[cicus]

Let's say that BBO is broadcasting a pairs tournament. There is one vugraph table. Pairs come and go, everything is ok. Now comes a pair who say they cannot play in front of the eyes of hundreds of spectators because they are handicapped by stage fright. They refuse to play and there is an awkward break in the broadcast.

The pair is penalized by the organizers. Is that right? Can they be forced to play in vugraph?

What do you think?

[paulg]

It is often covered in the Conditions of Contest and then you have to play.

But is this a frequent problem? Most events I've seen specify that they will be broadcast on BBO and pairs will be aware of it.

Paul

[cicus]

cardsharp, on Oct 16 2009, 02:25 PM, said:

It is often covered in the Conditions of Contest and then you have to play.

But is this a frequent problem? Most events I've seen specify that they will be broadcast on BBO and pairs will be aware of it.

Paul

But being aware of it does not decrease the handicap. So they have to live with that, you say?

[Aberlour10]

cicus, on Oct 16 2009, 03:34 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Oct 16 2009, 02:25 PM, said:

It is often covered in the Conditions of Contest and then you have to play.

But is this a frequent problem? Most events I've seen specify that they will be broadcast on BBO and pairs will be aware of it.

Paul

But being aware of it does not decrease the handicap. So they have to live with that, you say?

I would say they have to. Most bridge tournaments (we are talking here about) are public events run by public organizations, so you have to live with the public, no matter if its off- or on-line.

Robert

[cherdanno]

Seriously?

[Jlall]

This happened to me once, they were showing a regional swiss on vugraph and my teammate didn't want to be on and they said they were going to give us 0 VPs for the match if they refused to play, and something about it being in the conditions of contest.

[paulg]

cicus, on Oct 16 2009, 09:34 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Oct 16 2009, 02:25 PM, said:

It is often covered in the Conditions of Contest and then you have to play.

But is this a frequent problem? Most events I've seen specify that they will be broadcast on BBO and pairs will be aware of it.

Paul

But being aware of it does not decrease the handicap. So they have to live with that, you say?

IMHO. If you enter an event knowing that vugraph presentation is happening then you've already made your choice.

Slightly more difficult is playing in a qualifying event with no expectation of doing well and then discovering you have made the final and that it is being broadcast. But even in this situation I do not believe you should have an option not to play on vugraph.

Paul

[mrdct]

This really should be something that is explicitly spelt-out in conditions of contest so there can be no argument in the event that someone who doesn't want to play on vugraph winds up at a broadcast table. The relevant regulation in the Australian Bridge Federation Tournament Regulations is:

23.4 The players themselves shall not be permitted to decide whether or not they should appear on BBO. Notwithstanding, in a teams event where BBO is to be presented from one table only, if a particular team’s total masterpoints (top four players) numbers less than 1000, the captain of that team has the right to decide which of the two tables should appear on BBO.

[csdenmark]

cicus, on Oct 16 2009, 09:11 PM, said:

Let's say that BBO is broadcasting a pairs tournament. There is one vugraph table. Pairs come and go, everything is ok. Now comes a pair who say they cannot play in front of the eyes of hundreds of spectators because they are handicapped by stage fright. They refuse to play and there is an awkward break in the broadcast.

The pair is penalized by the organizers. Is that right? Can they be forced to play in vugraph?

What do you think?

The much more interesting question is what happens the day top players reject to play tournaments without audience of a certain number?

They all know that nowadays sport is no longer only for fun but for money. Without audience there will be no sponsors and no tournaments.

Will the organizers or BBO be able to guarantee 2.000 or more spectators for their matches? For many it is waste and poor marketing to play without spectators. I think some have already noticed lack of interest.

[Tola18]

Here we can perhaps compare with f2f bridge. Usually there are none or only a few spectators. But sometimes you get to play against someone wellknown, and suddenly you do have a lot of spectators around. Or even worse; they all are the pals of that wellknown popular player.... And you must copy.

A not easy situation for the lesser known player.

I for one do have some sympathy. Especielly as with BBO-recorded events, often with any good will the BBO could send instead any other table, couldnt they? Especielly playing pairs events. If they cant switch the operator himself the director can always ask any other table to move for one round....


