[mr1303]

Hi all

I've arrived in Slovakia for the World Junior Pairs, and have just finished the far too long and far too loud opening ceremony. Anyway, after every session I'll try to write a report on anything interesting that happens, and the leader boards if I can get hold of them.

Mark

[fred]

Thanks in advance for your reports, Mark.

If possible can you find out why this tournament is not producing a vugraph broadcast on BBO?

Given all the WBF's recent public statements about the importance of Youth Bridge, you would think that they might make some kind of effort to promote this important tournament through the medium of online vugraph.

Maybe it is not too late to do something about it, especially if people complain.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

Hi Fred

My impression in Sydney was that the quality/depth of the coverage was primarily a function of the local hosts. The Aussies spent a lot of time/money ensuring good coverage. Its unclear whether the WBF really has an policies in place surrounding this event...

I'd certainly like to see some coverage...
Particular if the final is as good as last years

[Walddk]

It would have cost the WBF close to nothing to hire a couple of local operators for this short event. Let me try once more:

When does it dawn on the WBF that they need to employ a person who knows what is good for bridge?

Let me add that this problem will arise all the time, perhaps again in a little over a month during the World Youth Team Championships in Bangkok, Thailand. The issue about vugraph broadcasts on the internet won't be settled until Jose Damiani and Fred Gitelman sit down for an hour and get it sorted out.

Who is going to pay for it?

We say it clearly in our vugraph guidelines to all organisers:

"All tournaments are welcome to use the BBO software for vugraph purposes. We do not charge a fee for the use of our software (nor do we charge a fee to people who watch our broadcasts), but you will be responsible for all arrangements and expenses."

Maybe I am biased, but I think this is a fair deal.

Roland

[mike777]

mr1303, on Jun 30 2006, 11:34 AM, said:

Hi all

I've arrived in Slovakia for the World Junior Pairs, and have just finished the far too long and far too loud opening ceremony. Anyway, after every session I'll try to write a report on anything interesting that happens, and the leader boards if I can get hold of them.

Mark

Thank you very much Mark.

I fail to see why the WBF should devote any time or effort in promoting Junior bridge, surely it has many more important things to do than putting up Internet reports or Vugraphs for the world to see on such unimportant issues such as World Championship matches.

The last thing bridge needs is let the world think players under 30 play the game or that bridge players follow the game online.

There are internet sites such as YourTube that run short 5-10 minutes video clips of almost anything. I hope the WBF is not thinking of uploading such clips where bridge and nonbridge players may view young people playing the game.

[pclayton]

Good luck in Slovakia Mark.

I'll look forward to your reports with interest

[Gerben42]

Best of luck in Piestany. Indeed incredible that there is no broadcast!

[hrothgar]

BTW. The beer in that part of the world is VERY strong...
be careful

[pclayton]

hrothgar, on Jun 30 2006, 11:44 AM, said:

BTW. The beer in that part of the world is VERY strong...
be careful

Juniors drinking beer? I've never heard of such a thing.

[Gerben42]

And for 1 euro a piece... (btw going to the supermarket does not pay off, only 15% cheaper and not cold - thanks to Tomi2 for this essential research)

[Aberlour10]

link to the tournament site:

http://www.worldbrid...6/PairsMain.htm

[Booze]

Hi

I have been told they have just one internet connection at the venue, so not easy to do a Vu, but could be solved if there is any interest from WBF.

Bo

[mr1303]

Hi all. Apologies for the delay, but the internet connection here in Slovakia is VERY poor.

Anyway, we have a huge turn out from the event. I was quite pleased with my own performance last night, playing with my relatively inexperienced partner Robyn Dower (who is playing her first ever international event), and we finished around 60th on 53.08% (the scores posted are excluding the final round). Unfortunately, the second session didn't quite go quite according to plan, and we dropped back to around 100th position.

Leading the way are the Swedish female pair Cecila Rimstedt and Sara Siveland. Who, I observed, must be the SLOWEST two bridge players in the universe. Whilst their style is clearly more successful than mine, I hate to take around 10 minutes a board.

