[fred]

Echognome, on Jun 22 2009, 09:55 PM, said:

I'm sure there will be some technical items to work out in the delay, but that those are relatively minor or Fred wouldn't be asking us.

That is not necessarily true.

I think it is safe to predict that the one and only reason we would have for making this change would be if a major tournament organizer (the WBF for example) said "introduce a delay or you won't be able to broadcast our events in the future".

If that were to happen and if we decided the tournament organizer in question was being foolish (I am not going to offer my opinion about this yet), we would try to convince them that they were being foolish.

If we failed to convince them, then we would do the necessary development work to introduce a delay even if this amounted to something "more than minor" (I am guessing it would). I suppose if the work involved turned out to be "sufficiently major" we might not do it, but I am guessing that this would be unlikely.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebasecom

[matmat]

I generally agree with the view that it's no big deal to have a delay.

I think that there are a couple ways of doing this. One is to have the opperators comment real-time and then have the whole broadcast delayed (1), the other is to have just the operator delayed and have the commentators do their thing with a lag (2).

(2) is obviously more secure.

The problem with (1) is that there will be virtually no interaction between the kibitzers and commentators, though any operator errors will likely be found.

The problem with (2) is that whatever the operator gets wrong, likely won't get fixed, and, I'd guess, we'd miss out on the cute little tidbits that are often sent by the operator from the table.

I suppose some combination of (1) and (2) is possible, but that might be getting just a little bit too complex.

[Echognome]

fred, on Jun 22 2009, 04:05 PM, said:

Echognome, on Jun 22 2009, 09:55 PM, said:

I'm sure there will be some technical items to work out in the delay, but that those are relatively minor or Fred wouldn't be asking us.

That is not necessarily true.

I think it is safe to predict that the one and only reason we would have for making this change would be if a major tournament organizer (the WBF for example) said "introduce a delay or you won't be able to broadcast our events in the future".

If that were to happen and if we decided the tournament organizer in question was being foolish (I am not going to offer my opinion about this yet), we would try to convince them that they were being foolish.

If we failed to convince them, then we would do the necessary development work to introduce a delay even if this amounted to something "more than minor" (I am guessing it would). I suppose if the work involved turned out to be "sufficiently major" we might not do it, but I am guessing that this would be unlikely.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebasecom

I stand corrected. Apologies. I assumed the feasibility issue had already been explored and that you were going on to the desirability issue.

Of course, there's no reason not to tackle them in the opposite order or concomitantly.

[matmat]

Echognome, on Jun 22 2009, 07:45 PM, said:

concomitantly.

ok. i gotta look this up.

[inquiry]

I would not care as long as some #9$#@&84%)%*^_@ didn't come on and tell us who won 30 minutes before the delayed match is over. That is, so long as we have no one blurting out the final results while the "delayed match" is being played on the BBO. Such activity would poison the event for me (if it was close of course).

[NickRW]

I am inclined to ask just what the security issues actually in real life. If there are real issues, then of course the tounament sponsors concerns must override other matters - but I am not sure there are real issues - or whether what is being expressed is just a fear.

Anyway - don't watch it that much. For those events where I have watched any significant amount, if the situation had been that I could get the results in something like close to real time, but the vugraph would have been delayed, then I guess I wouldn't have watched at all.

Nick

[nickf]

NickRW, on Jun 23 2009, 01:56 PM, said:

I am inclined to ask just what the security issues actually in real life.  If there are real issues, then of course the tounament sponsors concerns must override other matters - but I am not sure there are real issues - or whether what is being expressed is just a fear.

Earlier this year I was negotiating with the TD of our biggest MP event to broadcast the Final over BBO. For the Final (3 sessions) the field was broken up into about 15 sub-fields, based on Qualifying:

- the Final
- the Plate
- the 'A' consolation
- the 'B' consolation etc

As the final was run as a barometer, the Final all played Bds 1-3 in round 1, the Plate played Bds 4-6 in Round 1, etc.

