Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Shireen Mohandes
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robert Sheehan is a silver medallist (BB) and strong backgammon player.
Oct. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
an amusing story from the source linked, I quote:

Deschapelles was also a phenomenal chess player who quickly became champion of his region. But when competition grew tougher, he adopted a new condition for all matches: He would compete only if his opponent would remove one of Deschapelle's pawns and make the first move, increasing the odds that Deschapelles would lose. If he did lose, he could blame it on the other player's advantage and no one would know the true limits of his ability; but if he won against such odds, he would be all the more revered for his amazing talents.

http://www.omahabridge.org/Library/mh_DESCHAPELLES_COUP_rev.pdf
© Marilyn Hemenway October, 2009
Oct. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Eugene: he is “in the list”, see the grid link posted. The only omission is the Barbu column, which means like Paul Magriel, he'd be the only person with entries in 3 columns :)
Oct. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And, all of you, don't forget the challenging game of Barbu. Of course in the 1950-2000 era it was played face to face amongst many bridge (and non-bridge) players. In the Internet era, these top bridge players are also champion barbu players: Kit Woolsey, JoAnna Stansby, Lew Stansby. Andrew Garnett, Fabio Lo Presti (Italy), Jon and Mike Rice, Joel Wooldridge, Jérome Rombaut (France).
Oct. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paul Lamford: Bridge, Backgammon and Chess (Wales, and England)
Peter Cziernweski: Bridge, Chess (Wales, and England)
Those who don't know Peter, he was one of the nicest players I have ever met. A brilliant and funny person, who is dearly missed.
Oct. 13, 2015
Shireen Mohandes edited this comment Oct. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Take a look at this gird:
http://ca.wow.com/wiki/List_of_all-rounders_in_games_of_skill
It is meant to be “List of all-rounders in games of skill” originally sourced from Wiki.

I think it would be good to compile a list of achievements of bridge players related to games, sports, and any appearance in the Guinness Book of Records (so looking at that table, we'd put Table Tennis, and add Eddie Kantar).

Is anyone aware of expert Go players amongst the bridge playing players? I am told that it is probably the hardest game.
Oct. 13, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some more updates for you Linda:
A Belgian contact says: only 1 tournament in Belgium, once every year. its scored in matchpoints and its 12 rounds of 4 boards.
A German contact says: not popular but sometimes in the Rieneck family bridge camp it is one event.

Maurizio De Sacco says:
The word “Swiss” in itself means a mechanism of pairing the contests in the progressing of the rounds, based on the ranking. The name comes from the fact that was first used in a Chess tournament in Switzerland in 1895. Two are the founding principles: a) The top ranked plays the second and so forth. b) The're can never be a rematch. The mathematical implications of it require to find an alghortim, and the're interesting studies - some recently made by a group of WBF/EBL people - aimed at determined the correct procedure. Jst to make it simple, the're two main ways: You either base you're calculation striuctly according to the principle a), or you base the pairings on the meeting between the two middle ones (the're are reasons behind both coiches, and you need to say that, special in a large field, and in early rounds, the problem has more than one solution).

“Swiss Pairs” is a movement that mainly has three ways of being organized (I'll spare you the variations) a) You play rounds, let's say of 8 boards each (in Australia, typically), datum (IMP) scored, and balance converted in VP; this is also the most popular way in my area b) You play matches - usually shorter - with mp scoring, and the percentage's balance is converted to VP (popular in the Great Britain area) c) You play matches of usually two or three boards, and scoring is purely mp. This movement is very popular in Svandinavia, but it's not as simply as it may look. Same as the “English” one, it requires some further technical consideration. Just to keep the argument in a “simple” territory: the NS pairs need at least to be alternated between odd and even ranked, otherwise you'd always have the top pairs seating NS (in reality, you need to shuffle the seating according to some mathematical parameter)

(end of M D S quote)
Oct. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alan - you are along the right lines, but with the following modification. Assume there are 100 tables, then first quartile are mathchpointed as a pool. After that, next 10 pairs are matchpointed against “12 above, and 12 below”. So a sort of floating quartile. Nobody actually does this, but it does seem to be more fair than the normal way.
In England we have fewer strati-Anything events. If we had more of them, then there would be less need to have quartiles and floating quartiles.
Kieran just won our largest/toughest Swiss Pairs, in Brighton (Sussex). There are 14 matches of 7 boards. As it happens, they are spread over 3 days, (one half day, one whole day, one half day). This is only to facilitate travel to and from the destination, no bridge reason for it to be like this.
Oct. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Regarding the subject of matchpointing for all tables, or in sub-section.
The most common way is to matchpoint over the whole field. However, there is an argument for doing it another way, and it is all related to the spread of the level of competence (bit complicated and will send most people to sleep. PM me if you want to know more …)

The scenario where the field is so big that you are on two different floors, or 2 different hotels, these days is overcome using the supermation infohighway.
Oct. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It isn't as you say Linda. Imagine that you get a matchpoint score using the score of everyone in the WHOLE event for those N boards in the round. Say N/S overall get 55%, therefore, E/W get 45%. This is converted to a VP scale of 1 to 20.

Alan: ignore the three tables (its just a practicality of the boards, and how to move them around the room). At your table, you will earn matchpoints versus the scores of the other 23 tables.

If you are using Bridgemates, the Bridgemate tells you where to go. If you are not using them, the caddies bring you a small slip of paper. On this slip you get information about your score for each board, and your overall VP score. It also tells you what the leading score is (in VPs) and your rank. Finally it tells you which table to go to for the next round, where to sit, and who you will play.
Oct. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Boards question: Lina - no, each table does not get a set. Let's say you elect to play two sessions, and in each session you want to play 24 boards. You would have 8 rounds altogether. So in round 1, everyone plays boards 1 to 8.
On table 1 you put boards 1&2,
on table 2 you put boards 3&4,
on table 3 you put 5&6,
on table 4 you put 7&8.
On table 5 you put 1&2,
and so on …
You asked the pairs to move the boards down one table (and with good table placement … the boards snake around the room (so to speak).
So if you have 40 tables, then you will need 10 x boards 1 to 48.