On the other side, it is probably easier to copy with the vugraph-operator and the anonyme public, then a lot of friends to the star sitting immediately around.

[barmar]

I thought the Laws said that a player could refuse at most one spectator, but now I can't find this (was it removed in the recent revision?). Under that provision, Vugraph would be thousands of spectators, and a player wouldn't be allowed to refuse all of them.

[TimG]

In New England (ACBL District 25) a person has recently been publishing match reports for the GNT Distict Finals in the Super, A and B flights. This year, one of the Flight B finalists objected and no match report was produced for the Flight B final. I suggested that it be written into future CoC that entrants should expect the finals to be recorded and reported. But, this idea was seen as undesirable even for the Super and A flights.

It's a shame, really, that participants are unwilling to participate in promotion of the event in which they are playing. A little sidetrack from your vugraph question, but surely a similar circumstance.

Tim

[Jlall]

TimG, on Oct 20 2009, 04:23 PM, said:

It's a shame, really, that participants are unwilling to participate in promotion of the event in which they are playing. A little sidetrack from your vugraph question, but surely a similar circumstance.

Tim

Meh, I could go either way when it comes to flight B and lower. I definitely think that flight A players who are doing well in a high profile event should be expected to help the game out by being written up/on vugraph/kibitzed. But for the lower flights I could see the arguments against that.

[mrdct]

barmar, on Oct 20 2009, 03:36 PM, said:

I thought the Laws said that a player could refuse at most one spectator, but now I can't find this (was it removed in the recent revision?).  Under that provision, Vugraph would be thousands of spectators, and a player wouldn't be allowed to refuse all of them.

Control of kibitzers is a Sponsoring Organisation issue, usually dealt with through designating open and closed rooms. I don't think the Laws themselves have ever had any provision allowing for a player to object to a kibitzer who is otherwise following all of the rules (being silent, watching only one hand, not stradling the screen, etc.).

[mrdct]

TimG, on Oct 20 2009, 04:23 PM, said:

In New England (ACBL District 25) a person has recently been publishing match reports for the GNT Distict Finals in the Super, A and B flights.  This year, one of the Flight B finalists objected and no match report was produced for the Flight B final.

What a joke. I can't remember which Amendment it is, I always get confused between the one about carrying guns and the one about free speech, but isn't freedom of speech and freedom of the press a fairly fundamental part of the Amercian legal system and culture?

I'm surprised that the person preparing the reports rolled-over and acquiesed to the Flight-B player's request. Surely some sensible compromise could've been reached to ensure that the offended Flight-B player had a few good plays highlighted in and amongst his howlers, which is sort of how bridge journalism is meant to operate with written-up hands in daily bulletins generally focussing on brilliancies rather than stuff-ups and with vugraph commentators (usually) focussing on the good stuff and down-playing the errors.

I'll just add that curiousity got the better of me and I Googled "ACBL District 25" and found the relevant Flight A match report. Quite an entertaining read about players that I've never heard of in a long head-to-head match that came right down to the last board. I felt the author was quite fair in his report and obviously put in a huge amount of work to write the report for which he should be commended. The author of report commented at the end of his report:

"I hope these reports are accurate snapshots of the state of the art in New England. If I report might-have-beens as well as the facts, it's only to make points we can all learn from. I can't promise to gloss over mistakes, but I don't write about them to denigrate anybody. I hope these players are still my friends, even when in my opinion they made questionable bids or pulled the wrong cards. Like all bridge players, I do the same myself and so I suppose, dear readers, do you."

These GNT District Finals look ideally suited for BBO broadcast and they guy who records and reports on them may even find it easy to do his recording as a BBO operator.

This post has been edited by mrdct: 2009-October-20, 19:32

[TimG]

mrdct, on Oct 20 2009, 08:01 PM, said:

TimG, on Oct 20 2009, 04:23 PM, said:

In New England (ACBL District 25) a person has recently been publishing match reports for the GNT Distict Finals in the Super, A and B flights.  This year, one of the Flight B finalists objected and no match report was produced for the Flight B final.

