Cavendish Pairs Vugraph

[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 B)

[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]

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]

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

Lovely :o :D B)

 

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]

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]

... 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.

[Finch]

I agree with everything hrothgar said.

[mrdct]

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.

 

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.

 

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]

 

>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.

[Walddk]

> What are the "very large hassles involved"?

 

We're 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.

Absolutely right, but why should that be different for the Cavendish organisers than anywhere else in the world? They still struggle in many places, but allow me to say that they do a pretty good job elsewhere and that Europe and Australia are way ahead of North America in that respect.

 

Planning is the key word. Jan Martel realises what this is all about. I am sorry to say that this is not yet the case in regard to other organisations in USA, private or public. They really should take a good look at how they do this in for instance Poland, Scandinavia, France, Netherlands, England, Australia and Ireland.

 

Is it really degrading to ask others, even people in smaller countries than your own, how they go about it? I don't think it is. We can all learn from each other. Here is an area where the USA could learn a few things if they cross the Atlantic Ocean. No offence intended, just a piece of advice.

 

Roland

[mrdct]

> What are the "very large hassles involved"?

 

We're 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.

Sorry Richard, I thought you were referring to hassles for event organisers for whom all they really need to worry about is getting a hand data file cut up into smaller bits and giving it to the operators. I'll admit that there are some hassles for the vugraph operators, but all in a day's work.

 

My message is that in most cases doing vugraph coverage is to all intents and purposes completely unobtrusive and requires nothing from the organisers other than:

 

- hand data files;

- possible minor modification to table placement/orientation; and

- a venue with a phone line or internet connection in the playing area.

 

For coverage of one or two tables, the vugraph operators) can just about turn up with a laptop 30 minutes before showtime if the organisers have advance knowledge to prepare the hand data files and have a phone line or other internet connection available.

[JanM]

Absolutely right, but why should that be different for the Cavendish organisers than anywhere else in the world? They still struggle in many places, but allow me to say that they do a pretty good job elsewhere and that Europe and Australia are way ahead of North America in that respect.

 

Planning is the key word. Jan Martel realises what this is all about. I am sorry to say that this is not yet the case in regard to other organisations in USA, private or public. They really should take a good look at how they do this in for instance Poland, Scandinavia, France, Netherlands, England, Australia and Ireland.

I wish that I knew the solutions as well as I know the problems. :D

 

And, realistically, the Cavendish is different and more difficult than other events. Why? Because of the way the event is run and the security issues. It's a pairs tournament, with 3 board rounds. The organizers (correctly in my opinion) don't want future hands on a computer that's connected to the internet. So instead of loading up the hands for an entire session at the beginning of the session, and at the same time entering the name of the event, the session, etc, we have to go through that procedure every three boards. Sure, it's a reasonably easy procedure (wish it was easier :angry: ) but by the 18th time you've stuck a USB pen drive into your computer and hit F2 and checked that the path is still correctly in there and the name of the event, etc are right, it feels as if it's a major difference. And someone has to put the hands on those little pen drives; someone else has to bring the drives to the operators and then pick them up later. It really does add to the "overhead" of running the tournament. And the operator job is tougher - not only do you have to deal with the 3 board segments, but you have to change the names (and flags) for each round. I had to do that after I'd put up the first hand, which of course I couldn't do until all the players were seated (if any computer genius or BBO genius out there can tell me why other operators were able to put new names in the blank screen and have them there for the first board of the round whereas I wasn't, please let me know!).

 

In addition, someone has to tell the players to go to the Vugraph room every three boards - again, not much effort, but it adds to the work of the organizers or directors or whoever's doing it.

 

And in Las Vegas the hotels really overcharge for internet connections in meeting rooms. The Cavendish used phone lines, which were slow and added to the operator load (I wish I had a dollar for every time I thought I'd already entered a bid only to discover I hadn't because I'd typed it before the phone line was free). I don't know what that cost, although I was told it was not cheap. I know that when the USBF did Vugraph from the USWBC in Las Vegas a couple of years ago, we paid $1200 for 3 days of high speed internet, in one room.

