Crea sito

Tag Archive | "Allavena"

2013 Vanderbilt: Sabine Auken’s reply to Allavena’s interview

Tags: ,


Leggi in italiano »

NIB logo

Yesterday we published the views of Jean-Charles Allavena, the President of the Monaco Bridge Federation on the Auken Appeal in St. Louis. The outcome of that appeal resulted in the sensational elimination of the powerful Monaco-Zimmermann team in the Round of 16 of the St. Louis Vanderbilt Trophy. Jan van Cleeff, publisher of NewInBridge,  asked Sabine Auken, who’s team eventually won the event, to share her views with us and we recieved them! In fact you will find Sabine’s answers in Jean-Charles’ wording.

Jean-Charles: Concerning the Vanderbilt appeal, I believe that it raises many problems: Why is it possible to appeal at the end of a match about a board played many hours before? Is it normal to start the last 16 boards without knowing if a result has been changed, possibly moving 12 IMPs from one team to another one?

Sabine: We did not appeal at the end of the match, but instead right before the start of the second half. Admittedly that felt a bit stupid as the score then stood 93-11 in our opponents’ favor. The director seemed to feel the same, he almost laughed.  It is my understanding that it is ACBL practice only to hear appeals that change the outcome of a match. I agree that is not optimal and preferably a team should know where it stands before playing the last quarter. However, ACBL AC’s are not professional and made up totally of volunteers donating their time. I can see how it would not be fair to expect them to spend a lot of their scarce and precious time on cases that don’t matter.

*

Jean-Charles: Is it normal, when the NABC Championships are year after year more international, that the ACBL doesn’t apply the WBF rules, which entitle an Appeal Committee to split a decision? Here the only possibilities contemplated by the Appeal Committee seemed to be just made or one down, but the option to assign a score based on contract sometimes made and sometimes down has not been taken into account at all.


Sabine Auken (NIB)Sabine:
ACBL rules do not permit split scores, so the AC did not have that option at hand. In my opinion it is futile to ask what is normal. We were not playing a world championship, but an ACBL tournament under ACBL rules. There are several ACBL rules I personally dislike or disagree with. But I have only two choices. I can either refrain from playing in ACBL events or I can play in ACBL events and adhere to their rules. I cannot expect to play and get the rules changed, only because I dislike or disagree with them.

*

Jean-Charles: The decision itself is very much against the Monaco Team, because despite the possible damage caused by misinformation, Auken-Welland had some opportunities to find the solution (and some arguments, such as “I may have lead a heart”, are simply a joke!) and clearly the cards played by Sabine and Roy were not the best ones to defeat the contract. I’ve been happy to see, for example on Facebook after a post of Roland Wald, that nearly all the players regarded the decision as a scandal…

Sabine: Nobody ever claimed we were prevented from beating the contract. That is not the point at all. The point is that my partner with the (mis)information given did not consider a defence he otherwise might (note that “might” is enough according to the laws) have considered. We are not required to think, what if the information I was given was not correct, how would I defend then?

I will try and give a different example that is maybe simpler. You are defending a slam after your opponents had a RKCB auction where you are told by dummy that declarer has shown 1 key card. You lead your ace and dummy hits with three key cards. You know that declarer has the missing ace. So instead of trying to cash a trick in the missing ace suit you try and give partner a ruff. Alas, it turns out partner had the missing ace after all and declarer’s loser in that suit disappears on dummy’s long suit after your unsuccessful continuation, so he makes his contract. You were given misinformation. Declarer’s response had in fact shown no aces and you are therefore entitled to redress. You are not required to defend thinking: what if I was given the wrong explanation, should I play my partner for the missing ace anyway? You are entitled to defend “knowing” that declarer has the missing ace. Just as my partner was entitled to defend “knowing” that declarer had only three spades. 

I do not know who “nearly all the players” on Roland Wald’s Facebook site are that considered the decision a scandal, nor do I know what their qualifications are. I do know that both Michael Rosenberg and Kit Woolsey expressed strong disapproval of the comments criticizing the AC decision and thought overall the committee had done a good job and I consider both of them authorities in the field.

