[mrdct]

I was staggered to be told during a match I was commentating on this evening that I'm not allowed to give a link to the website from which spectators can get the live realtime scores. How petty.

We all know that BBO's vugraph is superior in every respect and its spectators outnumber Swan's by at least 20 to 1. So what are Fred & Uday worried about? The reality is that Swan are providing an absolutely outstanding real-time scoring service that is the perfect viewing companion to have on a second screen or a background web-browser while watching BBO.

It's quite simple. BBO are the best in the business for vugraph whilst Swan are the best in the business for real-time scoring.

The operators, commentators and coordinators are giving freely of their time to provide the best service they possibly can which surely includes telling spectators where to go for live scores.

It would be like a TV station pretending that a major sporting event doesn't exist during its news bulletins for fear of promoting another TV station coverage of it.

Should commentators also avoid mentioning the official WBF site? Who knows a spectator might accidentally see a Swan banner or download a bulletin with Swan's vugraph schedule.

During the round-robin in particular I was relying heavily on Swan for the board comparisons to make comments about what contracts, results, leads, etc. were made at other tables. So why shouldn't Swan receive credit for that? Of course they should which is why I always thanked Swan in my wrap-up. But now I'm gagged.

[inquiry]

Seems odd.. since I can't remember a session I watched that swan site wasn't not only mentioned but a link was given to it. Most commonly by Roland himself. Also seems odd because BBO is under a lot of stress with vugraph (so much that money making tournements are limited), so if someone wanted to go over to swan more power to them (but who would want too??? that site doesn't hold a candle to BBO).

Before you get to excited about the quality of the real time scoring. Electonic do-dads are being used and data sent automatically to swan. I remember an event where BBO set us real time scoring of a pairs event that was awesome. I am sure anysite could do that as well. The advantage is SWAN has access to that data.

However, if BBO decides that it is in there best intrest not to mention the competition, I think that is an acceptable too. After all this is a business.

Ben

[uday]

We can discuss this fully later, after the vugraph, if we are not bored with the subject by then. Grump .

I don't mind a very sporadic mention to a competing bridge site under some circumstances (like the round robin, when there are a lot of teams in play)

I don't want ongoing references made (on BBO, I mean) to a link which, when clicked, blares out an advertisement for online bridge before showing you the scores.


Just for fun, here are two questions of my own:

Should Audi mention that BMWs are more reliable, cheaper, and better looking in all their literature? ( note: I dont know anything about cars)

Should CNN have an interstitial like "Thanks for watching our live coverage of hurricane Wilma, but there is far better coverage on Fox News, winner of 4 awards for outstanding Broadcasting"'" (note: I dont know anything about television)



I encourage the commentators to look up the scores and report them to the audience. If that is too annoying, let me know, and I'll have someone do it. This will allow the commentators to focus on the match at hand.


There are a number of non-technical reasons why I can't automate the process of either fetching the scores to our own site or fetching them automatically from the other site for display to the audience. I am disinclined to thank anyone for that.

[helene_t]

uday, on Nov 2 2005, 03:57 PM, said:

Should Audi mention that BMWs are more reliable, cheaper, and better looking in all their literature?

No but if I went to the BMW dealer and asked if they had a low-price 4x4 they might refer me to a dealer of some other brand.

Anyway, they are not obliged to offer that service, and they would not put large posters in their showcases, saying that the best low-price 4x4 are not here but next door.

I know of another bridge site forum that routinely censors out any reference to competitors. So even if BBO asks their commenators not to broadcast links to competitors, they are still relatively liberal.

[hrothgar]

As always, a couple comments:

First and foremost: I really doubt that Swan's advertisements have any significant impact on customer behavior. Madison avenue would hate to hear me say this, but the power of advertising is very limited. In particular, once a customer has established brand loyalty, its extremely difficult to get them to switch. When customers do switch brands, its typically based on more tangible dimensions such as “Price” or “Performance”. I appreciate that BBO is very much committed to establishing itself as the preeminent online bridge site. Ultimately, this battle will be fought based on performance characteristics like the sophistication of the GUI, the stability of the server, and the breadth of the platforms supported. BBO's commitment to adding new features like “Full Disclosure” will be much more significant than whatever silly little ads that Swan decides to run.

