DOCSLIB.ORG

Teamwork Exercises and Technological Problem Solving By

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Teamwork Exercises and Technological Problem Solving By Teamwork Exercises and Technological Problem Solving with First-Year Engineering Students: An Experimental Study Mark R. Springston Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Curriculum and Instruction Dr. Mark E. Sanders, Chair Dr. Cecile D. Cachaper Dr. Richard M. Goff Dr. Susan G. Magliaro Dr. Tom M. Sherman July 28th, 2005 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: Technology Education, Engineering Design Activity, Teams, Teamwork, Technological Problem Solving, and Educational Software © 2005, Mark R. Springston Teamwork Exercises and Technological Problem Solving with First-Year Engineering Students: An Experimental Study by Mark R. Springston Technology Education Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University ABSTRACT An experiment was conducted investigating the utility of teamwork exercises and problem structure for promoting technological problem solving in a student team context. The teamwork exercises were designed for participants to experience a high level of psychomotor coordination and cooperation with their teammates. The problem structure treatment was designed based on small group research findings on brainstorming, information processing, and problem formulation. First-year college engineering students (N = 294) were randomly assigned to three levels of team size (2, 3, or 4 members) and two treatment conditions: teamwork exercises and problem structure (N = 99 teams). In addition, the study included three non- manipulated, independent variables: team gender, team temperament, and team teamwork orientation. Teams were measured on technological problem solving through two conceptually related technological tasks or engineering design activities: a computer bridge task and a truss model task. The computer bridge score and the number of computer bridge design iterations, both within subjects factors (time), were recorded in pairs over four 30-minute intervals. For the last two intervals with the computer bridge, teams started construction of the truss model task, which created low and high task load conditions for the computer bridge: another within subjects factor. A repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyze time (computer bridge) by factor interactions. No significant time by teamwork exercises or time by problem structure interactions on computer bridge scores were found [F(2.31, 198.46) = 0.10, p = .928; F(2.31, 198.46) = 0.03, p = .984]. There was a significant interaction between the factors of time and team size [F(4.62, 198.46) = 2.75, p = .023]. An ANOVA was conducted with the between subject factors on the truss model task. A significant main effect was found for teamwork exercises [F(1, 86) = 2.84, p = .048, one-tailed], but not for problem structure or team size. Post hoc analyses were conducted for team size on computer bridge and iteration scores over time, as well as teamwork exercises effects for each team size. Findings and their implications were reported, along with suggestions for future research on technological problem solving in a team context. iv Teamwork and Technological Problem Solving DEDICATION I dedicate this work to my two families. To my wife, Patricia, and our child, who is “on the way.” To my parents, Rex and Margaret. To my sisters, Suzanne and Martha. To my parents-in-law, Dagobert and Mery. To my brothers-in-law, Greg, Mickey, Fernando, and Juan Carlos. To my sisters-in-law, Beatriz and Adriana. To my nieces, Brittany Marie, Bailey Cathlin, Noelle Ruth, and Maria Fernanda. To my nephew, Carter Calloway. To our child’s other cousin, who is “on the way.” Preface v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I had a very talented and dedicated committee that helped guide me through the dissertation process. Without their input and support, I would have not been able to successfully complete this project. It always seemed like someone gave me the missing piece of the puzzle at just the right time to make the gestalt fall into place. During my master’s and doctoral degree work, Dr. Sanders has always made sure that the lighthouse was visible, no matter how far off shore I became. He has served as an inspiration for me and is the most dedicated committee chair for which any doctoral student has a right to ask. His teachings have given me a foundation on which to build. Dr. Cachaper was always a great listener, making sure I heard my own ideas. She encouraged me through all the design phases of this research study. Dr. Goff told me to “go for it” when I wondered how I would be able to pull it all off. He was very helpful in making the study a reality within the Engineering Education Department. In addition, he helped me understand the abilities of first-year engineering students and student engineering teams. Dr. Magliaro asked me insightful questions that helped me further my thinking about this research. Her suggestions on my plan of study proved to be very helpful in creating a base to commence my literature review. She was also very helpful in securing rooms for this study. Dr. Sherman was instrumental in helping me organize my thoughts