[cherdano]

It now has a well done website.

Of interest, in "Cup History":
The Buffett Cup in contrast marks a return to the exicting head-to-head challenge match format that so exicted audiences in the 1930s. The players will use a simple bidding system in which all bids must be easily explicable to a non-expert audience.

Arend

[Gerben42]

I love the idea of Board-A-Match scoring and the whole setup, but denying the pairs to play their regular methods is not my cup of tea.

What is a simple system anyway? Strong Club systems are GCC allowed in the US. Is that allowed?

[fred]

Gerben42, on Jul 8 2006, 01:09 PM, said:

I love the idea of Board-A-Match scoring and the whole setup, but denying the pairs to play their regular methods is not my cup of tea.

What is a simple system anyway? Strong Club systems are GCC allowed in the US. Is that allowed?

I am pretty sure strong club is not allowed, because I usually play a version of Precision with my partner in this tournament (Geoff Hampson) and we have been told we will not be allowed to do this.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Gerben42]

Anyway, I think it is a great initiative and it will surely be an interesting tournament. Good luck Fred (although as a European I am going to root for the other team )

[mgoetze]

Personally, I'm not too happy about over half the points coming from the individual portion... together with simple bidding systems, it seems they are trying to strongly deemphasize the partnership aspects of Bridge. I also think it gives an unfair advantage to the Americans, since systems in America are less diversified, nevermind that they don't have to field a "hometown pair" (no offense to Hanlon-McGann but I think there are quite a few stronger pairs in Europe...).

I hope they will succeed at getting some publicity for Bridge but it's not really my idea of the perfect Bridge competition, and I won't be blocking these dates in my calendar.

[cherdano]

mgoetze, on Jul 8 2006, 11:28 PM, said:

Personally, I'm not too happy about over half the points coming from the individual portion... together with simple bidding systems, it seems they are trying to strongly deemphasize the partnership aspects of Bridge. I also think it gives an unfair advantage to the Americans, since systems in America are less diversified, nevermind that they don't have to field a "hometown pair" (no offense to Hanlon-McGann but I think there are quite a few stronger pairs in Europe...).

I hope they will succeed at getting some publicity for Bridge but it's not really my idea of the perfect Bridge competition, and I won't be blocking these dates in my calendar.

It is obvious that the European team is selected so that many countries are represented, which I think is a good thing. However, the analogous thing is true for the American team, they are (almost?) all from different regular teams, and there are a couple of very strong pairs missing.

I am curious whether the Americans will have an advantage in the individual part. I would say yes, but given the restriction to a very simple system, maybe it actually does not matter so much.

I think it will be an exciting event.

Arend

[luke warm]

i think it's a great idea (tho to be fair i kib as much for the bidding as the play)... when i win the powerball tonite i'll have a jimmy cup, and will use whatever fred suggests as the format

[mgoetze]

cherdano, on Jul 8 2006, 11:01 PM, said:

It is obvious that the European team is selected so that many countries are represented, which I think is a good thing. However, the analogous thing is true for the American team, they are (almost?) all from different regular teams, and there are a couple of very strong pairs missing.

Where's Poland, then? Well, maybe they couldn't agree with any Poles on what constitutes a "very simple system". Anyway, my point is that the difference between Hanlon-McGann and Fantoni-Nunes is rather larger than the difference between (pick a pair on American team) and Martel-Stansby (or Meckstroth-Rodwell, but they are known not to play in events where they'd have to change their system).

Quote

I am curious whether the Americans will have an advantage in the individual part. I would say yes, but given the restriction to a very simple system, maybe it actually does not matter so much.

Well, I mean, this "very simple system" is likely to be closer to what the Americans usually play.

Anyway, my main gripe remains that over half the points are from the individual part... Bridge is a partnership game.

[Gerben42]

Quote

Well, maybe they couldn't agree with any Poles on what constitutes a "very simple system".

WJ2005 is a very simple system. Everyone plays it in Poland... I think the uniformity across Poland is bound to be greater than that across the USA. However the uniformity across Europe is not.

[han]

Nice idea, nice players, nice website! Maybe these are not the best teams possible, but it's always a pleasure to see Zia, Fred, the Hackett's, BerCo, Sabine and all these others on Vugraph. The large individual part at least guarantees that this tournament is different from any other.

Unpleasant sides: The cup is named after a famous billionaire, not a famous bridge player. His company is linked under "useful links". The link "Bookshop" does not lead to bridge books (bummer) but to a website called "Independent Investor" (yuck!). This should be about bridge, not about money.

Big Plus: the link "how to watch".

[badderzboy]

In terms of promoting Bridge it's a good thing.

To take away all systems nuances is a good thing then at least Joe public can understand the bidding as it will at least be consistent and potentially watchable on TV by none bridge players... (You try explaining why 1♣ is one thing to me and a myriad of other things to every other pair).

The indy bit doesn't bother me either as it will come down to judgement and good play across the board not whether you find the hands bias to one system or another and so on.

I think it will be very entertaining although I won't see it I'm away from the internet on a cruise when its on ((

All very positive for bridge in general!

[Gerben42]

Quote

at least Joe public can understand the bidding as it will at least be consistent and potentially watchable on TV by none bridge players

Do you really think so?