With this said and done, it is apparent that Swan is beating BBO on one dimension of performance: For whatever reason, Swan is able to provide real time scores for all of the matches. Ben commented that “Electronic do-dads are being used and data sent automatically to Swan”. BBO is not able to match this functionality. From my perspective, the real area of concern is whether Swan might be able to develop superior functionality for supporting Online Vugraph. Ignoring this issue or, worse yet, shielding customers from this axis of comparison strikes me as dysfunctional. This type of strategy never succeeds in the long.

I'll spare everyone yet another lecture on all the reasons why I think that the Bermuda Bowl should be contested using an electronic playing environment. Instead, I'll repeat a previous comment: This transition is inevitable. It might take the WBF some time to come around, however, it is going to happen. At the moment, BBO can make a very credible claim that its software should be used to create the electronic playing environment. From my perspective, the appropriate response to Swan is working a deal with either the WBF or the Cavendish for a fully electronic tournament environment.

[uday]

Quote

should be contested using an electronic playing environment

That is a big step for all concerned. Can we come up with a way to do this on a smaller scale as a trial ? I mean, I'm all for monitored electronic play so that people can play in these events w/o the massive financial and calendar burdens of being in a foreign country for a few weeks, but we can't expect the big orgs (acbl/wbf, etc) to make such a leap on faith.

if we had to find a small - scale trial (say, at an NABC ) , what would we settle for?

The finals of a big team game ? A smaller team game ? Now we just have to convince 2 teams plus someone at the ACBL that this is a good thing. Maybe we'll offer some cash for the project if it will ease the way, but i don't know how to actually get there from here. I think the players will object - if nothing else, this removes all "table feel", whatever that is. And some players may be uncomfortable using a keyboard.

[hrothgar]

uday, on Nov 2 2005, 07:33 PM, said:

Quote

should be contested using an electronic playing environment

That is a big step for all concerned. Can we come up with a way to do this on a smaller scale as a trial ? I mean, I'm all for monitored electronic play so that people can play in these events w/o the massive financial and calendar burdens of being in a foreign country for a few weeks, but we can't expect the big orgs (acbl/wbf, etc) to make such a leap on faith.

Comment 1: When I use the expression "Electronic Playing Environment", I assume that personal computers are being used as a substitute for playing cards. I still see a lot of value in having players congregate in a common physical location. Physical protoring and control of the underlying infrastructure makes security much easier. Having the option to "fall back" and use playing cards in the event of a network outage or power failure adds enormous reliability to the system. 20 years from now, we might be able to dispense with the need for travel. However, I think that this would be a mistake in the short term.

Comment 2: I think that it would be suicidal to try to roll out a brand spanking new system during the Bermuda Bowl. Practice makes perfect. I think that you'd want a LOT of practice before trying anything like a World Championship event.

Comment 3: I think that you're dead on when you state that one of the major problems is convincing the ACBL or the WBF that there is a need for such a system. If it were me, I'd focus on the Cavendish Pairs as the "obvious" target.

1. LOTS of money changes hands in conjunction with this event. I suspect that the administrators have a strong vested interest in ensuring that they implement state of the art security measures.
2. The event has a private administrative structure. While I don't know anything about World Bridge Productions, I suspect that they might be more flexible than the WBF or ACBL bureaucracy.
3. The event is relatively small and takes place in Las Vegas. Co-location with BBO headquarters presents a number of advantages, as does Las Vegas' “first world” ammenities.

I think that you could make a pretty damn persuasive pitch to the Cavendish administrators, based on a combination superior physical security combined with world class Vugraph capabilities.

[Booze]

This is realy a sad story, I asked during European CS in Malmö if scores could be on a ftp share, so Swan shouldnt have monopoly, I dont think a commerical site like Swan should have exclusive rights to scores. Its a press ethic issue IMO !! I dont know any other sport event where someone has monopol on scores

Wont take a second to drag and drop to any webpage if we had access to scores.


Bo

[muggle]

I like Swan as well as BBO. I hope you guys can resolve your differences and work together. (I understand sometimes personality clashes on either or both sides make it impossible.) We all know BBO is the king on the block, but one of the mission's of BBO is also to promote bridge. The strongest market exist when there is healthy competition, and not just a predatory kind, which we see too much of in online bridge. Maybe in the future, BBO and Swan can offer joint projects and presentations, and take advantage of each other's strengths, to the benefit bridge aficionados worldwide.

And about salespeople mentioning the competition: I think a business confident in itself, and prides itself in taking care of customers first, will refer customers to competition when they don't have something in stock, because they know the customer will come back. I've been referred elsewhere by what I consider good salespeople for hard to find electronics and such, because they know they are the best store, I am a good customer, and I will be back to buy more electronics from them in the future. The car dealer analogy is off, because a car is, for all purposes, a one-time purchase. Unlike the VuGraph, which is not a one-or-the-other proposition -- I have both BBO and Swan open at the same time.

[Al_U_Card]

muggle, on Nov 2 2005, 02:52 PM, said:

Unlike the VuGraph, which is not a one-or-the-other proposition -- I have both BBO and Swan open at the same time.

BBO had 5000 kibbitzers for the USA I vs II match. Any idea how many Swan had?

[Walddk]

Al_U_Card, on Nov 2 2005, 09:58 PM, said:

muggle, on Nov 2 2005, 02:52 PM, said:

Unlike the VuGraph, which is not a one-or-the-other proposition -- I have both BBO and Swan open at the same time.

BBO had 5000 kibbitzers for the USA I vs II match. Any idea how many Swan had?

210 (max) for the final segment between Indonesia and Denmark (seniors).
Roland

[Walddk]

I don't think this is censorship at all. Judge for yourself when you read what commentators assigned for the knockout phase have received from me:

Please do not advertise for one of our competitors (Swan) by giving the link to results too often (preferably not at all). It's much better that you check yourself and give the spectators scores with regular intervals. With five commentators assigned for each table, this should not be an impossible task now that we have very few matches in progress.

To me this looks like a polite request, not an order, and certainly not censorship. Dave Thompson (mrdct) did not sign up for any knockout session, so he didn't get this e-mail. Commentators (71) who did get the e-mail don't seem to have a problem with this.

Dave messaged me to tell that he would be available as a commentator for about an hour Wednesday morning (evening for Dave). I welcomed him, and about 30 minutes later when I told him about what the BBO policy is regarding this issue, he left in disgust to join Swan instead.

He wasn't exactly pleased to say the least. Fair enough; take it or leave it. Dave preferred to leave it.

Roland

[uday]

Thanks, muggle.


Let us not get worked up over this. One of the WBF'ers tells me that he will work with us to make sure that the feeds will be more available to all interested parties in the future, and I am confident that by the next wbf event (the one in Verona?) all will be well.

[nickf]

This is certainly a delicate issue and whether or not it is censorship makes a worthwhile discussion. However, there's a broader context that has to be considered.

Fred/ Uday/ Sheri offer a free service - ultimately they are remunerated via their cut of paid tourneys and income derived from the sales of products available for purchase from the sites they run.

I can't see how directing customers to a competitor's site can have any positive effect for Bridge Base Inc.

In a free market such that they operate it's the customers who will decide what to consume and the market shares of BBO/ Swan are probably a fair reflection of the comparative quality of products on offer.

I also run a small business and like BBO have a majority market share yet I occasionally refer customers to my main competitor (who is also a good friend). That's the business approach I choose to take and I think we should respect the approach Bridge Base Inc have chosen to adopt.

I suspect Vugraph kibbitzers who are interested in consulting a running scoreboard (and I bet there arent that many) already know of the existence of the Swan site.

nickf
sydney

[Walddk]

muggle, on Nov 2 2005, 09:52 PM, said:

Maybe in the future, BBO and Swan can offer joint projects and presentations, and take advantage of each other's strengths, to the benefit bridge aficionados worldwide.

I can't speak for Bridge Base Inc., but my guess is that this will never happen. I can speak for myself, however, and you are most welcome to remind me in the unlikely event that I forget.

If there ever is a joint effort regarding the co-ordination of vugraph broadcasts, I will prefer to resign. This is a promise, not a threat. I wouldn't be able to work with the Swan management. I dislike the people in charge there; it's as simple as that.

Roland

[mrdct]

Of course it's censorship. Commentators are being directed to not say something that they would otherwise say.

I believe it was closer to an hour into the match (around board 6 or 7) when I gave a link to the running scores. Even if I had received the directive quoted by Roland, I wouldn't have expected that giving the link at that point would've been classed as "too often". I was immediately jumped on by multiple commentators including the word "furious".

Swan have done a fantastic job with the running scores and the more people that know about it the better in my view. Note also that Swan's running scores include every table in the Transnationals with more than 100 teams which translates to thousands of friends, relatives and interested parties. It would obviously be very disruptive and inappropriate for commentators to be giving lots and lots of running scores from that event; so clearly the best thing to do is give the link a few times each session so spectators can follow which ever running scores they are interested in.

