fskoul

"Friend" David I can't understand humour well, and obviously neither do you. Please don't bother to quote me anymore - especially when my words are an unsuccesfully humorous reply to a comment that I consider illogical. Until then, rest assured that nobody is willing to persuade you on the need for any specific job in a bridge event - especially since neither you nor me are the ones who decide on these matters. Just as a reminder, you can check for how long these places existed in the events and if they provided useful information to the bridge world. There is a small difference between "I don't want to go" and "There is no need for somebody to go", as far as I remember from the English courses I had in school. And as far as the Internet pages is concerned, of course everything can be done equally well from a distance. But you can't say the same about the Internet results. Last years' event in Sydney was exceptionally good in this domain, due to the great work of Matthew, but generally WBF doesn't rely on local organizers to provide internet coverage and also, even in the cases they do, someone needs to incorporate these info into the WBF system - and these things are much better to be settled onsite.

A trained coordinator that's member of the staff is a very good idea. Especially when it comes to the bigger events with the many concurrent broadcasts. Take, for example, next year in Shanghai - how will you be able Roland to coordinate the broadcasts from Denmark?

I must include also in my apologies Roland - of course my use of words was rude to him too. Really sorry.

Now I am outraged! Are you calling me one of Roland's pets? For the record, the FOUR directors in Sydney were: Richard GRENSIDE, Marc van BEIJSTERVELDT, Laurie KELSO and Chris DIMENT. Whether or not Chris was an "official" director is moot as he was in the SINGLE PLAYING ROOM (there were not separate open and closed rooms in Sydney) at all times during play and I personally observed him making rulings and conferring with the other directors on rulings. Perhaps we should move this discussion to a "Fotis is a #$%@head" thread. There are other people who were also involved in TD decisions, like Dimitris Ballas. That doesn't make them directors. Anyway, and since my phrase was quite rude, I apologize for my use of words. EDIT: PS. Chris Diment was the Main Office Supervisor and also Press Room manager in Sydney. If you really want to see who was doing what in this event, you can visit http://www.worldbridge.org/competitions/wo...?qmenudetid=368.

I am again 100% with you my friend - I never wanted and never want generally to go to any event at all - my job can be done equally well from home. Alas, you somehow forget the "small" difference in time between the WBF Internet office and Sydney - just something like 8 hours, if I remember well. I am sure you wouldn't mind to live in the nights and sleep in the day, but some of us have a small problem with that. Can you stop saying nonsenses pls?

Exactly my point. I am not amused by the load of rubbish fskoul pours out. For a start I pay all my expenses myself and I work 100s of hours on BBO for absolutely nothing. Next summer I am going to help the juniors for a week at a camp in Bristol, England. I insist on paying all expenses myself, and I will not get paid to give talks, lectures, whatever. Do you too, fskoul? Roland EDIT: The post has been deleted with apologies for rude expression. Fotis Skoularikis

This is offensive and uncalled for. Never, and I repeat never, have I put myself before the cause, and I did not do it here either. I let other decide if I do a good job or not! Roland It was YOU that clearly implied that the commentators in the onsite Vugraph were not good enough, not me. Just read your post.

And that EXACTLY was the reason why it was FORBIDDEN to the players to watch VG on the provided PCs - which happened quite early in the event. Thus leaving only one place to watch VG - the VG room. Come on, be real now. You just don't forbid anyone to watch vugraph on the computer in order to make them go to the vugraph theatre instead. This is a simple question of supply and demand. If the internet coverage is better, you should certainly prefer that, and vice versa obviously. No-one should decide what's best for the juniors (or anyone else for that matter). They are old enough to decide for themselves. If the commentators are good enough, the spectators on site will flock to the vugraph theatre. The only positive I can deduce from this is that people must have thought that the BBO presentation was better. That makes us all feel good. Roland Come on now, be real. The organisation provided some PCs to the players in order for them to be able to send their mails or do some other things they wanted (BTW, it was one of the really exceptional services in Sydney, since in many times that is done only by providing just a place to plug in their laptops). The players have the right to use the service for the purpose provided, but not for other purposes. Don't flatter yourself for the quality of the comments - just remember that it was just the opportunity for the players to watch another match than the presented one, in most cases the match of THEIR country. And thus we had the phenomenon of having in 6-7 computers the same match, absorbing the less than enough bandwidth. I am sure that you understand the Internet connection was provided for the VG room to operate correctly, and not for other purposes - or not? At least, the local organiser (who after a while switched off the free computers) clearly understood that.

That one reminds me of a joke we have in my country. The 4 directors who were 3 (the fourth one exists only in your mind) were the following 2 Australians (Richard and Laurie) thus leaving room for the obvious 1 "freeloader" - Marc. Not surprisingly there were 2 directors (one for each room, Open and Closed) plus a Chief TD. And that EXACTLY was the reason why it was FORBIDDEN to the players to watch VG on the provided PCs - which happened quite early in the event. Thus leaving only one place to watch VG - the VG room. Here I am 200% with you. Yes, a good Internet connection is paramount - but not all local organisers want or even can afford the cost involved (as was also the case in the event we discuss about). In some other cases we encounter problems that couldn't have been anticipated or that are quite "random" in nature - like Verona, for example. Overall, to ask for a very good Internet connection is correct on paper, but to get it proves SO much difficult in practice. Are you maybe beginning to understand why they ask for an onsite server, so as to insure that at least they will have in any case an onsite VG - because a few posts ago you called them ignorant for doing this?

At last the euchologies have stopped (at least partially) and there is some admitance of the problems. I will not stay in the point that, if in an event of 10 days, you have problems in the 3 of them (and they were more than 3) then there is something seriously wrong, but I want to point out something else. Look how easily you decided on a suboptimal solution to save YOUR money - on the other hand, look how easily you ask for the best when it is someone else who pays. This is especially the case in Junior events, as I know very well first as a player and later as member of the staff. But even worse is your first phrase - are you realising you are doing serious harm to BBO with what you say right there? You admit that, when it was to decide if the contract with WBF or BBO would be satisfied, YOU decided that it should be BBO. By doing so YOU decided that the players, for whom their federations have PAYED money, wouldn't see vugraph onsite, some persons (like the Vugraph commentator) wouldn't be able to do their job, etc. In other words you are saying that in view of the presence of BBO the onsite function of the event was worsened. I am really surprised that nobody from the BBO officials hasn't already reacted to such statements. This is a mentallity that seems to separate BBO from the WBF event organization, and it is clearly not the appropriate way to look at things. P.S. Edited some of my usual typos.

And just for the record, as the Director of Operations just 1 minute ago confirmed to me, there WILL be BBO coverage in Bangkok. It will be the Open room of the Vugraph match. The only difference is that the onsite Vugraph will not be BBO.

I don't want to spoil the good party, but NickF we all were there last year in Sydney and we "almost all" remember the - not few at all - days where the Internet was down and thus we didn't even have a Vugraph onsite (which, of course, is ridiculous). That's why, as Fred can easily tell you, in the major WBF events there is a request for a BBO server onsite, and not through the Internet: to comply with the standards of the contract. Since I also happen to know one-two things about Bangkok too, can you really guarantee that the Internet connection will be good enough so as to HAVE a vugraph at all? Because the "other" solution (i.e. the onsite server) costs much more than a single operator (which is not one, but let it be). The solution to this problem is by far more complicated than what you describe. I think we all are in favor of a better presentation for any bridge event, but instead of advertising our ignorance (like what mike777 just did), wouldn't it be better to propose something that can really work?