were our ethics that much better 'way back then'?

[pclayton]

lalislol, on Jan 11 2006, 07:56 AM, said:

......

3) On the subject of screens, they interfere with my philosophy: BIOAG...were not used when I started playing tourn bridge, despite the Reese affair. Were our ethics that much better 'way back then'?

Read Kaplan's "Black Magic" articles for a perspective on this.

My take is that players are a lot more ethical these days. And its not because people are more moral, it is out of their own self-interest because of the regs.

[Echognome]

roghog, on Jan 11 2006, 10:43 AM, said:

Well, I suppose screens are good if you happen to have an ugly partner...

I'm surprised you haven't requested our local bridge club to get screens. Would save you having to look at me.

As an aside, it's a great picture of Eamon there. Just how I remember him.

[mrdct]

Echognome, on Jan 11 2006, 12:48 PM, said:

I'm surprised you haven't requested our local bridge club to get screens.

One of the larger bridge clubs in Melbourne (running two competition sessions of about 30 tables and six duplicates of between 10 and 30 tables per week) introduced screens a couple of years ago for the knockout stages of its major annual teams event ("the Pennant"), late stages of Grand National Teams qualifiers and all selection events once they are down to 12 tables or less.

The screens were well received by virtually all players, many of whom got a real sense of playing in something important; providing further motivation to improve their bridge and qualify for other events where screens are used.

In my own personal experience, even if it's a relatively insignificant club teams event, if I sit down to play with screens I invariably find myself far more mentally focussed.