 

Jean- Charles: And the last point is that all this confirms that we should move very fast in order to cancel the Appeal Committees : when there is a group of very good TDs, who discuss the case and take a decision after a long discussion, how is it possible to have an Appeal Committee with lower level TDs and lower level players?? Really a joke in this case (who knows the members of the Appeal Committee?), but it often happens…

Sabine: As Jean Charles undoubtedly knows there will not be an appeals committee at the European Championships in Ostend later this year. I have lately become very impressed with the standard of TD decisions at the European level. All the directors are very skilled and knowledgeable and they take every case seriously, discussing it thoroughly with one another for a long time and polling true top players on all the relevant questions. So I welcome that change to no appeals committee.

Sadly I cannot say the same thing about TD decisions in ACBL territory. That is not to say there aren’t any good ACBL directors, there actually are many. But the overall standard is simply not nearly as high as at EBL tournaments. Personally I do not feel ACBL is ripe for the no appeals committee era.

Read full Allavena’s interview >>

 ***

Jan van Cleeff for NewInBridge & Neapolitan Club

La replica di Sabine Auken alle dichiarazioni del Presidente Allavena

Tags: ,


English version»

DSC_0606Ieri abbiamo pubblicato le dichiarazioni  di Jean-Charles Allavena,  Presidente della federazione monegasca di bridge,  sul ricorso Auken a St. Louis (Vanderbilt Trophy 2013). L’esito di tale ricorso, come è noto,  ha portato alla sensazionale eliminazione della squadra di Monaco-Zimmermann  agli ottavi di finale (Round of 16).  Jan van Cleeff, editore di NewInbridge, ha chiesto a Sabine Auken, capitano della squadra che ha presentato e vinto il ricorso, di commentare le parole di Allavena: Sabine ha voluto ribattere punto su punto.

Jean-Charles Allavena: Questo appello suscita molti interrogativi. Prima di tutto mi chiedo come sia possibile presentare ricorso al termine di una partita per una mano giocata molte ore prima. E’ normale iniziare a giocare le ultime 16 mani di un match senza sapere se e come un risultato sia stato modificato, tenendo presente che ci sono in ballo ben 12 IMP da assegnare ad una squadra o all’altra?

Sabine Auken: Non abbiamo fatto ricorso alla fine della partita, ma subito prima dell’inizio della seconda metà. Onestamente ci siamo sentiti sciocchi perché in quel momento il risultato era 93-11 per i nostri avversari. L’arbitro sembrava essere d’accordo, si è quasi messo a ridere. Da quanto ho capito, la ACBL si occupa solo dei ricorsi che possono cambiare il risultato finale di una partita. Sono d’accordo che questo non sia ottimale, ed è meglio che una squadra sappia il punteggio prima di giocare l’ultimo set. Tuttavia, i comitati di ricorso ACBL non sono professionali e sono composti da volontari che investono il loro tempo. Non ci si può stupire che non vogliano sprecare il loro poco tempo prezioso su casi che non hanno conseguenze.

*

Jean-Charles: In secondo luogo c’è da dire che i campionati americani diventano di anno in anno più internazionali, pertanto mi chiedo perché la ACBL non applichi i regolamenti WBF che autorizzano la Commissione di Appello ad assegnare un punteggio tenendo conto di molteplici risultati probabili.. Qui sembra che le sole possibilità fossero: contratto realizzato o un down, ma perché non si è considerato un punteggio basato su contratto talvolta fatto e talvolta down?

Sabine: Le regole ACBL non permettono di assegnare punteggi misti, quindi il comitato d’appello non aveva a disposizione questa opzione. A mio parere è una perdita di tempo chiedere che cosa sia normale. Non stavamo giocando un campionato del mondo, ma un torneo ACBL che segue le regole ACBL. Ci sono molte regole ACBL che personalmente non amo, o con cui sono in disaccordo. Ma ho solo due scelte. O non partecipo ai tornei ACBL o vi partecipo e mi attengo alle loro regole. Non posso aspettarmi di giocare e far cambiare le regole, solo perché non mi piacciono o non sono d’accordo.

*

Jean-Charles: La decisione è stata molto dura per la squadra di Monaco, perché, nonostante il possibile danno recato dalle spiegazioni contraddittorie, la coppia avversaria ha avuto l’opportunità di trovare la difesa giusta e far cadere il contratto (e alcuni argomenti del tipo “Potevo attaccare a cuori” sono una vera presa in giro). E chiaramente le carte giocate da Sabine e Roy non erano le migliori per battere il contratto. Sono stato felice di vedere, ad esempio su Facebook, che molti giocatori, commentando un post di Roland Wald sulla sua pagina personale, hanno giudicato la decisione contro Monaco come uno scandalo.

