Victorian team wins VCC

June 14, 2010 at 7:25 pm 7 comments

Well, practically.

Simon Hinge-Kim Morrison
Jamie Ebery-Leigh Gold

Jamie no longer lives in Melbourne but he’d be the first to say he’s still a Victorian at heart. And as for Kim, it transpires that three Victorians can get a Sydney-sider home (!)

The only genuinely Victorian team to win the VCC was 1991 S.Hinge R.Fruewirth W.Scott B.Thompson.

There have been a couple of teams with three Victorians and an alien, last time was

1983 R.vanRiel C.Hughes O.Olssen W.Scott

and now 2010.

I say send the whole team to South Africa and have them join our squad. Fancy for once in my life I’m somewhere I can watch the World Cup at the civilised hour of 7.30pm, and hence wide-awake for every excruciating moment of Australia’s 0-4 loss to Germany. If I’d been back in Melbourne I would have dozed through it, having a vague idea that it could all be going a tad better…

Are we a chance? Somebody give us an opimistic take. It looked hopeless to me.


Entry filed under: history.

Questions of style. Grand National Nightmare

7 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Andrew  |  June 15, 2010 at 1:32 pm


    I was watching the final match on BBO & it struck me as disappointing/disturbing/wrong that the two leading teams were playing two fairly disparate opponents, so the winner was going to be whichever one smashed up its opponent by more. Winning big is part and parcel of the game, it’s true, but I wondered if this even hadn’t in fact been over-swissed, and if that doesn’t, in a theoretical sense, detract from the result. The practical problem is that the number of rounds in a swiss should depend on the number of entries, but that would leave events of an unpredictable duration.

    Is there a better format? Or is the popularity of the swiss format rightfully the major determinant in using it?

    • 2. cathychua  |  June 15, 2010 at 3:30 pm

      Australian bridge events often have too many rounds and are overswissed. This was especially so of the NOT for the many years it was two fields, though now I imagine things are okay again.

      That aside, I think it is fabulous that we have an event where it counts to get big scores all the time – I don’t see why the calendar can’t sustain one of those. The point of bridge in the first place was to get further and further ahead of the opponents, after all. An IMPs event will never replicate that properly, but it does relatively reward people for being big scorers. In fact, is this not something about Kim’s game that suits this form of scoring? I’ll attribute it to his rubber background, but he’s always struck me as a person I’d like on my team for forms of scoring where that counts.

    • 3. Simon Hinge  |  July 7, 2010 at 5:00 pm

      I read this post many moons ago, and now have just re-read it and feel the same now as I did then. I’m uneasy with the use of the term disparate – The teams the two leading teams played in round 10, the last round were seeds 7 & 8 respectively. Interalia to reach that position the winning team had played seeds 2,4,5 & 7 and the the other 2 & 6. It hardly augurs for a debate on overswiising, rather than presenting a more interesting match on BBO, which largely will never be achievable. It’s the nature of the “format” of the event.

      • 4. Andrew  |  August 10, 2010 at 7:04 pm

        Well, if they were 7th & 8th I’ll withdraw the disparate unreservedly; when I looked them up I came away with the idea that the difference was greater than that. I agree that if one team plays 3/8 top seeds, and the other plays 5/8 top seeds, that sounds more like under-swissing than over-swissing.

        I didn’t think I was suggesting that events be structured around BBO though.

    • 5. cathychua  |  July 8, 2010 at 7:44 am

      Andrew, I’m not sure I agree with you. From reading Simon’s comment, in this particular case it doesn’t mean that the teams were so far apart from each other as you suggest. Top ten seeds playing each other in the last round. What’s wrong with that?

      I think it is a separate issue that our events do run the danger of being overswissed, not least the now completely absurd NWT.

  • 6. Andrew  |  June 15, 2010 at 6:56 am

    It’s not Kim’s first VCC; I think it’s his favourite national event.

    And an all Victorian team won it at least once when it was a team-of-two event.

    The Australian soccer team? ROFL. Could easily lose all three.

    • 7. cathychua  |  June 15, 2010 at 8:01 am

      Sorry, Andrew, not counting pairs! But, yes, of course Kim does have a soft spot for this event…Hi Kim!! Well done, only joking in my post.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

June 2010
« May   Nov »

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: