[DenisO]

As many of you know the BBO software doesn't properly record player names in the vugraph records of Pairs events. I'll offer to edit the BBO archive files if I can get some help with the data and then post them on Nikos's site. I'm unlikely to be at my PC much over the next few days so I'll need some help.

If you watch a session could you please record Session number and for each pair of bds:

Bd nos and N/S followed by E/W in that specific order.

You can post *any* data you get to this thread and I'll pick it up. The completed files won't be ready for about ten days as I'm on holiday all next week far away from any PC access

[DenisO]

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like this is going to work. I've just watched Session 1 which had 2 Tables being broadcast. 27 boards in the session (some problems with bds 1-6) but all that is recorded in the BBO archive is bds 25-27 from the second Table, which presumably finished later than first table.

Maybe someone could suggest to the operators how this could be improved. I know that giving the tables different names would double the amount of info recorded but that would still be only 6 bds

[nikos59]

Last year, we were able to capture nearly all the
data from Cavendish, with a little (or a lot of) help
from the operators and some volunteer work.

For example:
www.sarantakos.com\bridge\vugraph\2005\2005-cav.html

This was (more or less) also the case in 2004.

This year, I guess I won't even bother to include
Cavendish in the Vugraph project site.

Nikos

[mrdct]

The Cavendish organisers really need to take a good hard look at themselves over the way this event is presented and retained for prosperity.

As Fred pointed out in another thread, this is the "one and only bridge tournament where there is serious money at stake" but they can't seem to find the resources for a basic event website with timely results.

Perhaps they should skim an extra .1% out of the prize pool next year and buy or hire some table scoring units linked into a live website. Dare to dream!

[Elianna]

mrdct, on May 13 2006, 02:40 PM, said:

As Fred pointed out in another thread, this is the "one and only bridge tournament where there is serious money at stake" but they can't seem to find the resources for a basic event website with timely results.

They have purposely decided not to release results for each hand, rather to wait until the final results per session. I have found the results per session on the webpage minutes after vugraph ends.

[nikos59]

The results of the session are released, yes, and the hands as well,
but nothing more; not even frequencies at least for the moment (note that any local Polish or Scandinavian tourney usually has full frequency data),
and obviously no Vugraph data. No, the quality of record keeping in this
Cavendish is amazingly poor.

ns

[Walddk]

It's a tradition in Scandinavia at least. We believe that it's more important to service the players and spectators than the organisers.

You have seen this happen in all tournaments in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland - and Poland too as Nikos points out. Add Australia and Ireland in this context when Dave Thompson and Norbert van Woerkom are in charge.

I wish that many more would follow suit, but I am not holding my breath.

Roland

[asdfg2k]

Has anybody even tried to view the site with a browser other than Internet Explorer? This is laughable.

And nowhere on the site are the full and complete final standings. At least at this point in time.

If I were into predictions, I might even predict that the entire event is in trouble. But I'm not, so I won't. But I would if I were because these sorts of things tend to be systemic.

[PeterE]

asdfg2k, on May 15 2006, 03:46 AM, said:

Has anybody even tried to view the site with a browser other than Internet Explorer?  This is laughable.

Lovely

With Netscape no 'submenus' available; with Mozilla most of them visible, but unreachable ...

[Walddk]

This space intentionally left blank.
Information will be posted as it becomes available.

This is the laconic message you get if you try to read the final bulletin .... 11 hours after the event finished. The organisers could have technical problems of course but if that is not the case, the word "intentionally" makes little sense.

Roland

[PeterE]

Perhaps they want to consult their pillow before releasing the final news ...

[fred]

Not really fair to blame the tournament organizers for most of these problems.

If anyone should be blamed for the problems with the log files it is me (since I wrote the software that is supposed to create the log files). My only excuse for messing this up is that the extra security precautions that are in place at the Cavendish cause problem for the normal mechanisms for making log files (among other things).

I certainly could have made this work (or at least done some testing so that I could warn people about the problem), but I have a lot on my plate right now and I don't think it is a the best use of my time to worry about vugraph log file problems that will happen only once a year. Yes, the Cavendish is a special tournament and yes, I do believe that keeping records on major events is important. My judgment suggests, however, that only a small % of our members care about such things and that most BBO members would rather that I spend my limited time working on other parts of the program.