related to this research study and beyond. He had a knack for saying just the right thing to keep an important thought ringing in my ears. A special thanks to Dr. Griffin, Dr. Lo, and the rest of Engineering Education faculty for helping support this research project. They have a great department, and they care about the learning of their students. Thanks also to the research participants and research assistants for their cooperation in this endeavor. I always tried to make things a win-win situation for everyone involved. Thanks to Tom Heck for leading the teamwork exercises, and thanks to Jeff Swab for vi Teamwork and Technological Problem Solving leading the control group activities. A special thanks to the Departments of Teaching and Learning and Engineering Education for financially supporting this research study. Thanks to Dr. Jim LaPorte and Dr. Sharon Brusic for being supportive of my graduate studies. A special thanks to Dr. Susan Mohammed, Dr. John Mathieu, and Dr. John Donovan for consulting with me on team theory and research. Thanks to Dr. Stephen Ressler for consulting with me on the West Point Bridge Designer. Thanks to Everton Lewis for his support and friendship. Thanks to my friends from War Gym (Truman, Jonathan, Jon, Chris, Neal, and Chuck) for their support. Without the love and strength of my family, I most certainly would have failed in this endeavor. To my wife, Patricia, who has always supported me through the good times and the bad, I love you. To my father, mother, and sisters, who have supported me wholeheartedly throughout this research project, I appreciate you. Preface vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................... ii DEDICATION............................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................ v TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................. vii LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................ xii LIST OF MEDIA.........................................................................................................................xiii Chapter 1. Nature of the Study ....................................................................................................... 1 Overview............................................................................................................................. 1 Importance and Need for the Study .................................................................................... 1 Team Pedagogy in Higher Education ................................................................................. 2 Team Pedagogy in K-12 Technology Education................................................................ 5 Teamwork in the Standards for Technological Literacy..................................................... 7 Statement of the Problem.................................................................................................... 8 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 8 Research Questions............................................................................................................. 9 Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 10 Delimitations..................................................................................................................... 12 Assumptions...................................................................................................................... 12 Chapter 2. Review of Related Literature ...................................................................................... 15 Overview........................................................................................................................... 15 Quantitative Research
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Gold-Colored Rose
    Co-ordinator: Jean-Paul Meyer – Editor: Brent Manley – Assistant Editors: Mark Horton, Brian Senior & Franco Broccoli – Layout Editor: Akis Kanaris – Photographer: Ron Tacchi Issue No. 13 Thursday, 22 June 2006 A Gold-Colored Rose VuGraph Programme Teatro Verdi 10.30 Open Pairs Final 1 15.45 Open Pairs Final 2 TODAY’S PROGRAMME Open and Women’s Pairs (Final) 10.30 Session 1 15.45 Session 2 Rosenblum winners: the Rose Meltzer team IMP Pairs 10.30 Final A, Final B - Session 1 In 2001, Geir Helgemo and Tor Helness were on the Nor- 15.45 Final A, Final B - Session 2 wegian team that lost to Rose Meltzer's squad in the Bermu- Senior Pairs da Bowl. In Verona, they joined Meltzer, Kyle Larsen,Alan Son- 10.30 Session 5 tag and Roger Bates to earn their first world championship – 15.45 Session 6 the Rosenblum Cup. It wasn't easy, as the valiant team captained by Christal Hen- ner-Welland team mounted a comeback toward the end of Contents the 64-board match that had Meltzer partisans worried.The rally fizzled out, however, and Meltzer won handily, 179-133. Results . 2-6 The bronze medal went to Yadlin, 69-65 winners over Why University Bridge? . .7 Welland in the play-off. Left out of yesterday's report were Osservatorio . .8 the McConnell bronze medallists – Katt-Bridge, 70-67 win- Championship Diary . .9 ners over China Global Times. Comeback Time . .10 As the tournament nears its conclusion, the pairs events are The Playing World Represented by Precious Cartier Jewels .