Sabine: Nessuno ha mai detto che ci sia stato impedito di battere il contratto. Non è questo il punto. Il punto è che il mio compagno, a causa dell’informazione errata, non ha considerato una difesa che avrebbe potuto prendere in considerazione (n.b. l’”avrebbe potuto” è scritto nelle regole). Non ci è richiesto di pensare: “come difenderei, se l’informazione che mi è stata data fosse scorretta?”

Cercherò di fare un esempio più semplice. Stai difendendo uno slam dopo che gli avversari hanno licitato RKCB, e il morto ti dice che il dichiarante ha mostrato una keycard. Attacchi di asso e il morto ha tre keycard. Sai che il dichiarante ha l’altro asso. Quindi invece che cercare di incassare una presa nel seme senza l’asso, cerchi di far tagliare il compagno. Alla fine si scopre che il compagno aveva l’altro asso e la perdente del dichiarante in quel seme viene scartata sulla lunga del morto dopo il tuo ritorno inefficace, realizzando così il contratto. Sei stato informato male. La risposta del dichiarante mostrava zero keycard e quindi hai diritto ad essere ricompensato. Non hai il dovere di difendere pensando: dovrei forse mettere in mano al mio compagno l’asso mancante, in caso mi sia stata data un’informazione sbagliata? Hai il diritto di difendere “sapendo” che il dichiarante ha l’altro asso. Così come il mio compagno aveva il diritto di difendere “sapendo” che il dichiarante aveva solo tre picche.

Non so chi siano “quasi tutti i giocatori” che sulla pagina di Facebook di Roland hanno considerato la decisione uno scandalo, e non so che qualifiche abbiano per esprimere questa opinione. So però che sia Michael Rosenberg che Kit Woolsey hanno fortemente disapprovato i commenti contro la decisione del comitato d’appello e hanno dichiarato che in generale il comitato abbia fatto un buon lavoro. Ed io ritengo entrambi delle autorità in questo campo.

*

Jean-Charles:  Ed infine tutto questo conferma che ci si dovrebbe muovere velocemente al fine di annullare le commissioni di Appello: quando si ha a disposizione un pool di direttori tecnici o arbitri molto validi, è assurdo avere una commissione per i ricorsi con arbitri e giocatori di livello più basso. Chi li conosce questi membri della commissione?!?

Sabine: Come Jean-Charles certamente sa, non ci saranno comitati d’appello quest’anno ai campionati europei di Ostenda. Recentemente sono rimasta molto colpita dallo standard delle decisioni prese dagli arbitri nei campionati europei. Tutti gli arbitri sono molto esperti e abili e considerano ogni caso seriamente, parlandone fra loro attentamente, a lungo e intervistando i migliori giocatori su tutti i punti rilevanti. Quindi sono contenta che non si potrà più fare ricorso.

Purtroppo non posso dire lo stesso delle decisioni arbitrali all’interno dell’ACBL. Non voglio dire che non ci siano buoni arbitri ACBL, ce ne sono molti. Ma in generale lo standard non è alto come nei tornei EBL. Personalmente non credo che l’ACBL sia pronta a togliere i comitati d’appello.

***

Jan van Cleeff per NewInBridge e Neapolitan Club

[Edizione italiana a cura di Laura Cecilia Porro per Neapolitan Club]

2013 Vanderbilt: Monaco President unhappy with Auken ‘s Appeal

Tags: ,


Leggi in italiano »

Jean-Charles AllavenaVanderbilt 2013 – Round of 16, Auken vs. Monaco. At the end of the round of 16, the score is 137-131 for Monaco, but after an appeal filed by team Auken, the final result is changed to 131-126 for Auken. The problematic hand is number 21, second round.

Yesterday we published an article summarizing the fact and the appeal full text. Today we publish a brief interview with the President of Monaco Brige Federation, Mr Jean-Charles Allavena. Tomorrow we will post the  Sabine Auken’s reply.  

 

Jean-Charles, what is your view about the appeal and its outcome?

