[kfay]

1) Bobby Levin + Steve Weinstein
2) Nik Demirev + Nicolas L'Ecuyer
3) Geir Helgemo + Tor Helness
4) Fred Gitelman + Brad Moss
5) Bart Bramley + Mike Passell

Bonus top 3 in the Roberts Teams

1) Deutsch-Kranyak-Cohen-Smith-Cheek-Grue
2) DeKnijff-Wrang-Fallenius-Fredin-Bertheau-Nystrom
3) O'Rourke-Jacobus-Hampson-Rodwell-Levin-Weinstein

[Tomi2]

1) Helness - Helgemo
2) Levin - Weinstein
3) Rodwell - Hampson
4) Piekarek - Smirnov (hope Alex will not forget my 10€ for the auction pool this time)
5) Bakkeren - Bertens

[skorchev]

Hampson - Rodwell
Bessis - Bessis
Levin - Weinstein
Welland - Willenken
Multon - Zimmerman

[Aberlour10]

JLOL, on May 3 2009, 05:28 PM, said:

Thx to those who picked me, all I'll say is I have never felt more motivated and hungry for a tournament than I do right now, so hopefully I won't disappoint. Oh, and Kev is the nuts

1/5 has been done, GO Justin GO, don't stop and don't look back

[Echognome]

I'll wait a few more days before giving my picks.

[hrothgar]

Hey Justin

Kick ass and take names. Rooting for you 100%

(BTW, I've heard that Bar Charlie at the Palazzo has pretty damn good sushi)

[jchiu]

Echognome, on May 8 2009, 10:17 PM, said:

I'll wait a few more days before giving my picks.

And we wonder why Gnome always nails the pick 'em games ....

[y66]

Hampson & Rodwell
Lev & Pszczola
Bathurst & Lall
Gitelman & Moss
Helgemo & Helness

[jdonn]

I'll pick

1. Hampson/Rodwell
2. Bramley/Passell
3. Goldberg/Eisenberg
4. Johnson/Meckstroth
5. Levin/Weinstein

[hanp]

OK we'll hold you to those 5.

[Mbodell]

So assuming the appeal doesn't get upheld, based on the results from BBO we have the following top 10 list from the thread:

Adding up the rank of your top 5 players the top 10 were:

1. inquiry (35)
2. mbodell (39)
3. skorchev (40)
4. hanp (42)
t5. tomi2 (43)
t5. y66 (43)
7. glen (46)
8. se12sam (51)
9. crazy4hoop (53)
10. gerben42 (55)

Instead of adding up ranks, you could just add up the IMPs won (since the difference between 10 and 13th may not be the same as the difference between 1st and 4th). Then the top 10 were:

1. skorchev (9767)
2. tomi2 (9594)
3. hanp (9333)
4. inquiry (9230)
5. glen (9192)
6. crazy4hoop (8607)
7. mbodell (8550)
8. bb79 (7362)
9. y66 (7216)
10. jdonn (6859)

If you take the five most popularly chosen pairs in this thread you'd of had, in order:

1. Hampson-Rodwell (2)
2. Helgemo-Helness (7)
3. Levin-Weinstein (1)
4. Gitelman-Moss (8)
5. Lev-Pszczola (5)

Which would top both top 10 lists with a 23 total rank and 10922 total IMPs. More proof of the wisdom of the crowd.

[bb79]

probably the real winner is Mahaffey, who bought 1st, 2nd and 8th pair in the auction

[fred]

Mbodell, on May 10 2009, 10:48 PM, said:

So assuming the appeal doesn't get upheld, based on the results from BBO we have the following top 10 list from the thread:

Adding up the rank of your top 5 players the top 10 were:

1. inquiry (35)
2. mbodell (39)
3. skorchev (40)
4. hanp (42)
t5. tomi2 (43)
t5. y66 (43)
7. glen (46)
8. se12sam (51)
9. crazy4hoop (53)
10. gerben42 (55)

Instead of adding up ranks, you could just add up the IMPs won (since the difference between 10 and 13th may not be the same as the difference between 1st and 4th).  Then the top 10 were:

1. skorchev (9767)
2. tomi2 (9594)
3. hanp (9333)
4. inquiry (9230)
5. glen (9192)
6. crazy4hoop (8607)
7. mbodell (8550)
8. bb79 (7362)
9. y66 (7216)
10. jdonn (6859)

If you take the five most popularly chosen pairs in this thread you'd of had, in order:

1. Hampson-Rodwell (2)
2. Helgemo-Helness (7)
3. Levin-Weinstein (1)
4. Gitelman-Moss (8)
5. Lev-Pszczola (5)

Which would top both top 10 lists with a 23 total rank and 10922 total IMPs.  More proof of the wisdom of the crowd.

It looks like you did your calculations before the (several) score corrections that took place after the standings were first posted. The final standings (which I think are now official) are available here:

Link

I agree that the crowd chose wisely. No surprise - you are a wise crowd

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Aberlour10]

Three or four years ago the Cav organizers introduced "Pick the TOP5 and win 1000 bucks" competition and then gave this idea up. That was a pity, may be next year 1000$ for kibbers again?

Robert

[inquiry]

Darn, I almost put Grue and Cheek in my top 5, I had them 6th (read my post to see). Anyway, I guess there was a lot of points changed since modell's post as I broke 10,000 points with my five picks.

4783.59 Bobby Levin & Steven Weinstein
1946.41 Sam Lev - Jacek Pszczola
1640.5 Fred Gitelman & Brad Moss
1490.5 Gier Helgemo & Tor Helness
786.36 Zhong Fu - Jie Zhao
_____________
10647.36

Worst part, this was the first Cavendish in quite a while I didn't get to watch much of. Thank goodness for BBO archieve... my favorite play so far on checking the records was Brad Moss's duck with Kx when Queen is lead from AQJxxx in dummy... too bad that didn' work.

[glen]

inquiry, on May 11 2009, 12:20 PM, said:

... my favorite play so far on checking the records was Brad Moss's duck with Kx when Queen is lead from AQJxxx in dummy... too bad that didn' work.

On the hand, there are the interesting plays of ♠ 9 at trick two (i.e. deliberate lead of 9 from K9 into dummy's spade holding), and of the ♠ ten by Fred on the spade play up to dummy. I wondered if playing the ♠ ten was the expected play from Txx after the long thought by declarer, and thus not playing the ten might have been quite right.

[Mbodell]

fred, on May 11 2009, 05:08 AM, said:

It looks like you did your calculations before the (several) score corrections that took place after the standings were first posted. The final standings (which I think are now official) are available here:

Link

I agree that the crowd chose wisely. No surprise - you are a wise crowd

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Yep, I'll have to run the numbers again when I'm home with the excel sheet I had (should be easy to recalculate). I find it amazing that the 2nd place pair were closer in IMPs to the 25th place pair than they were to the 1st place pair. That is domination.

Congrats, also, to Fred for a good result as well.

[helene_t]

Just wanted to see how good prices are at predicting the final IMPs:



The correlation coefficient between IMPs and log(price) is 0.6153759