    [Show full text]
  • 2000 Bridge Bulletin Index
    2000 Bridge Bulletin Index ACBL BRIDGE HALL OF FAME. George Rosenkranz named Blackwood Award winner, Meyer Schleifer receives the von Zedtwitz Award C February. Hall of Fame inducts Lou Bluhm, Harry Fishbein, Charles Solomon, George Rosenkranz, Sidney Lazard, Meyer Schleifer and Ira Rubin C October. ACBL BOARD OF DIRECTORS. Highlights from the Boston Board meeting --- February. Election notice C March C May . Highlights of Cincinnati Board meeting C May. Highlights from the Anaheim meeting C October. Election results for 2000 Board C November. ACBL CHARITY FOUNDATION. 2000 Charity Committee appointees named --- February. ACBL CHARITY GAME. Winners C August. ACBL GOODWILL COMMITTEE. 2000 Appointees named --- February. ACBL HALL OF FAME. Rosenkranz wins Blackwood award; Meyer Schleifer is von Zedtwitz award winner C February. ACBL HONORARY MEMBER OF THE YEAR. Chip Martel named for 2000 --- February. ACBL INSTANT MATCHPOINT GAME. Promo C August, September. Results C December. ACBL INTERNATIONAL FUND GAME. Winners C July, November. ACBL PATRON MEMBER LIST. December. ACBL SENIOR GAME. Winners C May. ACE OF CLUBS. Winners of the 1999 contest --- April. AMERICAN BRIDGE ASSOCIATION. Schedule of upcoming national events --- monthly. ANAHEIM NABC. Promos C April --- July. Meltzer squad wins Spingold; Wei-Sender team takes Wagar; District 9 repeats win in GNT-A; District 19 wins GNT-B title; District 13 victorious in GNT-C contest; Zia, Rosenberg top LM Pairs field; Ping, Leung win Red Ribbon; Nugit squad wins Senior Swiss teams C October. Willenken, Silverstein win Fast Open Pairs; Bach and Burgess take IMP Pairs title; Mixed B-A-M winners; 199er Pairs winners; Five-way tie fir Fishbein Trophy; other NABC highlights C November.
    [Show full text]
  • GIB: Imperfect Information in a Computationally Challenging Game
    Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 14 (2001) 303–358 Submitted 10/00; published 6/01 GIB: Imperfect Information in a Computationally Challenging Game Matthew L. Ginsberg [email protected] CIRL 1269 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97405 USA Abstract This paper investigates the problems arising in the construction of a program to play the game of contract bridge. These problems include both the difficulty of solving the game’s perfect information variant, and techniques needed to address the fact that bridge is not, in fact, a perfect information game. Gib, the program being described, involves five separate technical advances: partition search, the practical application of Monte Carlo techniques to realistic problems, a focus on achievable sets to solve problems inherent in the Monte Carlo approach, an extension of alpha-beta pruning from total orders to arbitrary distributive lattices, and the use of squeaky wheel optimization to find approximately optimal solutions to cardplay problems. Gib is currently believed to be of approximately expert caliber, and is currently the strongest computer bridge program in the world. 1. Introduction Of all the classic games of mental skill, only card games and Go have yet to see the ap- pearance of serious computer challengers. In Go, this appears to be because the game is fundamentally one of pattern recognition as opposed to search; the brute-force techniques that have been so successful in the development of chess-playing programs have failed al- most utterly to deal with Go’s huge branching factor. Indeed, the arguably strongest Go program in the world (Handtalk) was beaten by 1-dan Janice Kim (winner of the 1984 Fuji Women’s Championship) in the 1997 AAAI Hall of Champions after Kim had given the program a monumental 25 stone handicap.
    [Show full text]
  • Bridge for Dummies‰
    01_924261 ffirs.qxp 8/17/06 2:49 PM Page i Bridge FOR DUMmIES‰ 2ND EDITION by Eddie Kantar 01_924261 ffirs.qxp 8/17/06 2:49 PM Page iv 01_924261 ffirs.qxp 8/17/06 2:49 PM Page i Bridge FOR DUMmIES‰ 2ND EDITION by Eddie Kantar 01_924261 ffirs.qxp 8/17/06 2:49 PM Page ii Bridge For Dummies®, 2nd Edition Published by Wiley Publishing, Inc. 111 River St. Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774 www.wiley.com Copyright © 2006 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana Published simultaneously in Canada No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Sections 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permis- sion of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400, fax 978-646-8600. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Legal Department, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 10475 Crosspoint Blvd., Indianapolis, IN 46256, 317-572-3447, fax 317-572-4355, or online at http://www. wiley.com/go/permissions. Trademarks: Wiley, the Wiley Publishing logo, For Dummies, the Dummies Man logo, A Reference for the Rest of Us!, The Dummies Way, Dummies Daily, The Fun and Easy Way, Dummies.com and related trade dress are trademarks or registered trademarks of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the United States and other countries, and may not be used without written permission.