Concerning the Vanderbilt appeal, I believe that it raises many problems. Why is it possible to appeal at the end of a match about a board played many hours before? Is it normal to start the last 16 boards without knowing if a result has been changed, possibly moving 12 IMPs from one team to another one?

Is it normal, when the NABC Championships are year after year more international, that the ACBL doesn’t apply the WBF rules, which entitle an Appeal Committee to split a decision? Here the only possibilities contemplated by the Appeal Committee seemed to be just made or one down, but the option to assign a score based on contract sometimes made and sometimes down has not been taken into account at all.

 The decision itself is very much against the Monaco Team, because despite the possible damage caused by misinformation, Auken-Welland had some opportunities to find the solution (and some arguments, such as “I may have lead a heart”, are simply a joke!!!) and clearly the cards played by Sabine and Roy were not the best ones to defeat the contract. I’ve been happy to see, for example on Facebook after a post of Roland Wald, that nearly all the players regarded the decision as a scandal…

 And the last point is that all this confirms that we should move very fast in order to cancel the Appeal Committees : when there is a group of very good TDs, who discuss the case and take a decision after a long discussion, how is it possible to have an Appeal Committee with lower level TDs and lower level players?? Really a joke in this case (who knows the members of the Appeal Committee?), but it often happens…

 

Have you had the opportunity to talk to Mr Zimmernann – or other Monaco players – and what are their views?

I’ve talked to Pierre Zimmermann just after the Appeal and to some players after the decision, they totally share the points just raised. In any case they don’t forget that, despite this decision, they should have never lost this match, and that conceding 70 points during the last segment is not normal! But well, that’s life, and Pierre sent his congratulations to Roy and Sabine after the decision, after the semifinal and after the final. So did I after the final.

***

Laura Camponeschi  for Neapolitan Club and NewInBridge

 Read Auken’s reply >>

Vanderbilt 2013: Il Presidente della Federazione di Monaco parla dell’appello Auken

Tags: ,


English version »

Jean-Charles AllavenaVanderbilt 2013 – Ottavi di finale, incontro Auken contro Monaco. Al termine degli ottavi (Round of 16) il tabellone segnava 137 a 131 per Monaco, ma a seguito del ricorso inoltrato e vinto dalla squadra Auken il risultato finale viene corretto: 131 a 126 in favore del team Auken. La mano della discordia è stata la n. 21 del secondo round.

Abbiamo proposto nel nostro articolo di ieri una sintesi dell’accaduto e la traduzione integrale del testo dell’appello. Pubblichiamo oggi le dichiarazioni del Presidente della federazione monegasca di bridge, Jean-Charles Allavena. Domani pubblicheremo la replica di Sabine Auken.

 

Jean-Charles, qual è la tua opinione sull’appello e soprattutto sull’esito dell’appello?

Questo appello suscita molti interrogativi. Prima di tutto mi chiedo come sia possibile presentare ricorso al termine di una partita per una mano giocata molte ore prima. E’ normale iniziare a giocare le ultime 16 mani di un match senza sapere se e come un risultato sia stato modificato, tenendo presente che ci sono in ballo ben 12 IMP da assegnare ad una squadra o all’altra?

In secondo luogo c’è da dire che i campionati americani diventano di anno in anno più internazionali, pertanto mi chiedo perché la ACBL non applichi i regolamenti WBF che autorizzano la Commissione di Appello ad assegnare un punteggio tenendo conto di molteplici risultati probabili.. Qui sembra che le sole possibilità fossero: contratto realizzato o un down, ma perché non si è considerato un punteggio basato su contratto talvolta fatto e talvolta down?

La decisione è stata molto dura per la squadra di Monaco, perché, nonostante il possibile danno recato dalle spiegazioni contraddittorie, la coppia avversaria ha avuto l’opportunità di trovare la difesa giusta e far cadere il contratto (e alcuni argomenti del tipo “Potevo attaccare a cuori” sono una vera presa in giro). E chiaramente le carte giocate da Sabine e Roy non erano le migliori per battere il contratto. Sono stato felice di vedere, ad esempio su Facebook, che molti giocatori, commentando un post di Roland Wald sulla sua pagina personale, hanno giudicato la decisione contro Monaco come uno scandalo.

Ed infine tutto questo conferma che ci si dovrebbe muovere velocemente al fine di annullare le commissioni di Appello: quando si ha a disposizione un pool di direttori tecnici o arbitri molto validi, è assurdo avere una commissione per i ricorsi con arbitri e giocatori di livello più basso. Chi li conosce questi membri della commissione?!?

