How can Vugraph be improved?

[JanM]

I love internet Vugraph, and I think it's a wonderful advertisement for our game. BBO Vugraph isn't perfect (what is?) but I think in general it's very good. But then, I can still remember the days when live Vugraph consisted of an overhead projector and someone writing in the bids and then crossing out cards B).

I'm in charge of the Vugraph for the United States Bridge Championship (aka US Team Trials) this August (starts August 18 if you want to mark your calendar). I'm planning to cover all of the matches from the Round of 16 on. That's possible because two teams have byes to the semi-finals of the event, so there will be 4 matches in the Round of 16 and 2 in the Round of 8, instead of the normal 8 and 4. For the Round of 16 (1-1/2 days), we'll be broadcasting the Open Room live and (hopefully) entering the bidding, opening lead and result from the Closed Room in something approaching real time, so the movie will have that information. For the rest of the event (6 more days) we're planning to broadcast from all the tables. I've already warned Roland that we'll need commentators for 4 tables for the Rounds of 16, 8 and semi's, and two for the finals, so commentators, definitely mark your calendars :).

I have some ideas of things we can do to make the broadcast better (entering bids from the CR tables when we're covering only the OR is one). I'd be interested in hearing ideas from you.

Oh, and be warned - we're going to ask for money from the spectators. Not require payment, but ask people who appreciate the opportunity to watch Vugraph, and want us to be able to continue doing it, to contribute $5 or $10 or $20 for it. I raised some "seed money" to provide full coverage this fall, but we'll need financial support to continue. (why? isn't Vugraph free to the event organizers? Well, yes and no. We're very appreciative of the fact that BBO provides the site and the software free; no-one could present Vugraph shows if they didn't. But there are still a lot of expenses: internet connections, for which some hotels charge an absurd amount; computers; Vugraph operators (no, we don't pay them, although I wish we could, but we do cover their expenses and feed them); someone to transer hands from the duplicating machines to the appropriate format for Vugraph; in order to report bidding from the Closed Rooms, we'll need people to write it down, caddies to pick up the records and someone to enter them into yet another computer or four; etc). If we're going to give you some extra bells and whistles (and I want to), we'll need to pay for them.

So, what would you like to see to enhance Vugraph?

[hrothgar]

Hi Jan

 

Thanks very much for taking the time/effort to consult with the player base regarding Vugraph requirements. I'd like to separate my comments into three basic topics.

 

First and foremost: I have no problems with organizations like the USBF or the WBF charging for Vugraphs. As someone who would potentially contribute funds towards a Vugraphs I would insist on a lot of transparency. I would want to know precisely where my dollars would be going. I think that it is reasonable for commentators to request fee for service. I have no problem compensating a qualified commentator for their efforts. I'm perfectly happy contributing funds that would be used as a cost offset for expenses associated with running a Vugraph, However, I have issues associated with using Vugraph revenues to offset tertiary expenses associated with running tournaments. For example, if you tried to charge fees for Vugraph and then use said funds to pay for directors or rental space or whatever I'd be unwilling to contribute. If you are unwilling to provide financial breakdowns that can be used to verify your expenses, I'd refuse to contribute.

 

Issue 2: If you're serious about improving Vugraph, migrate to an electronic playing environment. Get rid of the pasteboard playing cards. Run the event using a local instance of BBO. I'd recommend something similar to the following:

 

A. Events continue to be held in a secure location (las Vegas, Memphis, Rhodes, whatever). Players need to travel physically to said location.

B. During each session, players are segregated by direction. All the North's are lumped together in one room, South's in another. East's in a third. Yada, yada, yada. Each room is equipped with a local area network and physical proctors.

C. Players have the option of bringing their own PC or renting one from the event organizers. Each PC that is used must be capable of being booted from a CD-ROM. At the start of each event, PCs will be booted with a clean OS and a BBO client.

D. The event will be conducting with a local instance of the BBO server. Vugraph information will be relayed from the local server to the world with a one board lag.

 

From my perspective, this system provides several critical advantages compared to traditional pasteboard play.