    [Show full text]
  • Applying Case-Based Reasoning to the Game of Bridge
    Applying Case-Based Reasoning to the Game of Bridge Jacob Bellamy-McIntyre A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Postgraduate Diploma of Science in Computer Science, University of Auckland, 2008 1 Abstract Bridge provides a challenging problem for Artificial Intelligence research due to the game being stochastic (from the shuffling of the cards), hidden information (from not being able to see opponents cards) and from the general complexities of the game. Research into Computer Bridge is in its relative infancy, with the American Contract Bridge League holding the first World Championships Computer Bridge competition in 1997. With Bridge being a game that is more probabilistic and intuitive than Chess, it may be a better avenue of research for evaluating human-like intelligence. This paper will explore the possibility of applying Case Base Reasoning to the game of Bridge and will discuss the problems that arise from trying to do so, while comparing Case Base Reasoning to other techniques used in Artificial Intelligence. 2 Table of Contents 1. Case-Based Reasoning 1.1 Introduction ……………………………… 5 1.2 The Domain and Adaptation …………….. 8 1.3 The Case and the Case Base …………….. 10 1.4 The Similarity Function …………………. 11 2. Games in AI 2.1 Introduction ………………………………………….14 2.2 Chess ………………………………………………. 15 2.3 Checkers …………………………………………… 17 2.4 Poker ………………………………………………. 19 2.5 Bridge ……………………………………………… 25 2.6 Other Games ……………………………………... 28 3. The Game of Bridge 3.1 Introduction to Bridge ………………………........... 30 3.2 The Bidding Phase …………………………….…… 30 3.3 Play of the Hand …………………………………... 31 3.4 The Value of a Hand ……………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • Veldhoven 2011 Issue No10
    Co-ordinator: Jean-Paul Meyer • Chief Editor: Brent Manley • Editors: Phillip Alder, Mark Horton, Jos Jacobs, Micke Melander, Brian Senior • Lay Out Editor: Akis Kanaris • Photographer: Ron Tacchi Issue No. 10 Tuesday, 25 October 2011 VANQUISHED IN VELDHOVEN Competitors in the World Computer Bridge Championships monitor their robot players. A winner will emerge on Friday or Saturday. For the first time in the history of the Venice Cup, there will be no USA team in the final stages of the Contents championship. Both USA squads were bounced from the Tournament Results . .2 quarter-final round, USA1 going down to the Netherlands, 200-172, and USA2 falling to Indonesia, 238-208. BB: Italy - China and Iceland - Netherlands QF1 . .4 In the 17 times that the Venice Cup has been played The difference between... .9 previously, the USA has earned 10 gold medals, five silver VC: QF1 (Netherlands - USA 1 and USA 2 - Indonesia) .10 medals and one bronze. They were shut out only in Estoril, SB: QF4 (France - Germany) . .12 Portugal, in 2005, USA2 losing a playoff to the Dutch team. Tight match . .15 Venice Cup semi-final matchups are Indonesia — England IBPA Awards . .18 (winners over Sweden) and Netherlands — France (winners Blame it on Marco Polo . .20 over China). Swinglish fourth segment . .24 continued on page 3 40th WORLD TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS Veldhoven, The Netherlands RESULTS Bermuda Bowl Quarter-finals Tbl c/o Boards Boards Boards Boards Boards Boards Total 1 - 16 17 - 32 33 - 48 49 - 64 65 - 80 81 - 96 1 Italy 0 75 28 19 18 31 34 205 China 0.3
    [Show full text]
  • 64Th Annual Potomac Valley Tournament — May 14-17, 2009
    www.WashingtonBridgeLeague.org March/April 2009 Come on out to the Washington Bridge League’s 64th Annual B Potomac Valley Tournament ♣ MAY 14-17, 2009 U The WBL May Sectional is packed with special events and games along with great hospitality. ♥ I/N players, check it out! There’s a full schedule of Intermediate & Novice events and a One-Day Bridge Class on Sunday. L Friday night, the IMP Pairs are back... It’s a pair game that scores like a team game! ♠ Between sessions on Saturday attend the free Panel Show. At 11:00am and 3:30pm, check out the 6th Annual Washington Bridge League Trophy Pairs. L Sunday, between sessions, this traveling trophy will be presented to the winners. ♦ Did we mention hospitality? Check out the Famous Washington Hospitality throughout the E tournament with free lunches between sessions all Check out the ♥ weekend. Annual Meeting, Elections and See page 3 forCh thear fullity tournament Game o schedule...n May 7 at the Unit Game T Come play bridge, vote for your new board, and feast at Christ the King Church on Thursday, May 7... ♣ Complimentary Buffet Dinner . .6:00 p.m. Meeting and Elections . .7:00 p.m. I Charity Game . .7:30 p.m. Volunteers are needed to help with cooking at Nadine’s the night ♠ before, starting at 7 p.m. We also need volunteers (not food) to help pre- pare and set up food on the day, at the church, starting at 3 p.m. Any person who can help, even if only for an hour or two, will be welcome.