I wanted to broadcast the Final (the top tier). The issue the TD had was a participant in the Plate or the A Con, B Con etc could, if they were so inclined, between rounds phone a friend who was watching BBO and get information on boards they had not played yet.

Nowadays, they can slip into the toilet and grab a hand on their iPhone.

I think the TD mulled over the issue for a few months before relenting.

Security concerns are very real, but I have doubts the real threat is greater.

nickf
sydney

[csdenmark]

So far this thread has failed not to produce just one single example of accidents.

Looks like a solution is on the outlook for problems to solve.

To deal with real problems instead of ghosts is the superior way.

[geller]

The whole point of watching ViGraph is to get the thrill of real-time kibitzing. If it's delayed it's not (IMO) worth watching.

If the organizers have security worries then let them monitor the event strictly, inclusing escorts to and from the toilet, etc.

It should be noted that BBO (or other provider) live VuGraph is a red herring. All the same security problems exist whether or not there is live VuGraph.

-Bob

[TimG]

nickf, on Jun 23 2009, 03:15 AM, said:

NickRW, on Jun 23 2009, 01:56 PM, said:

I am inclined to ask just what the security issues actually in real life.  If there are real issues, then of course the tounament sponsors concerns must override other matters - but I am not sure there are real issues - or whether what is being expressed is just a fear.

Earlier this year I was negotiating with the TD of our biggest MP event to broadcast the Final over BBO. For the Final (3 sessions) the field was broken up into about 15 sub-fields, based on Qualifying:

- the Final
- the Plate
- the 'A' consolation
- the 'B' consolation etc

As the final was run as a barometer, the Final all played Bds 1-3 in round 1, the Plate played Bds 4-6 in Round 1, etc.

I wanted to broadcast the Final (the top tier). The issue the TD had was a participant in the Plate or the A Con, B Con etc could, if they were so inclined, between rounds phone a friend who was watching BBO and get information on boards they had not played yet.

Nowadays, they can slip into the toilet and grab a hand on their iPhone.

I think the TD mulled over the issue for a few months before relenting.

Security concerns are very real, but I have doubts the real threat is greater.

nickf
sydney

This is a case of the conditions for cheating already existing, the vugraph would make it easier, but someone who is intent on getting information can do it with or without the vugraph show. Between rounds, participants in whatever room can call their friends who were kibitzing (or playing) in another room and get information on boards they had not played.

Last year when the ACBL was instituting their cell phone ban, a number of people from around the world chimed in with "that's standard here". Where are these participants finding access to the iPhone for restroom hand viewing?

[cherdanno]

Definitely something would get lost. Either the interaction between spectators and commentators, or the interaction between the commentators and the vugraph operators. VuGraph is at its best when the operators can include some snippets about the table feel and so on, and some of the regular vugraph operators are great at that, and I bet they would get worse without the instant feedback from the commentators and spectators.
I think there would also be quite a loss of excitement. Waiting on Vugraph for a player who is in the tank, and whose decision we know will likely decide the outcome of a Bermuda Bowl K.O. match is a different experience than looking the hand up in the bridge library, or reading about it in The Bridge World. That's pretty much irrational of course, but if we were rational, most of us would have stopped playing bridge long ago anyway

[mtvesuvius]

cherdanno, on Jun 23 2009, 08:42 AM, said:

Definitely something would get lost. Either the interaction between spectators and commentators, or the interaction between the commentators and the vugraph operators. VuGraph is at its best when the operators can include some snippets about the table feel and so on, and some of the regular vugraph operators are great at that, and I bet they would get worse without the instant feedback from the commentators and spectators.
I think there would also be quite a loss of excitement. Waiting on Vugraph for a player who is in the tank, and whose decision we know will likely decide the outcome of a Bermuda Bowl K.O. match is a different experience than looking the hand up in the bridge library, or reading about it in The Bridge World. That's pretty much irrational of course, but if we were rational, most of us would have stopped playing bridge long ago anyway

I agree 100% with this, IMO the most entertaining and exciting part of vugraph is when someone tanks which decides a match, or the comments at the table during the hand. I realize the security concerns with it, but I think vugraph would lose it's popularity significantly.

