[hotShot]

To an automated vugraph, the solution would be to use cards (and bidding boxed) equipped with RFID chips. Under/In tablecloth there would be a detector.
Of cause there would be a need for a "claim" card, to signal a claim to the system.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Jun 23 2009, 11:20 AM, said:

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.

Or, maybe we should appreciate what we have and make an effort to keep it rather than resolve ourselves to an inferior product.

[pirate22]

would i care is not my choice of words,but voted for it,I would support anything,that supports Security in the Bridge world,a level ply field in all competitions,but i suppose there are cheaters,as there are thieves,dopers,drug enhancements to gain an advantage over other competitors,How do these persons salve their conscience,is there anything sacred in this mixed up world.
regards

[Walddk]

A third option missing in the poll:

"I would not watch at all."

Put me in that category. There are plenty of reasons for my view, but at this point in time I will only emphasize two of those:

- 1. A broadcast that is not live (real-time) is no broadcast to me. I never watch recorded broadcasts on TV. A vugraph broadcast from a bridge tournament is no different.

But more significantly ...

- 2. You have no idea about how many errors operators make, and you will not believe how much time I spend on making them correct those errors through private chat messages. Wrong set-up, wrong names, wrong spelling of names, typo in names, wrong claims, etc. Then add the operators who don't know how to correct a score after a false claim.

Sometimes I wish I had a remote control. This may sound like a joke, but I am serious. I know Jan and Chip Martel agree with me, and I have not asked others. It was actually Chip's suggestion not so long ago.

I am convinced that a time delay, however long, will attract fewer spectators.

Roland

[Aberlour10]

mtvesuvius, on Jun 23 2009, 08:47 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 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.

Yes; I have personally many such unforgetable moments at the VG, from BB finals or ...f.ex. last hand of the US Bridge Championships final 2006, the minutes full of emotions, tentions, watching the development in both rooms, amazing contraction between operator, commentators and kibbers culminating in waiting for the deciding bid made by M. Rosenberg.... this was like a fascinating radio-broadcast of penalty-shooting in soccer.
Do I remember this moment if it would be non-live broadcasted, I dont think so.

Sorry Fred for evoking this moments, you later described as a "Cincinetti Kid feeling"

Robert

[Cascade]

Phil, on Jun 24 2009, 04:14 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.

Interactions with spectators are useful too.

You cannot have both interactions with operators and spectators unless the vugraph and commentary is live.

[JanM]

This thread and the related ones are, of course, very interesting to me. I am a strong proponent of "live" Vugraph, because I often see the situations where interaction between operator and commentators/spectators improves the quality of the broadcast, and I also think that it's more exciting for the audience to know they're watching in real time. As a tournament and Vugraph organizer, I also hear a lot of the complaints about security. Delaying the broadcast would solve some of the security problems, although not all.

I did have to laugh at these suggestions, though:

Hanoi5, on Jun 23 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

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.

If I can't go to the bathroom during a segment, I'm afraid I will be unable to be a Vugraph operator - I usually only go when there is a break for another reason (the best thing about smokers is they allow me my bathroom breaks), but once in a while I have to go during the bidding and am always grateful to the players for waiting to remove their bidding cards until I can get the whole auction in. If I couldn't ever ask the players how many tricks had been claimed, I wouldn't be able to provide an accurate report. Being able to hear the players allows me to pass on some of their insightful and/or amusing comments.

Most operators don't have time to use another program (I confess I sometimes answer email during a broadcast, but I think I'm unusual there). But more importantly, if we're worrying about Vugraph operators cheating, there are lots of easy ways to do that without any electronic help. We all try very hard to control our facial expressions and body language so as not to communicate anything to the players and that is often difficult. No tournament organizer is going to have a Vugraph operator who might cheat.

I'm always grateful when I'm able to find one operator per table for the number of tables I want to cover. You're living in a fantasy world if you think we could ever have four operators per table. Anyone want to be an operator for the USBF Senior Trials in Las Vegas next week?

[qwery_hi]

JanM, on Jul 1 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

This thread and the related ones are, of course, very interesting to me. I am a strong proponent of "live" Vugraph, because I often see the situations where interaction between operator and commentators/spectators improves the quality of the broadcast, and I also think that it's more exciting for the audience to know they're watching in real time. As a tournament and Vugraph organizer, I also hear a lot of the complaints about security. Delaying the broadcast would solve some of the security problems, although not all.