    [Show full text]
  • Boston Daily Bulletin 8
    November 18-November 28, 1999 Boston, Massachusetts 73rd Fall North American Bridge Championships Vol. 73, No. 8 Friday, November 26, 1999 Editors: Henry Francis and Paul Linxwiler Meyers, Mohan win Blue Ribbon Pairs Jill Meyers of Santa Monica CA and John Mohan of Sam Lev in the Life Master Pairs. With this victory, Mohan St. Croix, Virgin Islands, boosted by a strong first final moves into the lead for this year’s Player of the Year con- session, won the Edgar Kaplan Blue Ribbon Pairs. It is test. the first time either player has won the event, and it is Mohan’s best finish in world competition was his third only the second time in the history of the contest that a place performance at the World Open Pairs in 1978. mixed pair has finished first. Dorothy Hayden Truscott Meyers and Mohan posted a 1239.07 total, finishing and B. Jay Becker won the inaugural Blue Ribbon Pairs more than a board ahead of their nearest competitors. in 1963. “John was just wonderful to play with,” said Meyers It is Meyers’ eighth NABC victory, and the second repeatedly to friends and well-wishers who congratulated NABC championship here in Boston — Meyers was a her after the event. member of the winning squad in the Women’s Board-a- Mohan said, “We had a nice round in the afternoon Match Teams. In 1987, Meyers won the Lou Herman Tro- — about 60% — but the evening round was just above phy, given to the player who earns the most masterpoints average. It was enough, however.” at the Fall NABC.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning to Bid in Bridge
    Mach Learn () : DOI 10.1007/s10994-006-6225-2 Learning to bid in bridge Asaf Amit · Shaul Markovitch Received: 8 February 2005 / Revised: 17 October 2005 / Accepted: 15 November 2005 / Published online: 9 March 2006 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc 2006 Abstract Bridge bidding is considered to be one of the most difficult problems for game- playing programs. It involves four agents rather than two, including a cooperative agent. In addition, the partial observability of the game makes it impossible to predict the outcome of each action. In this paper we present a new decision-making algorithm that is capable of overcoming these problems. The algorithm allows models to be used for both opponent agents and partners, while utilizing a novel model-based Monte Carlo sampling method to overcome the problem of hidden information. The paper also presents a learning framework that uses the above decision-making algorithm for co-training of partners. The agents refine their selection strategies during training and continuously exchange their refined strategies. The refinement is based on inductive learning applied to examples accumulated for classes of states with conflicting actions. The algorithm was empirically evaluated on a set of bridge deals. The pair of agents that co-trained significantly improved their bidding performance to a level surpassing that of the current state-of-the-art bidding algorithm. Keywords Bridge . Partner modeling . Opponent modeling . Learning to cooperate 1. Introduction Game-playing has long been used by artificial intelligence researchers as a domain for studying decision-making in competitive multi-agent environments. The vast majority of researchers have dealt with full information two-player games such as chess or checkers.