Hai avuto occasione di parlare con Pierre Zimmermann e con altri giocatori del team? Quali erano le loro impressioni?

Ho parlato con Pierre Zimmermann subito dopo l’appello e con alcuni giocatori dopo la decisione, e tutti loro hanno pienamente condiviso le osservazioni che ti ho appena riportato. In ogni caso, non dimenticare che, nonostante l’esito dell’appello, Monaco non avrebbe mai dovuto perdere l’incontro e che concedere 70 punti nell’ultimo round non è una cosa normale! Ma la vita è così e Pierre ha inviato messaggi di congratulazioni a Roy e Sabine sia dopo l’esito dell’appello che dopo la semifinale e la finale, come del resto ho fatto anche io.

***

Laura Camponeschi

Leggi la replica di Sabine Auken >>

 

 

Allavena: Come è stata lanciata la nuova squadra di Monaco (intervista – parte 2)

Tags:


english version»

La squadra di Pierre Zimmermann rappresenta Monaco ai Campionati Europei in corso a  Dublino (Irlanda). Il noto sponsor  franco-svizzero Zimmermann ha  assunto due delle coppie più forti del mondo: i norvegesi Geir Helgemo e Tor Helness,  gli italiani Fulvio Fantoni e Claudio Nunes. Pierre Zimmermann e il suo partner di origine francese Franck Multon formano la terza coppia del team. Per molto tempo la questione della residenza è stata considerata un ostacolo per l’ingresso del team di  Zimmermann ai Campionati Europei 2012. Laura Camponeschi, corrispondente per l’Italia di BridgeTopics.com e co-fondatore di Neapolitan Club, ha  chiesto a Jean-Charles Allavena, Presidente della Federazione Monegasca di Bridge e capitano non giocatore della squadra di Monaco a Dublino,  di spiegare come è nato il progetto Zimmermann e quali passi sono stati compiuti per superare tutti gli ostacoli. Read the full story

Allavena: How the new Monaco bridge team was launched (interview – part 2)

Tags:


leggi in italiano »

The team of Pierre Zimmermann is representing Monaco at the European Championships in Dublin (Ireland). Mr. Zimmermann, a Franco-Swiss sponsor, hired two of the world finest pairs to play on his team: Geir Helgemo and Tor Helness from Norway and Fulvio Fantoni and Claudio Nunes from Italy. Pierre Zimmermann and his partner Franck Multon (France) is the third pair. For a long time the issue of residency was an obstacle for the European Bridge League to okay the entrance of Zimmermann and company. So Laura Camponeschi, editor of Neapolitan Club and BridgeTopics.com ’s Italian correspondent, asked Jean-Charles Allavena – the President of Monaco Bridge Federation and in Dublin the non-playing captain of Monaco – to explain how Zimmerman ‘s project was born and which steps were taken to overcome all the obstacles.

 (Second part)

In a private conversation you told me that in the past 18 months (since Zimmermann’s project was made public) a lot of silly or wrong things have been said about this issue. Who or what do you have in mind? Would you like to reply to any of these unfair comments?

The unfair comments were  all about quite the same theme, like: you’ll see, they willget the right to play because they will buy it! It seems that it’s impossible today to try to build something without the comments of jealous or bad minded guys. Do you read anything here above which suggests that we bought our right to play? I don’t!! We have always accepted the decisions, we tried to explain and convince and the end was positive, perfect. If it were negative, we would have accepted it too. And as for the names, you’re the journalist!

 
After the European Championships, another important event will take place in Monaco, i.e. the Cavendish Invitational. It is a typical American-style tournament,because its structure is in the form of an auction. Now it is becoming popular on the old continent as well: in even numbered years it will take place in Monaco, while in odd numbered years it will take place in Las Vegas. This is such an extraordinary event that only the return of the Pilgrim Fathers to Plymouth would be more surprising. How did this happen? What do they think about it in the US?