I did go off and watch Swan's coverage of the Italy-Sweden match where there were around 380 spectators, which was a bit better than the usual 20-1 advantage the BBO enjoys. As it happens, I find Swan's vugraph virtually unwatchable as the interface is terrible, but diversity is good for the fans.

I think Uday's analogy of the Audi dealer promoting BMWs is silly. A more relevant analogy would television broadcasts of football. In Australia, like many countries, football broadcast rights are divied up amongst multiple TV stations. Obviously the respective stations do their best to promote their own matches, but they certainly don't ignore the existence of the other matches and will give progress scores and show highlight grabs (complete with the competiting stations' watermarked logo).

A constructive suggestion that has been made many times before is to have a button that spectators can click on to bring up a pop-up with all of the relevant links for the event they are watching.

[mrdct]

nickf, on Nov 2 2005, 04:49 PM, said:

Fred/ Uday/ Sheri offer a free service - ultimately they are remunerated via their cut of paid tourneys and income derived from the sales of products available for purchase from the sites they run.

The commentators, operators and organisers also offer a free service - all for the betterment of the game we all love. I provide all three of these services on a regular basis and at considerable personal expense. I do so for the bridge fans not the owners of BBO. Don't lose sight of the fact that BBO vugraph would not exist without these people who have made a significant contribution to the value of the BBO brand.

When I commentate I try to offer the best viewing experience I can complete with typos, misanalyses, beer cards and my personal views on a range of bridge and non-bridge matters. I firmly believe that the viewer experience is significantly enhanced by providing regular links to websites of interest to the event being broadcast. To one extent or another, such links will inevitably conflict with the commercial interests of BBO as virtually all bridge-related websites either directly or indirectly link to products and services that compete with BBO.

Even without actually providing the link to viewers, commentators are relying on Swan to provide progress scores from other matches and details such as contracts and leads from other matches. I believe that it is most discourteous to not acknowledge Swan's contribution to the broadcast.

Swan's running scores have gone a long way to filling the void of there being generally only one match broadcast each session, which appears to be a significant step backwards from the extent of coverage of other major WBF events in past two or three years.

[luke warm]

well this is the first i've even heard of this controversy.. i kibbed a lot and *often* saw the link given by commentators to swan's site... unfortunately (for those who wanted to see the running scores) the site had a lot of bandwidth trouble handling all the traffic...

i clicked the link a couple of times, but it in no way had any effect on my desire to stay on bbo... bbo has by far the best interface for both playing and kibbing that i've seen... in addition, the very fact that the whole staff has worked so hard to provide us with a quality FREE site demands loyalty imo

[42]

luke warm, on Nov 3 2005, 02:17 AM, said:

well this is the first i've even heard of this controversy.. i kibbed a lot and *often* saw the link given by commentators to swan's site... unfortunately (for those who wanted to see the running scores) the site had a lot of bandwidth trouble handling all the traffic...

i clicked the link a couple of times, but it in no way had any effect on my desire to stay on bbo... bbo has by far the best interface for both playing and kibbing that i've seen... in addition, the very fact that the whole staff has worked so hard to provide us with a quality FREE site demands loyalty imo

This is exactly also my opinion! People have their habits and if they like something they stay, if not, they leave, it is easy. BBO is a great place and the products that bridgebase sells are great, no need to be scared of competition. I liked seeing the link to the Estoril site, it showed -for me- self-confidence and not the opposite...

[Chamaco]

This issue is, IMO, very delicate.

What constitutes censorship and what constitutes freedom of speech ?
In which context ?

A friend of mine used to have political statements in his profile. The statements in themselves were not offensive, but they were definitely "taking a view" about specific issues.

Yet he was asked to remove them or be banned.
Talking with me, he complained to me that it was censorship.

Was it ?
If this was a republic, yes.
But here we are like guests in someone else's house: somebody who hosts us for free, and legitimately sets the rules.
We might disagree with some or most of the rules (personally, I do believe that BBO has nothing to fear from Swan, at least right now, given the extra lousy interface of Swan).

Indeed, I definitely disagree with Uday's position on the point you raised, but the comparison to censorship seems improper to me: censorship, to me, tends to imply the banning of a legitimate right, that is, the freedom of speech in a public place.

But if you are invited at dinner at my place and I ask you not to mention some specific topic, it's not censorship: you are my guest in my house, you are free to leave if you dislike the house's rule.