    [Show full text]
  • Bridge Playing & Simulation Software Review
    Bridge Playing & Simulation Software Review Pete Matthews Jr – http://3nt.xyz – © May 23, 2013 Almost any computer chess program can probably kick your butt up, down and around your house; and it has been this way for decades. Not so with bridge playing software. Bridge is a much more complex game than chess. Expect a bridge playing program to perform at the club level. The best continue to improve. You improve your play by playing with and against players at least at your own level of play. So, for most people, the most important feature of a program should be playing strength. Bridge software can have myriad other features, but playing strength is the most important. Don’t worry about it playing too well: you can tell it to spend less time thinking. This will decrease the quality of play, but speed up the game. The web site for the Jack program lists about thirty programs, and there are more, such as GNUBridge. However, if you just want to play a good game of bridge on your computer, there are only five programs to consider. In order of playing strength, they are: 1. Jack, jackbridge.com. 2. WBridge5, wbridge5.com. 3. Shark Bridge, sharkbridge.dk. 4. GiB, gibware.com. 5. Bridge Baron, bridgebaron.com. This list is probably too long. You won’t read much about WBridge5, because it’s free! Download this program and the Jack 4 demo. If you want more than WBridge5, Jack is probably right. If you are looking for lots of features and support, Bridge Baron may be right, despite its second-tier level of play.
    [Show full text]
  • Octoberfest of Bridge! U at the ♥ 77TH ANNUAL D.C
    www.WashingtonBridgeLeague.org September/October 2007 Come to the Washington B Bridge League’s ♣ Octoberfest of Bridge! U at the ♥ 77TH ANNUAL D.C. CHAMPIONSHIPS October 4-7, 2007 L ♠ Check out Friday Night: L ♦IMP PAIRS, BEER & BRATWURST!♦ ♦ On Sunday, play Swiss Teams for the E ♦EYNON TROPHY♦ First awarded in 1931—Try to add your name to the famous ♥ names inscribed here! T Don’t miss the 2:30pm Saturday Machlin Sportsmanship Award Presentation & “Ask the Experts” Panel Show! ♣ Turn your friends onto bridge in One Day with the ♦INSTANT BRIDGE PLAYER SEMINAR!♦ I 11am Sunday — Just $20 includes Booklet, Lunch, Drinks & Snacks with advance reservation; $25 at the door. (Students $10 with ♠ reservation; $15 at the door) For more information or to make a reservation, email [email protected] or call Garry Grossman at (301) 469- 8801. (See details on p. 18) N See page 3 for the full tournament schedule... WBL OMBUDSMAN CONTENTS Any player with helpful director SUGGESTION BOX issues including criticism or praise of the Do you have a suggestion that directing staff may contact the might help to increase membership or Ombudsman, Ann Lindley and be otherwise improve the Washington assured that the source of the informa- Bridge League? Give any and all tion will remain confidential. Information ARTICLE PAGE ideas to Don Berman, 301-776-3581, should be provided in writing and may [email protected], 13707 be handed to her at any game, or mailed President’s Letter . .by Fred King 2 Engleman Dr., Laurel, MD 20708, or to her at 8822 Fircrest Pl., Alexandria, www.WashingtonBridgeLeague.org.
    [Show full text]
  • The Usual Suspects
    Wednesday, 19 January 2000 Jean Paul Meyer, Co-ordinator Mark Horton, Editor Brent Manley & Brian Senior,Assistant Editors Issue: 12 Stelios Hatzidakis, Layout Editor The Usual Suspects Orbis Bermuda Bowl Orbis World Transnational Teams Brazil gained revenge for their defeat by Norway in the semi- final of the 1993 Bermuda Bowl in Santiago when they staged a Championship dramatic comeback in the final session of their semifinal encounter After ten rounds of the Orbis World Transnational Teams against the Scandinavians.They bounced back from a 30 IMP loss Championship, the leaders are the team from Bulgaria that nar- in the penultimate session to win by 12.3 IMPs. rowly failed to qualify for the quarterfinals of the Orbis Bermuda There are instances in many sports of great competitors never Bowl.With four rounds to go before the top four teams qualify for winning the ultimate prize. Ken Rosewall never won at the knockout stages, they are 14VP clear of the fifth placed team. Wimbledon, Colin Montgomerie has never won a Major, and for The chasing teams are closely grouped, with 11 VP covering the the moment, Zia Mahmood must put on hold his hopes of a World next ten teams. Five of the chasing pack are from the United title. USA 2 could not stay with USA I, losing by 91 IMPs. In the States of America, and two from Great Britain. last four sessions, USA I conceded only 50 IMPs in 64 boards. The final sees USA I holding a 24 IMP advantage, the maxi- mum carry-over allowed, by virtue of their huge win over Brazil in the Round-Robin.
    [Show full text]