I’ve told you that our agreement with Pierre is about the participation of his team in the big Championships and includes a certain number of other points. The creation of new events in Monaco is one of them (not the only one, take the example of Poznan last year where, besides the team of Pierre, a team with the ‘historical’ players of Monaco was completed by a pair provided by Pierre, Bompis-Quantin, with a great result at the end, the bronze medal). The first event we organized was last October the first ‘Prince Albert II Cup’, a team invitational, which was a great success, with the presence of Prince Albert himself at the opening cocktail. We had in mind to organize this year a big pairs’ tournament after the model of the Cavendish, but during the Prince Albert II Cup, Roy Welland, who is member of the board of the Cavendish said to me ‘Why don’t we do The Cavendish here? Back in the US, he presented the idea to the Board who agreed immediately, and so we started with great enthusiasm. It’s clear that the enthusiasm is shared by the American part in particular Bob Hamman and Donna Compton, with whom we worked very hard. They acknowledged that, for many reasons, the US Cavendish was in a difficult situation. So, the idea of organizing it alternatingly in Monaco and Las Vegas was seen as an opportunity for renewal. They hope that many European players, who didn’t play in Las Vegas the last years, willbe back there, and see to it that Monaco be a success. And furthermore, we need them to convince some American sponsors, teams, players, to come to Monaco, and they try to do that. The word is perhaps used too often, but I really think that we’re in a ‘win-win’ situation, and I’m sure that we’ll have a great tournament in Monaco next October.

 
Given your deal with Pierre Zimmermann, you have a close working relationship with him. What do you think of working with him? How is your relationship with him?

You know, the most important point that I see is that Pierre loves this game, he wants to play and win, but he also wants to organize things, improve some aspects. Of course this can easier be done with money, but money isn’t everything,and if you don’t have ideas or enthusiasm, money is not very useful. Apart from all, Pierre is working very hard on his own business, spends much time with his family, and cannot do all on his own. I believe that we have created a good complementary tandem, we frequently spend one hour or more on the phone around midnight, when his business day is finished, and discuss our projects.I must say that I appreciate the guy, his ability to create ideas and to decide fast, and also his capacity to listen to the ideas of other people: it’s not very easy to convince him, but it’s not impossible!!! I also appreciate the fact that Pierre is totally respectful of our agreements : I’ve said it above, our agreement goes further than the possibility to play, it includes many things, even last year, when it was not so easy to convince the WBF and EBL to accept our team, at no moment Pierre said that we should have to wait before doing what has been signed in favor of the local players of Monaco. Thanks! I really hope that what we have done in Monaco with Pierre will give ideas to other people to increase their role in bridge, and that the official bodies of our game will understand how important these people are for the development of the game: I’ve said it many times during these last 18 months, what we do is not only a huge project for Monaco, but a great project for bridge in general, and I’m happy and proud that some people have understood that.

 
Well, thank you Jean-Charles. I think our interview is over here…

Let me add something. I would like, staying in the same direction, to send a message of recognition to a great lady of bridge, Maria-Teresa Lavazza. Many years before Pierre, she has been a very great sponsor for a group of Italian players. She has given them the possibility to work on their passion and to live from this passion, and the results have been tremendous for the Italian bridge. We’ve played against them on manyoccasions in the international Championships, they have come many times to Monaco to play our International Teams Tournament (and win!), it was clear that there was a great interconnection and respect between the players and the sponsor, and I believe that here’s the truth. And at a moment when, in Italy, Mrs. Lavazza decides to stop her job of Technical Director, and when I read many negative comments on her action, I really think that people should be much more respectful of all she has done. And what I hope for our new team is to win at least a small part of what she has accomplished with her players.

***

Co-produced by BidgeTopics.com and Neapolitan Club

June 18, 2012

Read interview first part: click here>>

Allavena: Come è stata lanciata la nuova squadra di Monaco (intervista – parte 1)

Tags:


english version »

La squadra di Pierre Zimmermann rappresenta Monaco ai Campionati Europei in corso a  Dublino (Irlanda). Il noto sponsor  franco-svizzero Zimmermann ha  assunto due delle coppie più forti del mondo: i norvegesi Geir Helgemo e Tor Helness,  gli italiani Fulvio Fantoni e Claudio Nunes. Pierre Zimmermann e il suo partner di origine francese Franck Multon formano la terza coppia del team. Per molto tempo la questione della residenza è stata considerata un ostacolo per l’ingresso del team di  Zimmermann ai Campionati Europei 2012. Laura Camponeschi, corrispondente per l’Italia di BridgeTopics.com e co-fondatore di Neapolitan Club, ha  chiesto a Jean-Charles Allavena, Presidente della Federazione Monegasca di Bridge e capitano non giocatore della squadra di Monaco a Dublino,  di spiegare come è nato il progetto Zimmermann e quali passi sono stati compiuti per superare tutti gli ostacoli. Read the full story