Anyway, this was one hand that I played against them

Scoring: MP

---

I opened the South cards 1C (deal rotated for convenience), and the auction proceeded:

1C P P X
P 2S P P
3C All pass

I had a difficult call after Robyn passed my 1C bid, and decided to pass to await developments. Of course, 2S would have struggled, with the 5-1 split.

I received the 5 of diamonds lead. Any suggestions as how to get 10 tricks? I scored about 30% for +110

Anyway, this will continue later. I'll try to get hold of the person responsible for not putting any vugraph on.

(

[pclayton]

I wouldn't pass the double. Would this pard pass 1♣ with ♣Kxxx and out? Thats all you need to make 5♣ excellent.

I'd probably rebid 3♣. This might even get a 3♠ call out of LHO. Redouble (planning on rebidding clubs) is a 2nd choice.

You do have some chances albeit slight to make 10 tricks. I would start by winning the diamond, and then exit the spade. (The possession of the ♦9 would really help). If they can be talked into playing a 2nd spade and a 3rd after the ♣K, you have them if RHO has the ♥KQ (x)(x)(x) and you can read the ending.

You remain with ♥AJT, ♦K. RHO holds either ♥KQ, ♦xx or more likely♥KQx, ♦x.

But this requires a misdefense at the early going. If they hold you to 9 tricks, this is one of those boards where they had the decision to make, and made the right one.

Remember: "The best result possible, not the best possible result".

[JanM]

mr1303, on Jul 1 2006, 11:03 AM, said:

Leading the way are the Swedish female pair Cecila Rimstedt and Sara Siveland. Who, I observed, must be the SLOWEST two bridge players in the universe. Whilst their style is clearly more successful than mine, I hate to take around 10 minutes a board.

Why do organizers allow this? It gives the slow pair an incredible advantage (they are used to being behind, each and every one of their opponents comes to the table with very little time on the clock and tries to catch up, often giving the slow pair some matchpoints, and the pair(s) who are following the slow pair also start each round with little time on the clock and probably get some worse results because of this). If the directors would simply remove a board eacn and every time the slow pair starts it with less than some amount of time on the clock (5 minutes?), and give the slow pair average minus and the opponents average plus, I'll bet we'd find that the slow pairs would learn to play faster. It isn't as if the directors don't know who the slow pairs are, after all. They're the ones who get behind early and never catch up.

[pclayton]

JanM, on Jul 1 2006, 12:35 PM, said:

mr1303, on Jul 1 2006, 11:03 AM, said:

Leading the way are the Swedish female pair Cecila Rimstedt and Sara Siveland. Who, I observed, must be the SLOWEST two bridge players in the universe. Whilst their style is clearly more successful than mine, I hate to take around 10 minutes a board.

Why do organizers allow this? It gives the slow pair an incredible advantage (they are used to being behind, each and every one of their opponents comes to the table with very little time on the clock and tries to catch up, often giving the slow pair some matchpoints, and the pair(s) who are following the slow pair also start each round with little time on the clock and probably get some worse results because of this). If the directors would simply remove a board eacn and every time the slow pair starts it with less than some amount of time on the clock (5 minutes?), and give the slow pair average minus and the opponents average plus, I'll bet we'd find that the slow pairs would learn to play faster. It isn't as if the directors don't know who the slow pairs are, after all. They're the ones who get behind early and never catch up.

In Dallas they made an announcement before the Open Pairs:

If you are late, we will give you a slow play penalty. No warning, no nothing. The chief director that you would find a penalty on the score recap after the session.

In the 2nd session of the final, one pair that has had some recent success at the world level was running about TEN minutes behind.

The lack of enforcement was an embarassment.

[mr1303]

Well, the final results are in (apologies from the lack of earlier reports, but there are only 4 computers available, of which 2 don't work whenever I try to go online.