 

1.Vastly superior security

2.No “issues” related to fouled movements, errors with duplications, pairs sitting the wrong directions

3.“Automatic” Vugraph coverage

4.Perfect records regarding bidding/play/temp/expanations for the event

 

For better or worse, major events like the Bermuda Bowl will be forced to move in this direction. The main question is whether the Zonal organizations will be willing to embrace the chance or have forced down their throats...

 

Issue 3: Many of the most significant issues associated with Vugraph are related to the BBO client / server rather than the organization structures. For example, a new chat system would do an awful lot to improve options associated with Vugraph.

[Walddk]

I think I will find a safe place to hide. The European Team Championships in Warsaw, Poland, will take place from August 12-26, and although there's a time difference between USA and Europe, we will get a few overlaps.

 

Our limit at the moment is 8 simultaneous tables, but I know that Fred is going to bump it up at some point. Looks like it'll have to be sooner rather than later. For the first time ever we had to ask organisers to cut down on number of tables when we are having 6 broadcasts more or less simultaneously on May 27 and 28.

 

They all understand the difficult position we are in at the moment. Better to get 1 table than none, and the late arrivals will have to do with only 1 although they would have liked 2.

 

Amazing how vugraph has developed. From one broadcast every other month 3 years ago to almost weekly transmissions - and as all of you know, often with 3 or 4 at the same time.

 

It's great for everybody and it's perfect when it comes to promoting the game to an audience worldwide. Keep up the good work Jan and other organisers in all parts of the world; we will cope somehow, because if there's a will there's a way!

 

Roland

[luke warm]

first of all, i think it's wonderful that you're taking the time to ask our opinions, jan... it shows a lot of initiative on your part, and a willingness to listen to what should be many good and some inane (that would be mine) suggestions

 

i agree 100% with richard's comments re: an electronic playing environment... i doubt seriously if the more influential players would accept it though, at least not this decade... many probably fancy their 'table feel' to be too advantageous to give up, and we all know that there is a small minority whose opinions are listened to very closely by organizing bodies... be that as it may, this is the wave of the future and it doesn't seem to make much sense to fight it

 

as far as the money aspect is concerned, i'm afraid you might run into what seems to be a prevalent atmosphere (at least in the usa)... people seem to have fallen into an 'entitlement' mindset over the last couple of generations, and i think this has probably even worked its way into the services bbo (and you and roland and countless others) provide... iow, i'm afraid people are spoiled into thinking they're entitled to free bridge, free vugraph, free whatever

 

but maybe i'm just too pessimistic... in any case, i'll gladly pay for my viewing pleasure... just set it up so we can use paypal (or even $bbo)... great job, jan... i wish you the best of luck

 

ps

i just read that other thread (the one now closed) ... pity that (the closing, i mean)... in any case, fwiw roland rocks (there, i've voted)

[Sigi_BC84]

For better or worse, major events like the Bermuda Bowl will be forced to move in this direction.  The main question is whether the Zonal organizations will be willing to embrace the chance or have forced down their throats...

Uh oh. I've been thinking about it, too. Of course the points you are making are perfectly valid, but I don't think they will be appreciated. Rationale:

 

1. The WBF (and many national Bridge organizations) are quite keen to get Bridge accepted as a "sport". Replacing the cards with computers will most decidedly not contribute towards that goal (there are computer games which could be considered as sports as much as Bridge, but that is not the opinion of the general public, except maybe in South Korea). It will also make it look very sterile and "dishumanize" it further (screens are weird enough to the layperson already). Take poker on TV: they are playing with real cards there, and the other day I've seen an event sponsored by PartyPoker where they used real Pound Sterling bills instead of chips to make it look cooler. Well, they could use computers and make it more secure (and easier for the broadcaster), but they don't, and this is for publicity reasons. But since Bridge has a large bonus, publicity-wise...

 

2. Quite a few players don't like to play computer Bridge. You would be coercing them into using a medium they don't like, whereas using normal playing cards can be expected from everyone. So I'd expect substantial player opposition as well.