 

And Richard scares me with his suggestions of how easy it would be for a player to enlist the aid of a spectator to cheat in the event - I don't think people want to do this, but it's scary that it is even possible.

[mrdct]

I'm not familiar with the procedure for loading up a new set of three boards each round without closing the presentation, but I presume you are over-writing the vugraph.lin file in the BBO directory on the laptop with a new file each round. For a variety of reasons I think the superior approach is to start a new presentation each round. This will ensure the data, including names, is all captured properly.

 

When I was watching the Cavendish, I invariably changed tables each round to watch my favourite players so getting booted and then having to go to a new vugraph table each round doesn't sound like much of hassle given that I'm more or less doing that already.

 

As for names, when you start the presentation you should have a blank table before you redeal to the first board. You can enter the names right then and there I believe before you bring up the first board.

 

How real is the risk that someone in the big-bad internet will hack into an operator's laptop, locate the hand data file and then covertly communicate key information to players? I'd think very low risk, but the risk can be quite easily mitigated through the following steps:

 

1. On the operator's laptop don't have any directories (especially ones with hand data files) shared and enable the built-in firewall in the Windows operating system.

2. To the extent to which kibitzers are allowed in the event, they must be in the playing room before the start of the session and if they leave they cannot return.

3. Players to have escorts for toilet breaks.

4. Ban on any electronic communication devices in the playing room.

 

I guess it's possible for a hacker to use a packet sniffer or something similar to intercept the hand data when a wireless network is used; but basic WEP or WPA encryption should solve that problem and keeping players quarantined during session time ought to eliminate the risk of information being covertly passed to them anyway.

 

If it remains a concern for event organisers, perhaps Fred needs to have a look at the whole way in which hand data is loaded, stored locally, transmitted to the BBO server and transmitted to viewers.

 

As for Richard's "computer in the shoe" scenario, the chances of an invited expert pair deploying such a technology for a once per year event with a first prize that is tasty money, but certainly not the sort of life changing cash that could be had by duping a casino game, has to be remote in the extreme. But if organisers remain paranoid about it, you can buy a hand-held bug detector for about $200 which will pick up any electronic signals coming in and out of people's footwear. I think the players would find it quite amusing being swept for bugs before the start of a session!

 

My final comment, and one that I've made many times before, is that when event organisers book venues make sure that the terms of access to the internet are reasonable.

[JanM]

I'm not familiar with the procedure for loading up a new set of three boards each round without closing the presentation, but I presume you are over-writing the vugraph.lin file in the BBO directory on the laptop with a new file each round.  For a variety of reasons I think the superior approach is to start a new presentation each round.  This will ensure the data, including names, is all captured properly.

 

As for names, when you start the presentation you should have a blank table before you redeal to the first board.  You can enter the names right then and there I believe before you bring up the first board.

My final comment, and one that I've made many times before, is that when event organisers book venues make sure that the terms of access to the internet are reasonable.

I agree that it would have been better (for posterity at least) had we closed the tables and restarted them. However, that would not in any way reduce the "overhead" involved in distributing three hands at a time to each Vugraph operator, having each operator start a new table with the new hands and then taking the pen drive with the hands back to have the next round's hands installed. Perhaps you're right that no-one could have hacked into a laptop which had all of the hands, but I'm not about to blame the organizers of the event from being very security conscious, and I don't think there's anyone else out there who is :angry:. Sure, we could probably put all the hands on the pen drives and load three at a time, but as an operator whose husband was playing, I'm not sure I'd have been comfortable with having all the hands available to me, and I'm sure others would feel the same.

 

As far as names, I agree that what you say should have worked, but I assure you it didn't. I entered new names on the blank screen many many times (I just couldn't believe it wouldn't work). Each time when I clicked on reload to get the first board of the round, the names were those from the previous round, not the ones I had entered.

 

There are a lot of things to be balanced when choosing a venue. Las Vegas is very attractive for the Cavendish, because people like going there and it's okay to openly call the Calcutta auction, etc "gambling." I don't know why the LV hotels tend to be high priced for internet (from meeting rooms). I only know that all the ones we've been to have been.