What a joke. I can't remember which Amendment it is, I always get confused between the one about carrying guns and the one about free speech, but isn't freedom of speech and freedom of the press a fairly fundamental part of the Amercian legal system and culture?

While I think it was unfortunate that someone objected, I don't think anyone should have tried to force the reporting on the participants in a Flight B event. Super and A flights, I can see forcing the issue. (And, I can see writing it into the CoC so that all contestants know that it is expected.)

The person preparing the reports made no issue of the matter. I think he may have been relieved not to have to attend a 3rd 56 board match, find a second recorder for the other table (I think his non-bridge playing wife actually does this), and write a 3rd report.

Tim

[bid_em_up]

barmar, on Oct 20 2009, 03:36 PM, said:

I thought the Laws said that a player could refuse at most one spectator, but now I can't find this (was it removed in the recent revision?).  Under that provision, Vugraph would be thousands of spectators, and a player wouldn't be allowed to refuse all of them.

Actually, they said that a player can bar any one person without cause.

If they wished to bar more than one, they had to be able to provide an acceptable cause to the director, and "I don't want them here" is not a valid cause. But this also dealt with "live" kibitzers, and not with being on vugraph.

[bid_em_up]

mrdct, on Oct 20 2009, 08:01 PM, said:

TimG, on Oct 20 2009, 04:23 PM, said:

In New England (ACBL District 25) a person has recently been publishing match reports for the GNT Distict Finals in the Super, A and B flights.  This year, one of the Flight B finalists objected and no match report was produced for the Flight B final.

What a joke. I can't remember which Amendment it is, I always get confused between the one about carrying guns and the one about free speech, but isn't freedom of speech and freedom of the press a fairly fundamental part of the Amercian legal system and culture?

Ummm, Freedom of the Press means that the government is not supposed to interfere with what is published, it does not mean that somebody HAS to publish everything just because they can.

In this case, they were still free to publish the information. They simply chose not to do so because one of the players objected.

There's a big difference in the two.

Not to mention that by going ahead and publishing it over a players objection is a good way to alienate your members.

[barmar]

bid_em_up, on Oct 21 2009, 02:09 PM, said:

mrdct, on Oct 20 2009, 08:01 PM, said:

TimG, on Oct 20 2009, 04:23 PM, said:

In New England (ACBL District 25) a person has recently been publishing match reports for the GNT Distict Finals in the Super, A and B flights.  This year, one of the Flight B finalists objected and no match report was produced for the Flight B final.

What a joke. I can't remember which Amendment it is, I always get confused between the one about carrying guns and the one about free speech, but isn't freedom of speech and freedom of the press a fairly fundamental part of the Amercian legal system and culture?

Ummm, Freedom of the Press means that the government is not supposed to interfere with what is published, it does not mean that somebody HAS to publish everything just because they can.

It also doesn't mean that someone HAS to give information to the reporter.

But it isn't even the case that someone was curtailing his right to report. Unlike Vugraphs, this obligation is not written into the CoC. He asks politely, but teams are free to say no.

I suspect the player in question remembered the report that was published last year. The reporter was extremely critical of my team's performance. We lost because we made lots of typical flight B mistakes, we didn't need his ridicule on top of that.

[TimG]

barmar, on Oct 22 2009, 12:05 AM, said:

I suspect the player in question remembered the report that was published last year.  The reporter was extremely critical of my team's performance.  We lost because we made lots of typical flight B mistakes, we didn't need his ridicule on top of that.

I think I have read all of Bill's GNT match reports and I have never come away with the impression that he was ridiculing anyone. He reports on every hand, so all the mistakes are going to be out there for any reader to see.

I have not been fortunate enough to be involved in a match that Bill reported, so I cannot say for sure how I would feel about my errors being pointed out publicly. But, I wanted to make sure to voice my opinion that Bill does not engage in ridicule in his match reports.

I might go back and read it again to see if I feel differently this time through. It can be found here. I'm pretty sure that hrothgar (one of barmar's teammates) posted the link last year after the report was published and there was likely some discussion of the report at that time.

Sorry for the hijack.