 

3. Computer games are raising mixed feelings among the general population (and possibly many bridge players as well). Many (esp. older) people are still feeling reservations concerning modern technology. This will change over the next few decades, but before that I don't think Bridge is ready for going electronic.

 

Tradition also goes a long way. Have you seen how high class Japanese Go tournaments are held?

 

--Sigi

[luis]

I like Vugraph a lot the way it is and I'm sure Fred has a list of improvements to make it even better so I'm not very worried.

One small suggestion is to display the double dummy analysys of the deal on a side so you can see makeable contracts, this will help a lot the commentators and the kibitzers, for example if 4s is makeable we may discuss how to do it, if it is realistic single dummy etc.

 

Luis

[inquiry]

Hi Jan,

 

I will pitch in a share of the money you may try to raise, either through BBO$ or real dollars, just keep us informed on how.

 

As to how to make vugraph better. Its about the people. Roland has weeded out virtually all of the poor commentators. But not all commentators work well with each other, and there is often a poor division of labor between the hodgepodge team of commentators, and sometimes there is way too many commentors. I think you should assign teams to the broadcast with specific division of major roles.

 

1) A color person per table who can share insight about the players personality, etc.

 

2) A person assigned to comment specifically about the bidding of a specific pair. This person should either know the players and their bidding system, or spend sometime with the system notes the players provide. (so this in general should be two players)

 

3) A person assigned to comment on aspects of the play/carding/thoughts of the players.

 

This comes to four commenators. I think this should be limit, although you could add a second play-based commentator. No one else should be allowed to comment.

 

Since each has a specific task, while the peope who are commenting on the bidding (way it is going or might go), the play analyst could be busy studying the four hands for interesting points of play... EVEN before the contract is chosen (of course, they don't comment at that point). All commentors can of course can comment on other aspects of the hand as well. But by assigning individuals with specific task, it is more likely that all the relevant task will be covered. I think this is where the current vugraphs sometimes fall down. That is when this happens, all the commentors either pound on the same point one of them raises without considering other aspects of the hand, or they appear to sit around waiting for someone else to say the obvious (to better players) and no one says it.

[JanM]

Thank you all for the quick and thoughtful responses. I'll try to respond somewhat.

 

First, Richard, our finances are open to anyone who can understand them & we do try to set forth the costs of tournaments as well as we can. I'd love to dream about how to spend all the profits we'll make from Vugraph B) but in real life, I'd be ecstatic to cover the costs and be able to provide a better "performance." Still, I wonder why you'd be willing to pay commentators, who (I think it's fair to say) are doing it because it's fun for them, but aren't willing to pay the other performers on the "show" - the players, who'd be the ones who would benefit if we actually made money from Vugraph to offset other tournament expenses and thus charged a lower entry fee?

 

"Electronic" tournaments may be the way we'll go in the future, but I agree with Sigi's point that the players don't want that, at least not yet. For the moment, I think we're going to continue to have face to face bridge tournaments. Frankly, I'm hoping I'll be able to persuade our players to use Bridgemates for entering contracts and results, and expecting significant resistance from the electronically-challenged.

 

Roland, I'm sorry we're going to overload the system :). And if we adopt Ben's suggestion, someone is going to have even more work to do organizing the commentators (more on that later). I agree with you that it's wonderful how Vugraph has grown in the last couple of years, and I hope we won't burn you out.

 

Luke, I think we'll have it set up so you can use BBO$ to make contributions, but definitely there will be some easy electronic method.

 

Luis, I like the idea of showing the makable contracts - I'll have to ask if that's possible. Of course, sometimes what Deep Finesse or GIB say is "makable" is very double dummy, but it is interesting information.

 

Ben, interesting point about trying to allocate commentating "jobs" - hopefully Roland will respond to that one :). I have been thinking about ways to provide "color" and systems information taking advantage of the electronic environment. I hope to post brief biographies, ideally with pictures or links to pictures, of the players in the Semi-finals at least and maybe even the Round of 8 on our website. That way when someone is watching and wants to know more about a specific player, he or she can go to the website and learn something. Of course, there's more to a "color" commentator than that, but I have a feeling that getting the right person for each match (by right I mean someone who can do better than read a biography) isn't going to be an easy task.