[USViking]

I voted I would not care.

That is provided I did not know the result beforehand.

I watched the 2002 World Cup final on several hours delay
not knowing the result and enjoyed it as much as if I had
been watching live.

[Phil]

cherdanno, on Jun 23 2009, 08:42 AM, said:

Definitely something would get lost. Either the interaction between spectators and commentators, or the interaction between the commentators and the vugraph operators. VuGraph is at its best when the operators can include some snippets about the table feel and so on, and some of the regular vugraph operators are great at that, and I bet they would get worse without the instant feedback from the commentators and spectators.
I think there would also be quite a loss of excitement. Waiting on Vugraph for a player who is in the tank, and whose decision we know will likely decide the outcome of a Bermuda Bowl K.O. match is a different experience than looking the hand up in the bridge library, or reading about it in The Bridge World. That's pretty much irrational of course, but if we were rational, most of us would have stopped playing bridge long ago anyway

I've thought about this ovenight and I agree with Arend here. Unless the delay is very slight, there will be a strange feeling watching vugraph, since no one is there on the other end. As a commentator, its important to have the interchange with the operator and this would get lost with a delay.

[hrothgar]

Phil, on Jun 23 2009, 07:14 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Jun 23 2009, 08:42 AM, said:

Definitely something would get lost. Either the interaction between spectators and commentators, or the interaction between the commentators and the vugraph operators. VuGraph is at its best when the operators can include some snippets about the table feel and so on, and some of the regular vugraph operators are great at that, and I bet they would get worse without the instant feedback from the commentators and spectators.
I think there would also be quite a loss of excitement. Waiting on Vugraph for a player who is in the tank, and whose decision we know will likely decide the outcome of a Bermuda Bowl K.O. match is a different experience than looking the hand up in the bridge library, or reading about it in The Bridge World. That's pretty much irrational of course, but if we were rational, most of us would have stopped playing bridge long ago anyway

I've thought about this ovenight and I agree with Arend here. Unless the delay is very slight, there will be a strange feeling watching vugraph, since no one is there on the other end. As a commentator, its important to have the interchange with the operator and this would get lost with a delay.

Here's another view:

A system that relies on one operator per table doesn't scale.
You are going quickly encounter limits on the number of tables that can be supported.

At some point in time, VuGraphs are going to be automated.

I'd like to think that players will someday compete using computers.
We might see a system involving bar codes and readers.
Maybe image processing systems will save the day.

However, whatever comes to pass, I doubt that that operators are here to stay. Might as well start getting used to the transition.

[onoway]

One of the main reasons I watch vugraph is the commentary. If that was lost I likely wouldn't watch it, as the bidding is sometimes bewildering and the reasons behind it incomprehensible until clarified. Also, the entertainment value of some of the commentary is wonderful in and of itself. It's difficult to imagine that if the commentators were to do it after the event, they would have the same interest and involvement when the thing had already been decided and they knew the outcome. Even if they didn't know results, I think it would inhibit the commentary.

As far as the idea that eventually everything will be computerized anyway so we may as well get on with it...we are all gonna die someday too, but that's not a reason to hurry to get on with it The human touch is what makes it worthwhile imo.

[fred]

For those who haven't noticed, there is now another related poll:

Link to related poll

Please vote in that one too!