Allavena: How the new Monaco bridge team was launched (interview – part 1 )

Tags:


leggi in italiano »

The team of Pierre Zimmermann is representing Monaco at the European Championships in Dublin (Ireland). Mr. Zimmermann, a Franco-Swiss sponsor, hired two of the world finest pairs to play on his team: Geir Helgemo and Tor Helness from Norway and Fulvio Fantoni and Claudio Nunes from Italy. Pierre Zimmermann and his partner Franck Multon (France) is the third pair. For a long time the issue of residency was an obstacle for the European Bridge League to okay the entrance of Zimmermann and company. So Laura Camponeschi, editor of Neapolitan Club and BridgeTopics.com ’s Italian correspondent, asked Jean-Charles Allavena – the President of Monaco Bridge Federation and in Dublin the non-playing captain of Monaco – to explain how Zimmerman ‘s project was born and which steps were taken to overcome all the obstacles. Read the full story

Jean-Charles Allavena commenta l’editoriale di Bocchi

Tags: ,


english version »

Neapolitan Club e BridgeTopics.com hanno lanciato due giorni fa una nuova iniziativa: “A modo mio”, l’ editoriale di Norberto Bocchi. Il grande campione italiano scriverà commentando fatti di attualità del mondo del bridge e illustrando qualche mano giocata interessante o divertente. Nel suo primo articolo Norberto ha trattato tre  grandi eventi: la Slava Cup, i Giochi Mondiali di Bridge (ex Olimpiadi) ed i Nationals americani. Jean-Charles Allavena, Presidente della Federazione Monegasca di Bridge, ha così  commentato il primo editoriale di Bocchi: Read the full story

Jean-Charles Allevena’s comment to Bocchi’s column

Tags: ,


leggi in italiano »

Two days ago, Neapolitan Club and BridgeTopics.com have launched “My way”, the new Norberto Bocchi’s column: The great Italian champion will contribute articles on a regular basis about political issues which may arise in the bridge world and sometimes he will describe interesting hands. In the first column he shares his views with us on great events like the Slava Cup, the World Mind Sports Games and the American Nationals. Jean-Cherles Allavena, Monaco Bridge Federation’s President, has commented Bocchi’s article: Read the full story

Giorgino Duboin’s column

Italian style 02The Neapolitan Club staff is honoured to welcome a new illustrious contributor: Giorgino Duboin. The great Italian champion will write a series of articles mostly dedicated to his international bridge activities. Duboin's Column »

Norberto Bocchi’s column

MyWay-logoThe great Italian champion Norberto Bocchi contributes articles on a regular basis to Neapolitan Club. Norberto refers in his column ‘My Way’ to political issues which may arise in the bridge world and sometimes he describes interesting hands. Read Bocchi's column»   Read Bocchi's interviews»

Rhoda Walsh Notes

Rhoda_WalshWalsh No Trump Notes by Rhoda Walsh: a study on No Trump openings with their developments  in uncontested and contested auctions. Table of Contents »
Annotations by Rhoda Walsh on the 1 Notrump game forcing  response in the "2 over 1 game forcing system" (Walsh System).Table of Contents»

Simply the Best

Best articles by Paolo Enrico Garrisi: open »

Let’s talk to the Champions!

Best interviews run by Laura Camponeschi: open »

Momorizing at Bridge

Are there techniques to develop some specific memory? Could be possible to make a choice of what might be more useful to memorize? Read what the champions say: open »

Silvio Sbarigia

 

SILVIO SBARIGIA is a pharmacist; he was born in Rome and lives there. He has won the European championship in 1975 with legendary Blue Team, runner up at 1974’s and at Olympic games of 1976.  Sbarigia is member of Neapolitan Club Technical Commettee. His bridge problems aren’t difficult; just we need to think on a plan and to avoid the instinctive playing. Bridge quizzes by Sbarigia »

Laura Cecilia Porro

Laura-Cecilia-Porro 142

Content Protected Using Blog Protector By: PcDrome.