[cjames]

jdonn, on Nov 1 2007, 02:01 PM, said:

Sorry to be a party pooper but this is not the least bit exciting to me. I haven't heard of the players on the naturals, the scientists don't have any sort of reputation as scientists at all, and if not for this thread I wouldn't even know the match was happening. It's a real shame because an event like this would be really cool if it was done right, the one going on now just seems meaningless.

I agree..

Throw in some relays and forcing pass then we are talking (though relays can be hard, when bidding boxes is not used )

[han]

It's entertaining, but in a painful kind of way.

Every time one of the naturalist makes a terrible mistake Roland Wald quickly points out how much money they own and whose house they are in and who their granddaughter is etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the commentators were instructed not to say bad things about the naturalists either because they are very mild.

Also, I've read many times now that Wolfson's granddaughter/daughter is one of the top female players in England. One of my British friends assures me that she is pretty good for a client but certainly not a great player (in his words: "if she was better than I then I would kill myself"). Assuming that the commentators know this I don't understand why they would say she is that good. At least in the US clients are common in top level bridge and nobody would claim that these clients are at the level of the players they hire. I think there is no shame in this, why pretend it is otherwise?

[Walddk]

Hannie, on Nov 1 2007, 09:23 PM, said:

I wouldn't be surprised if the commentators were instructed not to say bad things about the naturalists either because they are very mild.

Sheer nonsense. I can offer you all correspondence if you don't believe me. No one, and I repeat no one no matter how much money they own, can instruct me and the commentators I am in charge of to do certain things. They can ask politely, but they did not even do that.

They may not be the world's greatest bridge players but they have manners. And if your next question is if I or anybody else is getting paid to do this and not that, the answer is no. Not a penny.

"It's entertaining, but in a painful kind of way", you write. Now tell us why you can be bothered to be there at all. Given the number of spectators we have for every segment, the event seems to be justified. If it really was so painful as you state, the vugraph theatre would have been almost empty, wouldn't it?

There is no reason to believe that BBO members are masochists. They could surely find something else to do with themselves if they don't give a damn.

Feel free to think and write that the judgement Fred, Uday and I made was poor when we agreed that this would be great fun, but you are kindly requested not to imply anything dubious without any knowledge whatsoever.

Roland

[han]

Roland, I agree that broadcasting this event on vugraph is justified. I saw Zia make some nice plays and the setting is quite interesting. It gives us an idea of what might go on in the high stakes rubber bridge clubs, something most of us can't afford to find out by going there. That the level is sometimes painfully low doesn't mean it cannot be interesting.

What isn't justified (in my opinion) is selling this event as the fourth episode in the great battle of naturalist vs scientists. For that the scientists bid too naturally and the naturalist play too badly. So I protest against the commentators who claim that this is great bridge and say that (some of these) bridge players are top level when they clearly are not.

I did not mean to imply that you or any other commentators are bribed, I didn't think that and I apologize if my post sounded like that. I believe you that you didn't instruct the commentators to be especially mild for this event.

[mgoetze]

Hannie, on Nov 1 2007, 10:05 PM, said:

What isn't justified (in my opinion) is selling this event as the fourth episode in the great battle of naturalist vs scientists. For that the scientists bid too naturally and the naturalist play too badly.

Or, as the obviously unbribed Mr. Larry Cohen put it: "This is billed as 'Nature' vs. 'Science' -- but that has really had nothing to do with the swings. It has just been better bridge against worse bridge."

[Sambolino]

one may notice carefully selected adjective "better"

[joker_gib]

I did not have the opportunity to see the first part.

Are the results somewhere ??

Alain

[Gerben42]

It was something like

after 0 boards:

Zia 0
Dmitri 56

After 56 boards:

Zia 223
Dmitri 156

give or take a few.

[Walddk]

I'm afraid not, Alain. On the EBU web site it is announced that results will be posted, but you won't find any yet. I can tell you that Scientists won Thursday's play (56 boards) by 231 IMPs to 155.

The Naturalists had a 56 IMP head start and they held on to that lead for 5 of the 7 segments. After dinner it went horribly wrong, especially in the last set. The 76 IMP margin in the end translates to £7,600 = $15,830 = 10.975 €.

