Help
Pairings for the quarter-finals (including carryover) at the World Championships:
Bermuda Bowl:
Italy v India (2.3 IMPs)
USA1 (9) v Brazil
USA2 v Argentina (4)
Egypt v Sweden (16)
Venice Cup:
France (15.5) v Canada
China (16) v Netherlands
Germany v England (3.7)
USA1 (9) v USA2
Seniors Bowl:
USA1 (11) v France
Indonesia (16) v Portugal
USA2 (16) v Netherlands
Denmark (16) v Israel
6 segments of 16 boards (3 Sunday and 3 Monday).
....
Schedule for Sunday
USA1 v USA2 (Venice Cup)
USA1 v Brazil (Bermuda Bowl)
To Be Announced
As usual, we are hoping to add a match in segments 2 and/or 3.
Roland
Page 1 of 1
WC Quarter-Finals
#1
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,190
- Joined: 2003-September-30
- Location:London, England
- Interests:Cricket
Posted 2005-October-29, 16:59
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2005-October-29, 17:41
ok all you team captains out there, explain to clueless me why usa2 is playing argentina (with the carryover) rather than egypt (without)... is it simply a matter of thinking they're 5 imps better than argentina and equal to egypt?
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,448
- Joined: 2003-October-27
- Gender:Male
- Location:Moama, NSW
Posted 2005-October-30, 20:40
Italy had 1st choice of opponents with their options being:
India (-2,3);
Argentina (+10.5);
Egypt (-4.3); or
Brazil (-7).
It seems Italy perceived Argentina to be at least 12.8 imps stronger over 96 boards than India. However, there may have been a broader strategy to not give USA2 the option to pick India against whom USA2 would've had +16 carry-over.
USA2 had 2nd choice of opponents, with their options being:
Argentina (-4);
Egypt (+9); or
Brazil (+9.5).
Again, it seems that USA2 perceived Argentina to be at least 13 imps weaker than their other two options. They may also have been seeking to impose a stronger opponent on USA1 (who would've had +9.5 carryover versus Argentina).
USA1 were then left with a choice of Egypt (+9) or Brazil (+9.5) and looked to have gone for the higher carryover. Interestingly, by picking Brazil, USA1 ensured that Sweden would get Egypt against whom Sweden has 16 imps of carryover (c.f -2.3 vs. Brazil).
India (-2,3);
Argentina (+10.5);
Egypt (-4.3); or
Brazil (-7).
It seems Italy perceived Argentina to be at least 12.8 imps stronger over 96 boards than India. However, there may have been a broader strategy to not give USA2 the option to pick India against whom USA2 would've had +16 carry-over.
USA2 had 2nd choice of opponents, with their options being:
Argentina (-4);
Egypt (+9); or
Brazil (+9.5).
Again, it seems that USA2 perceived Argentina to be at least 13 imps weaker than their other two options. They may also have been seeking to impose a stronger opponent on USA1 (who would've had +9.5 carryover versus Argentina).
USA1 were then left with a choice of Egypt (+9) or Brazil (+9.5) and looked to have gone for the higher carryover. Interestingly, by picking Brazil, USA1 ensured that Sweden would get Egypt against whom Sweden has 16 imps of carryover (c.f -2.3 vs. Brazil).
Disclaimer: The above post may be a half-baked sarcastic rant intended to stimulate discussion and it does not necessarily coincide with my own views on this topic.
I ♦ bidding the suit below the suit I'm actually showing not to be described as a "transfer" for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the concept of a transfer
I ♦ bidding the suit below the suit I'm actually showing not to be described as a "transfer" for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the concept of a transfer
Page 1 of 1