Anyway, congratulations must go to the girls Sara Sivelind and Ceclia Rimstedt, who won with 60.04%. Second placed were Jacek Kalita and Krzysztof Kotorowicz on 59.81%

I finished in 71st place on 50.91%, after a final set of around 60%, which I was highly chuffed with, especially since the rest of the England junior squad had us down as strugglers, maybe finishing last.

I had a ruling problem on the last board:

Scoring: MP

---

Bidding went:

1S 3C*
3H 4C
4D 6NT (X)

3C was alerted, and explained as a Bergen mixed raise (6-9, 4 card support). Contract made +1.

Any views as to possible adjustments

As to the issue regarding vugraph coverage, I must admit that the organisers were highly unhelpful on this regard. I tried speaking to a few officials, and was directed to the president of the WBF. However, I was warned not to speak to him as he was "very busy".

[hrothgar]

mr1303, on Jul 3 2006, 03:28 AM, said:

I had a ruling problem on the last board:

Scoring: MP

---

Bidding went:

1S 3C*
3H 4C
4D 6NT (X)

3C was alerted, and explained as a Bergen mixed raise (6-9, 4 card support). Contract made +1.

Any views as to possible adjustments

Quick question... Were screen's being used? It has some bearing on the events...

I am going to assume that screens were NOT being used this early during the event, in which case your alert of the 3♣ bid would have created UI

I would not adjust...

While 3♣ created UI, its unclear whether your North took actions based on the UI. North has a very strong hand. I suspect that North was planning to bid slam if you showed any life what-so-ever.

Most of South's actions are understandable. 3♥ as some kind of trial bid is more than reasonable. The one questionable bid is the 4♦ cue after the "impossible" 4♣ rebid. (I'd be interested to hear the logic behind that one)

I have very little sympathy for the double.
It looks like and attempt to get a double shot.

[cherdano]

hrothgar, on Jul 3 2006, 02:43 AM, said:

mr1303, on Jul 3 2006, 03:28 AM, said:

I had a ruling problem on the last board:

Dealer: South Vul: Both Scoring: MP

♠ xx ♥ AQ ♦ Axx ♣ AQJxxx ♠ Axxxx ♥ KJxx ♦ KJx ♣ K

Bidding went:

1S 3C*
3H 4C
4D 6NT (X)

3C was alerted, and explained as a Bergen mixed raise (6-9, 4 card support). Contract made +1.

Any views as to possible adjustments

Quick question... Were screen's being used? It has some bearing on the events...

I am going to assume that screens were NOT being used this early during the event, in which case your alert of the 3♣ bid would have created UI

I would not adjust...

While 3♣ created UI, its unclear whether your North took actions based on the UI. North has a very strong hand. I suspect that North was planning to bid slam if you showed any life what-so-ever.

Most of South's actions are understandable. 3♥ as some kind of trial bid is more than reasonable. The one questionable bid is the 4♦ cue after the "impossible" 4♣ rebid. (I'd be interested to hear the logic behind that one)

I have very little sympathy for the double.
It looks like and attempt to get a double shot.

Huh? Isn't 6N an obvious attempt to evade the misunderstanding?

Well, anyway, certainly there are logical alternatives, and 6N is clearly suggested by the UI.

I don't think 4♣ is an impossible rebid, could just be catering at the possibility that 3♥ was a slam try. I agree though that 4♦ is strange.

Finally, if you have 2 certain trump tricks in opponent's 5-4 fit, they bid 6N in MP greediness, why is a double necessarily "failure to play bridge" or "attempt at a double shot"? It always bugs me when the non-offenders get accused of such unethical behavior so quickly, in this case even before seeing this cards, sometimes much quicker than the offenders who may have willfully used UI.

Arend

[mike777]

mr1303, on Jul 2 2006, 07:28 PM, said:

As to the issue regarding vugraph coverage, I must admit that the organisers were highly unhelpful on this regard. I tried speaking to a few officials, and was directed to the president of the WBF. However, I was warned not to speak to him as he was "very busy".

How dare you wish to speak with the Great OZ. He is much too busy.
Perhaps if you embark on a great quest along the Yellow Brick Road to the Emerald City he may grant you an audience.