Regarding the popularity: In England people prefer Swiss Pairs for tournaments. But at clubs, where you can't get enough rounds in, then Mitchell or Howell. On this side of the pond, it is normal to play between 21 and 28 boards in an evening, so you simply can't get enough rounds in, and finish in 3 to 3.5 hours. You need a small gap between each round. If you use Bridgemates, scoring is much faster and current round movements work well.

If you don't have Bridgemates, then after the first round (while the scoring is still taking place) the East West move up one table. Thereafter, you move to the table number that represents your rank, but of course, one round in arrears.
Oct. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Linda: a Swiss Pairs event took place at a Sectional, Wilmington, Delaware, about 5 years ago. It may help you to look at these links and contact the people who organised it and took part. I am told it was very successful.
http://www.bridgewebs.com/unit190acbl/2009-11.pdf

Another took place Feb 2014
http://www.bridgewebs.com/unit190acbl/2014-02.pdf

IMHO eight 7-board rounds is good. In practice people tend to play a little faster than with a regular 2-board Mitchell movement … but another good option is three 8-boards, then a break, followed by three 8-boards.

As Gordon says, there are lots of variations, and the number of pairs who are playing is relevant in deciding the best movement.
Oct. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just being factual here, but if you look at
http://www.worldbridge.org/systemsinformationChennai.aspx
and follow the link, you will see

http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/docdefault.asp?page=Poland&start=c%3A%5Cinetpub%5Cwwwroot%5Cecatsbridge%5Cdocuments%5Cfiles%5C2015%2DChennai%2FOpenTeams

this shows that the convention card for Gawrys-klukowski was last updated on 6th October at 6am (that's Tuesday morning).

This information may help people verify some facts.
Oct. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. He opened spades when he thought it was right to do so, and his partners always raised when they had support. Things often backfired (there are several accounts of his bidding giving poor results). There is no evidence to show that he was selective in such a way, or that he had UI about his partners' cards. The whole point was: he was reputed to be ethical and to take a stand that nobody else was prepared to take. So I don't understand what you are trying to say. He is the good guy, not the bad guy. Are you maybe confusing him with a different person?
(grammar edits)
Sept. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gene: having read about 100+ pages so far, I have yet to read to find a hand when a partner of his fielded a psyche.
Sept. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not yet - but look at this gem:
http://www.si.com/vault/1965/05/31/607729/farewell-to-an-understanding-lady
Second half of the obit has a priceless story
Sept. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Other's may be better qualified to comment, but I think that Boris meant: Weak NT, Strong 2's, and double for take out over Weak 3s.
At the rubber bridge table sometimes people say “Weak, Open, Fish”, meaning Weak NT, keep my strong 2s open for one round, and Fishbein over a three level opening". Please somebody set me straight if I am wrong here.
July 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I interviewed Omar in 1999. It was for a short article in Bridge Plus. Here it is (scroll down). I only played against him twice, and he was extremely polite and friendly.
……………..

I managed to catch the ever-hunky Omar Sharif and ask him a few questions.

Which are your favourite tournaments?
I like to play tournaments in enjoyable places really, its not the bridge that matters to me, it’s the place where I am in. So when I play in Cairo, I am happy because I am at home.

I know that you have inspired a lot of people in Egypt to play, do you think that your federation is able to encourage some young people to play, or to get some new people into the game?
Yes, we have a good program, I think we have some very fine young players. Better the young ones than the older ones. And I think we are going to have a good future in bridge. There are a lot of bright young people from universities that have taken up bridge, which is a good thing.

Who is your favourite partner these days?
I play in France mainly, and so my partners are usually French. I play either with Paul Chemla and Christian Marie.

From the past, who is your favourite partner?
I played a lot with Benito Garozzo, and he was my favourite partner.

Do you intend on playing in any North Amercian events in the near future?
Not much, I am not active very much in bridge any more.

Has the modern game lost anything?
No no, its improving, but you have to be young and you have to do it full time to be at the top level.

Do you have any bridge regrets?
No, it’s a hobby and is fun.

Do you have a nightmare hand you can tell me about?
Well I suppose we all do have nightmare hands but mainly this is when we do something stupid.


July 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some replies: (thank you to all who have replied so far)
Garry Hann: yes, of course. I will do so in future.
Paul Wrigley: yes, that's correct 4=4 and 4=5 are possible
Aaron Jones: thank you for the IMP comment. I'd be interested to have your 4 answers for match pointed pairs.
Corey Cole: thanks for your thoughts. The manual said (in summary) that the bridge playing population could be be grouped in just two groups. Each of those groups would behave differently. And but it was clear that group “good” would all lead one thing, and group “bad” would all do something else. But I don't want to reveal much more at this stage ~ will explain more later.
David Yates: I intentionally did not use masterpoints as an indicator/classification system. I don't understand all your points so I am going to make myself a double coffee in the morning and read it again.

I'd like to add that my friend who attended the course did her homework and polled 20+ people. But she asked them to just choose what they'd do, and why. I'd like to share that with you once I've had some more comments. I think you may be a little surprised.

Just to reiterate: her poll was to an individual asking them what they would do. My post here is to ask you what you think players of different abilities would do … so it is a different poll, quite intentionally. ie I am asking you to reflect on your experience of years of playing against other people.
March 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jan. 4, 2015
Shireen Mohandes edited this comment Jan. 4, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top