a partnership game
This year’s Cavendish seemed a bit strange — it felt like there were few “top” pairs, which is to say fewer regular partnerships than in other years. I can’t swear to it, haven’t had the time to research it beyond printing out the final standings and glancing through them. Five of the pairs finishing in the money were established partnerships (Levin/Weinstein, Cheek/Grue, Helgemo/Helness, Elinescu/Wladow, Greco/Hampson).
Is that a surprise? I’ll do a little research when I have a few spare moments and let you know. It surprised me, in any event, and got me thinking about various aspects of partnership: what makes a top pair? How do you build an “established partnership?” What about exclusivity? I’m working on a short series of partnership posts which will (probably) start Sunday. For you, my non-bridge-playing-friends, I’m tossing in some of the sexiest stuff. Stay tuned.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
It’s certainly a surprise who the last place pair was.
May 19th, 2007 at 7:23 am
Red, I have no idea if fewer “regular” partnerships played this year or not. But - couple of thoughts.
Sometimes, when players have one “primary regular” partner, people do not think of other partners paired with that player as a “regular partnership.” Nevertheless, I would define them as such. So, for example, even though Hamman’s “regular partnership” is with Soloway, surely Hamman-Zia would still constitute a “regular partnership.”
Also, if you are correct about not as many regular partnerships - could be that it doesn’t pay as much, at least in theory, for them to show up. I think that Larry Cohen complained about the fact that he and Berkowitz would get auctioned off for so much, it did not make financial sense for the two of them to play together.
Don’t know if any of this is accurate; just thoughts.
B.T.W. - at least some of us bridge players like the sexy stuff, too!