I did have to laugh at these suggestions, though:

Hanoi5, on Jun 23 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

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.

If I can't go to the bathroom during a segment, I'm afraid I will be unable to be a Vugraph operator - I usually only go when there is a break for another reason (the best thing about smokers is they allow me my bathroom breaks), but once in a while I have to go during the bidding and am always grateful to the players for waiting to remove their bidding cards until I can get the whole auction in. If I couldn't ever ask the players how many tricks had been claimed, I wouldn't be able to provide an accurate report. Being able to hear the players allows me to pass on some of their insightful and/or amusing comments.

Most operators don't have time to use another program (I confess I sometimes answer email during a broadcast, but I think I'm unusual there). But more importantly, if we're worrying about Vugraph operators cheating, there are lots of easy ways to do that without any electronic help. We all try very hard to control our facial expressions and body language so as not to communicate anything to the players and that is often difficult. No tournament organizer is going to have a Vugraph operator who might cheat.

I'm always grateful when I'm able to find one operator per table for the number of tables I want to cover. You're living in a fantasy world if you think we could ever have four operators per table. Anyone want to be an operator for the USBF Senior Trials in Las Vegas next week?

An excellent analysis of the challenges vugraph operators face. Perhaps the solution is to go electronic and eliminate vugraph operators like in chess. Howie weinstein in a BW article also talks about this issue where relaying live bridge is technologically behind relaying live chess events.

[JanM]

qwery_hi, on Jul 1 2009, 04:59 PM, said:

An excellent analysis of the challenges vugraph operators face. Perhaps the solution is to go electronic and eliminate vugraph operators like in chess. Howie weinstein in a BW article also talks about this issue where relaying live bridge is technologically behind relaying live chess events.

Chess is much easier to do electronically - after all, the pieces are placed in very limited areas on a board. Both pieces and board can be easily coded for electronic transmission. On the other hand, cards are played in a less than precise manner, and it might be trickier to read them. Before you tell me that players could easily put their cards in a specific spot on the table, let me tell you about the difficulty one often has as a Vugraph operator getting a player to play a card in such a way that you can see it. And even those who try to correct their sloppy habits usually only do so for a hand or at most two.

[qwery_hi]

JanM, on Jul 1 2009, 04:54 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Jul 1 2009, 04:59 PM, said:

An excellent analysis of the challenges vugraph operators face. Perhaps the solution is to go electronic and eliminate vugraph operators like in chess. Howie weinstein in a BW article also talks about this issue where relaying live bridge is technologically behind relaying live chess events.

Chess is much easier to do electronically - after all, the pieces are placed in very limited areas on a board. Both pieces and board can be easily coded for electronic transmission. On the other hand, cards are played in a less than precise manner, and it might be trickier to read them. Before you tell me that players could easily put their cards in a specific spot on the table, let me tell you about the difficulty one often has as a Vugraph operator getting a player to play a card in such a way that you can see it. And even those who try to correct their sloppy habits usually only do so for a hand or at most two.

Agreed, and making a rule that the card should be placed in a specific place on the tray is the way to make progress. Using Braille cards for the top tournaments would make card recognition easier. Even in chess, you cannot place the piece anywhere, furthermore, if your move displaces other pieces you are required to correct the position before your move is regarded as completed.

[FrancesHinden]

Many of the replies here (particularly those from non-commentators) seem to assume that the commentary would be recorded live. However, I would have thought that would be very very hard to arrange, and in fact the commentary would be time-delayed as well.

Don't forget that
i) Most commentators are miles, tens of miles, thousands of miles away from the action, sitting in their living room. If they are going to watching the event 'live' then you immediately have a security problem. Agreed it's more containable, but if you are going to take this seriously you probably are going to insist that they sign confidentiality agreements etc and would then be potentially liable if there was a leak. I wouldn't want to be in that position.

ii) Many commentators are recruited 'live' during or just before the broadcast. People either don't like to sign up in advance, or fail to turn up. If I log on, it's often to watch vugraph. If I log on to watch vugraph and I'm not scheduled to commentate, I usually get asked if I want to. How are all the potential commentators know if there's a broadcast on if it's not being shown?