Fred

[Echognome]

Phil, on Jun 23 2009, 08:14 AM, said:

cherdanno, on Jun 23 2009, 08:42 AM, said:

Definitely something would get lost. Either the interaction between spectators and commentators, or the interaction between the commentators and the vugraph operators. VuGraph is at its best when the operators can include some snippets about the table feel and so on, and some of the regular vugraph operators are great at that, and I bet they would get worse without the instant feedback from the commentators and spectators.
I think there would also be quite a loss of excitement. Waiting on Vugraph for a player who is in the tank, and whose decision we know will likely decide the outcome of a Bermuda Bowl K.O. match is a different experience than looking the hand up in the bridge library, or reading about it in The Bridge World. That's pretty much irrational of course, but if we were rational, most of us would have stopped playing bridge long ago anyway

I've thought about this ovenight and I agree with Arend here. Unless the delay is very slight, there will be a strange feeling watching vugraph, since no one is there on the other end. As a commentator, its important to have the interchange with the operator and this would get lost with a delay.

I agree that something would get lost. I guess it depends on what the question is.

(1) Do you think Vugraph would be worse with a delay?

(2) Do you think Vugraph could be made almost as good if there was a delay of X minutes?

I think we can all agree that the answer to (1) is yes.

I also think if we all thought about it, we could think of ways to make the answer to (2) yes, so long as X is sufficiently small. I'm sure that it wouldn't be as fun for a vugraph commentator to have zero interaction, except with the little they get from the players. But at the same time, I'm sure that the Vugraph commentators would be able to make the most of it if they commentated on a delayed presentation as if on a live presentation.

[Hanoi5]

I voted I would not care but on second thought I realized security shouldn't be much of a problem.

In WBF events there are live vugraphs onsite. Anyone can enter and get out and go to the playing site and make a signal for some players that there is a grand slam, for example.

I think BBO's vugraph (I don't know of any other) is a wonderful way for bridge players to reunite, discuss and watch great players in a live environment and not delayed as in reading a magazine, article or book. There's also the issue of publicity of the game itself that live transmissions offer.

If there wasn't any other way I guess comments and such stuff could be recorded in a way that viewers could know everything and anything that happens at the table with the delay, but maybe there wouldn't be questions to the vugraph operators, or answers... But I'm sure there can also be ways to protect the information given to vugraph operators (and being received through BBO by them too) so that no security problems could result, for example:

- Having the vugraph operator inside a cabin, or not letting him/her get out of the place s/he has to occupy (no bathroom for you).
- Making the Vugraph operator use only the BBO program and not any other computer program (maybe having a special computer).
- Having 4 operators at a table, each of which would have only the cards in front of him/her and report only on the player they're watching (before vugraph and such players were in some sort of a pit where other people would come to watch and the people could only watch one player at a time, that player arranged his/her cards and then showed it to the audience)

My 2 cents.

[Echognome]

hrothgar, on Jun 23 2009, 08:20 AM, said:

Here's another view:

A system that relies on one operator per table doesn't scale.
You are going quickly encounter limits on the number of tables that can be supported.

At some point in time, VuGraphs are going to be automated.

I'd like to think that players will someday compete using computers.
We might see a system involving bar codes and readers.
Maybe image processing systems will save the day.

However, whatever comes to pass, I doubt that that operators are here to stay. Might as well start getting used to the transition.

I agree with your general diagnosis, but not with your treatment. I think playing on computers solves many problems, but you lose the entire feel for the game. I really don't know if my choice of treatment would lose the feel too much as well. Right now the entire effort is in making as little disturbance to the players as possible. I have never played on Vugraph though, so I don't know if the players can hear the typing of the keyboard while they play.

I just figured that many card decks these days are barcoded anyway, so why not have a barcode scanner that players can swipe while they play? I would presume you can get a scanner that doesn't beep everytime something is swiped. Maybe a little green light shows when the card is recognized?

Maybe instead of a barcode scanner there can be an optical scanner? I just don't know how good the technology is with that at the moment. Maybe there can be little cameras set up like poker? I can imagine lots of possibilities where the players can still play cards.

I'm sure the players are willing to make some concensions in order to promote the game and make it a better spectator sport. However, I'm sure they also have a desire to be able to play cards and enjoy the social aspect of the game.