Quote

The cup is named after a famous billionaire

Funny, I never heard of him until I heard about his bridge plans. How did he make his billions? (dont answer that I will find it myself). "Famous billionaires" for me include Gates, Waltons and Kamprath but not Buffett...

[mgoetze]

badderzboy, on Jul 9 2006, 11:28 AM, said:

To take away all systems nuances is a good thing then at least Joe public can understand the bidding as it will at least be consistent and potentially watchable on TV by none bridge players...

Yup, that's about the only reason to not be utterly disgusted by this choice. If they don't get some TV coverage or at least a pageful in some mainstream print media... perhaps not for the inaugural event, but at least for the second time around, it'll be a failure in my eyes.

Quote

(You try explaining why 1♣ is one thing to me and a myriad of other things to every other pair).

Oh, come on, to most pairs it's only 2 or 3 things.

Quote

The indy bit doesn't bother me either as it will come down to judgement and good play across the board not whether you find the hands bias to one system or another and so on.

I believe that judgement is (also) a partnership skill. And I happen to believe that systems to which more hands are biased (statistically) are better systems, and that using such systems is part of the skill required to play Bridge.

PS Gerben, I agree about WJ2005 but doubt the organizers of this event do. Anyway, I never heard of Waltons or Kamprath but heard about Buffet before I even started playing Bridge.

[hrothgar]

Gerben42, on Jul 9 2006, 02:28 PM, said:

Quote

at least Joe public can understand the bidding as it will at least be consistent and potentially watchable on TV by none bridge players

Do you really think so?

Quote

The cup is named after a famous billionaire

Funny, I never heard of him until I heard about his bridge plans. How did he make his billions? (dont answer that I will find it myself). "Famous billionaires" for me include Gates, Waltons and Kamprath but not Buffett...

Warren Buffett is well known in the US for a few reasons:

1. Buffett has had enormous success managing Berkshire Hathaway. As I recall, a $10,000 investment in BH when the fund was founded would be worth (roughly) 40 million dollars today. Furthermore, Buffett achieved these high rates of return by focusing on the "basics". He searches for companies with strong management teams and good fundamentals that need an infusion of capital to achieve bigger and better things. He then uses a "buy and hold" strategy. While Buffett missed out on the dramatic upside from the Internet bubble in the late 90s, however, he also missed out on the big down side from the Internet bubble in the early 21st century.

He's one of the few peope that made absolutely massive amounts of money where there's really no hint of any kind of financial scandal, nasty little accounting irregularities, or obscene excess.

2. More recently, Buffet donated an enormous amount of money to charity. Buffett stated that he is very good at making money, but not particularly good at spending it. Accordingly, he gave 30 billion dollars to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (The Gates foundation focuses on educational and health investments in underdeveloped sections of the the world).

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on Jul 8 2006, 03:35 PM, said:

The Buffett Cup in contrast marks a return to the exicting head-to-head challenge match format that so exicted audiences in the 1930s. The players will use a simple bidding system in which all bids must be easily explicable to a non-expert audience.

With luck, it will be possible to use the Buffett cup as some kind of controlled experiment.

It will interesting to see whether there any widespread attention in the event outside of bridge's current demographic base.

[fred]

There are other reasons (beyond those mentioned already) why some of the players you might have expected to partipate are not included.

Several months ago, I was told that charisma would be one of the factors used to decide which players made up the original list of those invited to play in this event (because the organizers are hoping that this will increase the media's interest and the appeal of bridge to the general public).

I was not on the original list so this post is NOT an effort to claim charisma points

My guess is that there are few (if any) of the world's best partnerships who would refuse to play in an event like this for systems reasons. However, some of the world's best bridge players will never play bridge unless they are getting paid to do so.

Also keep in mind that some professional players arrange their play schedules long in advance. It could well be that some players received an invitation and had to say "no" due to scheduling conflicts.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Gerben42]

The Walton family own most of Wal-Mart (or used to, no idea).
Kamprad (sorry wrong spelling) is the founder of Ikea and the richest European.

Quote

Several months ago, I was told that charisma would be one of the factors used to decide which players made up the original list of those invited to play in this event

Interesting, so perhaps there is going to be media coverage. But where then?! The only network that I can receive that MIGHT get it is Eurosport. After all, they do some poker also.

[cherdano]

mgoetze, on Jul 9 2006, 11:12 AM, said:

(or Meckstroth-Rodwell, but they are known not to play in events where they'd have to change their system).

I have read this claim twice, both times from you. Can you back this up?

[pbleighton]

"I have read this claim twice, both times from you. Can you back this up?"

I can't back it up, but I have heard this before from other sources. I know that they play with clients a lot at regionals. Whether this is because they can't use their system or because they like the money from clients, I don't know.

Peter

[cherdano]

mgoetze, on Jul 9 2006, 01:31 PM, said:

Quote

The indy bit doesn't bother me either as it will come down to judgement and good play across the board not whether you find the hands bias to one system or another and so on.

I believe that judgement is (also) a partnership skill.

Why do you think this kind of partnership skill can't happen between two experts who have had only brief discussions about system and style?