In any case, this is my fault and I apologize.

About the web site problems, apparently the Cavendish organizers hired people to create and maintain the web site. Maybe they didn't do a great job, but I don't think you can blame the organizers for this. Maybe things would have been better if they had hired different people, but I very much doubt that the Cavendish organizers were in a position to know this in advance (since none of them have any real expertise with computers or web sites).

The primary task of the Cavendish organizers is to run a bridge tournament and the nature of this particular tournament adds a lot of complication to their task. In my opinion the Cavendish organizers have done an extraordinary job over the years. The lack of perfection in the online coverage should be blamed on those that they have hired to handle this (including me).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

Speaking as someone who was there (underachieving in the WBP pairs), the only people who have complained at all are people who weren't there. All the players absolutely loved the venue, the tournament was run very smoothly and efficiently, there wasn't a problem at all that I'm aware of. Every player that I know of was really happy with everything about the event. They are the ones whose opinions matter as far as I'm concerned, not random people from the internet who find it easy to belittle people about a topic which they know nothing about.

[hrothgar]

mrdct, on May 14 2006, 01:40 AM, said:

The Cavendish organisers really need to take a good hard look at themselves over the way this event is presented and retained for prosperity.

As Fred pointed out in another thread, this is the "one and only bridge tournament where there is serious money at stake" but they can't seem to find the resources for a basic event website with timely results.

Perhaps they should skim an extra .1% out of the prize pool next year and buy or hire some table scoring units linked into a live website. Dare to dream!

In an earlier thread that touched on the Cavendish I used the "word" entitlement. It might be usedful to dredge it out again.

An number of people posting on this thread seem to feel a sense of entitlement to live Vugraph from the Cavendish. Nothing could be further from the truth...

The Cavendish is a private event organized and operated by World Bridge Productions Inc. To my knowledge, WBP doesn't pretend that they are running a national bridge federation with responsibilities to their members. WBP doesn't claim that they are championing the next great Olympic sport. Rather, they are hosting a party for their friends and trying to turn an honest buck.

Despite this, despite the very large hassles involved, and despite the very real security concerns associated with live Vugraph, the WBP has been gracious enough to provide live Vugraph services.

Did they do a perfect job? No...

Was I inconvenienced by the fact that I had to use IE rather than Firefox to access session results? Vaguely...

Do I think that this sort of whining is at constructive? Definitely not... As I said at the start of this post, the BBO community is not entitled to watch this event. I find arguments that other people should be dedicating portions of the prize pool to subsidizing Vugraph supremely offensive and I'm one of the folks who would benefit from it.

In all seriousness. Given sufficient resources I could design a tournament that would wonderous for the spectators. However, here and now there's no revenue streams associated with Vugraphs. Like it or not, until there are life;s gonna be far from perfect.

[JanM]

I wish I'd had time during the Cavendish to browse this forum. It really wouldn't have been any more work to close each table after each round and start again, so there would be a lot of 3 board "events" logged. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone realized until it happened that the method used for protecting security (loading 3 boards at a time) would result in wiping out the .lin files. I even went back and re-entered a board on which I had made an error early in the bidding which I didn't catch until after play had started, so the record of the deal would be correct.

I suppose it might have been frustrating to the spectators to have each table close every 3 boards, and obviously 9 3-board records wouldn't be as nice as one 27 board one, but I suspect we'd all have preferred that to having only the last 3 boards (note that after the first session, we did label the tables, so there are 2 or 3 .lin files from each session).

I was going to offer the kibitzer log from my computer, but that also has only the last 3 boards. Actually it doesn't even have those, it just thinks it does.

I think I might be able to recreate the bidding from the hand records and a list of which pairs played each round (probably I could get that). But the play, except for a few notable boards, is surely lost forever. Is it worth trying to do the bidding? Should I ask the other three operators if they want to try also?

[mrdct]

fred, on May 15 2006, 09:45 AM, said:

... apparently the Cavendish organizers hired people to create and maintain the web site. Maybe they didn't do a great job, but I don't think you can blame the organizers for this.

What ever happened to the "buck stops here"? If you hire someone to do a job for you and they under-perform, it's your fault.

[FrancesHinden]

I agree with everything hrothgar said.