Roland

[joker_gib]

Walddk, on Nov 2 2007, 11:17 AM, said:

The 76 IMP margin in the end translates to £7,600 = $15,830 = 10.975 €.

Not bad for a day of bridge !

[Walddk]

Scoring: IMP

South: 3NT
Lead: H5

---

The bridge on day 1 may not have been brilliant all the time, but I am prepared to forgive all of them as long as I have this deal. Amazing, wonderful, stunning, cute, fascinating, pretty, excellent, spectacular, breathtaking. Take your pick.

In the closed room David Gold as East overcalled 1♠ after 1♣ to his right. South ended up in 3NT and Hallberg led a spade. Easy ride for declarer. 11 tricks.

The contract was the same in the open room with Zia as declarer. However, Priday chose to double 1♣ and then got the killing heart lead from Lord Wolfson. 5♣ is the spot because you only have 8 tricks in 3NT when a heart is led.

So it went ♥5 to the queen and Zia's king. On the auction Zia knew that ♣K was offside, so he had to rely on some help from the opponents. At trick 2 he exited with a heart. EW took their four tricks, and the spotlight was on West. In order to break up the squeeze he must play a club. Instead he exited with a passive diamond, and now a very rare criss-cross squeeze materialised.

Before the last diamond from Zia the position was:

Scoring: IMP

South: 3NT
Lead: H5

---

When ♦9 was played declarer pitched ♣Q from the dummy and East was caught in a criss-cross squeeze. He could choose his poison. If he bared ♠K, dummy would be high (cash ♠A), and if he came down to the singleton ♣K, the hand would be high (cash ♣A).

Priday chose the latter and Zia landed his game, restricting the loss to £200 for 2 IMPs away.

"Stop the presses!!", one commentator said. I agree. This is a deal that deserves to be published in newspapers and magazines worldwide. Yes, the defence erred at a crucial point, but that did not make Zia's dummy play less spectacular.

You read about criss-cross squeezes, but you hardly ever see them at the table.

Roland

[jbgood]

As one of the regular commantators for some years, I should like to make perfectly clear that I have never - repeat NEVER - been instructed or told by Roland or anyone else to do anything but commentating. We do this volonteerely, and try to treat rank and file with an equal amount of respect.

I really find it sad that people question the integrety of Roland and BBO commentators.

[han]

That was a wonderful deal, great play by Zia.

Of course, as a commentator pointed out, it should have been clear to Wolfson (west) that east held the club king (else Zia wouldn't have returned a heart and pitched all those clubs).

[han]

Roland, do each of the players pay or receive the 100 pounds per IMP or is that per team? I imagine the two players who only played one day only get the money from that day?

[Walddk]

Hannie, on Nov 2 2007, 05:48 PM, said:

Roland, do each of the players pay or receive the 100 pounds per IMP or is that per team? I imagine the two players who only played one day only get the money from that day?

Question 1: Per team.
Question 2: They get paid per day.

Roland

[gnasher]

Walddk, on Nov 2 2007, 12:09 PM, said:

So it went ♥5 to the queen and Zia's king. On the auction Zia knew that ♣K was offside, so he had to rely on some help from the opponents. At trick 2 he exited with a heart. EW took their four tricks

I'm quite surprised that Priday, by far the stronger player, allowed this. He could have ensured that he was on lead after the third round of hearts, and switched to a diamond without cashing any more winners.

He wouldn't have to envisage the exact ending - cashing the defence's tricks in this sort of situation is nearly always a bad idea.

[han]

So what was the outcome, who won and by how much?

[Walddk]

Thursday was won by the Scientists (78 IMPs), and they were also stronger Friday (Goulash). The win came to 58 rubber points after 40 of the scheduled 48 boards. No explanation as to why they did not play the last 8, and they don't owe us one.

I think it was great fun, and as I have stated 4 or 5 days ago, I don't care if this was a true contest between no conventions/conventions as long as it produced that delightful criss-cross squeeze.

Roland

[vuroth]

An excellent event. My wife, whom you could not PAY to watch the Bermuda Bowl, watched some of the Friday hands with great interest (mostly, I expect, to see how outrageous the NEXT deal would be).

V