[mrdct]

jdonn, on May 15 2006, 10:30 AM, said:

Speaking as someone who was there (underachieving in the WBP pairs), the only people who have complained at all are people who weren't there. All the players absolutely loved the venue, the tournament was run very smoothly and efficiently, there wasn't a problem at all that I'm aware of. Every player that I know of was really happy with everything about the event. They are the ones whose opinions matter as far as I'm concerned, not random people from the internet who find it easy to belittle people about a topic which they know nothing about.

Well surprise surprise Sherlock - the complaints all relate to the way the event was presented online so what do you know ... the complainants are "random people from the internet".

As for knowing nothing about the topic, the complainants include the two preeminent bridge data archivists on Earth and several people deeply involved in tournament organisation and online presentation of bridge events.

hrothgar, on May 15 2006, 11:36 AM, said:

An (sic) number of people posting on this thread seem to feel a sense of entitlement to live Vugraph from the Cavendish. Nothing could be further from the truth...

The online vugraph presentation and website very much represent a symbiotic relationship between the event, its players and its spectators. Proper presentation of the event generates a higher profile for the event (attracting players and sponsors to future events) and showcases the talents of professional players (putting upward pressure on their market rates).

"Entitlement" - perhaps not, but it's a two-way street in which bridge fans, pro players and tournament organisers can all benefit if it's done properly.

hrothgar, on May 15 2006, 11:36 AM, said:

Despite this, despite the very large hassles involved, and despite the very real security concerns associated with live Vugraph, the WBP has been gracious enough to provide live Vugraph services.

What are the "very large hassles involved"?

What are the "very real security concerns"?

BBO (including the hundreds of volunteers that make vugraph possible) have been gracious enough to offer their facilities and long-cultivated marketable audience to WBP to showcase their event. Sounds like a p...ing contest to me, but I think BBO can wee-wee the furthest.

[asdfg2k]

Richard,

Unless I miss my guess, the WBP people are, in fact, very much interested in presenting a positive face to the general public, including the internet audience. I think the Vugraph "controversy" (a hyperbolic term, for sure, but I think you understand what I'm driving at) is an indication that they want to control their own destiny. Nobody does this unless they are interested in putting their best foot forward. Like others, I applaud their moves in that direction.

It is hard for me to imagine putting one's best foot forward in an environment where the interface with the world (the web site) was as badly put together (both insofar as scheduled updates and cross-browser capability) as theirs.

I think the organizers care about the perceived shortcomings. I think they believe it is in their own best interest to publicize the event in a positive way. If they didn't think this way, then the Vugraph "controversy" would never have taken place.

Since I believe they care, I also believe they care just how far beneath minimum standard of care their website really is.

You can call it whining if you want.

I call it pointing out the facts. And whether you believe it or not, laughable was just about the kindest description I could come up with. I assure you that there were a great number of people amongst the internet audience that went to the website and found it completely disfunctional. Could some of them have bothered to fire up an alternate browser? Sure, you and I certainly did. My guess is that there were many who didn't. And I think the organizers want to control their own destiny in this area by fixing the problems.

[hrothgar]

mrdct, on May 16 2006, 02:23 PM, said:

 

>What are the "very real security concerns"?

Personally, I find the combination of live Vugraph and large amounts of money unconscionable. Ever taken a good look at all the different types of hardware that people have come up with to cheat in Casinos?

"Shoe" computers for counting at Blackjack / roulette
Electromagnets to try to fig roulette wheels
Wireless communications systems

There's a hell of a lot of a lot of different ways to cheat. So long as there's dollars involved, people are going to come up with new ones. If it we're me, I'd probably want a low powered wireless system built into a shoe. I'd want a compatriot wiring me 1-2 bits on information on critical hands. For example:

1. Is partner minimum or maximum for his actions so far?
2. Do we have a good sacrifice?

The trick is not to get get greedy. If you create a big edge, your gonna get caught. If you limit yourself, your probably home free. Equally significant, if you're limiting yourself to a relatively short burst (1-2 packets) you make electronic signal detection much more difficult.

> What are the "very large hassles involved"?

We've worked Vugraph's together before Dave. You know all the bullshit that is involved as well as I do (most likely better). I know that an enormous amount of work went into broadcasting the junior camp in Sydney. Even with a lot of advanced work we ran into some unanticipated problems with the broadband link and had to re-wire the LANs.