As for systems, we require each pair to complete a "System Summary" that hopefully provides a useful overview of their methods (both bidding and defensive carding) and those are posted on our site, as are the advance submissions of unusual methods. There are certainly people who know a lot more than that about many of the pairs who'll be playing, and it would be great if we could get them to provide some insight into the bidding (I promise to work on that, and I'd love volunteers who can say "I know exactly how pair XY bid and I could be a reference person for them"). I think more than one person needs to talk about play - we're all good at seeing different things and sometimes one person can see something another misses, or explain something better than another. How many commentators we should have in each room I don't know - it seems to me that sometimes 4 is too many and sometimes it's too few. I suspect we'll end up with at most 4, since we're covering a lot of tables and Roland says that there will be overlap with Europe. I think that it's very hard to know how a group of people will "mesh" as commentators, and although I agree that it would be wonderful if we could have the perfect mesh, I suspect if we try to control things that much we'll end up with something not as good as what we have now.

Thanks again for all your thoughts and keep them coming :)

[mike777]

Thank you Ms. Martel for your recent posts and efforts to improve the USBF for us nonexperts who watch. If possible, with time, here are two suggestions.

 

1) More detailed commentary about the players systems and carding. None of us nonexperts fully understand Meckwell, Hamway, Martel or other top players' systems.

 

2) More "color" commentary about the history of the game, players and away from the table bridge issues. Not all of us really need to know how to make/beat the contracts on a double dummy basis every hand. PERSONALITY can be fun and interesting also. Thank you in advance.

[Gerben42]

I don't think it's realistic to run "real" bridge tournaments on the internet any time in the forseeable future. It is okay to "also" run tournaments online, like for example an internet team league. Why? Because table presence is part of the game.

 

As for systems, we require each pair to complete a "System Summary" that hopefully provides a useful overview of their methods (both bidding and defensive carding) and those are posted on our site, as are the advance submissions of unusual methods

 

Since this is a national level team event I'm surprised about this statement. I would expect every pair to submit a sufficiently filled out WBF convention card in electronic format (either made on the PC or handed in some time upfront so someone can scan them). If you want to improve the Vugraph putting these online (and handing them to the onsite Vugraph commentators if you are going to have such a thing) this will help a lot.

[Walddk]

As to how to make vugraph better. Its about the people. Roland has weeded out virtually all of the poor commentators. But not all commentators work well with each other, and there is often a poor division of labor between the hodgepodge team of commentators, and sometimes there is way too many commentors. I think you should assign teams to the broadcast with specific division of major roles.

 

1) A color person per table who can share insight about the players personality, etc.

 

2) A person assigned to comment specifically about the bidding of a specific pair. This person should either know the players and their bidding system, or spend sometime with the system notes the players provide. (so this in general should be two players)

 

3) A person assigned to comment on aspects of the play/carding/thoughts of the players.

 

This comes to four commenators. I think this should be limit, although you could add a second play-based commentator. No one else should be allowed to comment.

In principle I agree with you Ben, but this is not possible for various practical reasons although I have close to 200 potential commentators on my contact list.

 

1. They are not available.

2. Some are available but respond too late for me to plan.

2. They are available, but they can't do it at the same times.

3. Many overlapping broadcasts.

4. It's time consuming beyond reasonable limits.

 

There is a lot of work behind the scenes as it is now, and believe me, I really try hard to assign commentators who will make a nice group in many respects. It's not only a question of being good; you must also be able to interact with your fellow commentators.

 

Sometimes this gives me a headache because A doesn't like B who would prefer not to commentate with C and D. C would like to be at the same table as E and F, but unfortunately they didn't sign up for that particular session ... and so on and so forth.

 

Regarding the quality of commentators, I would love to add the likes of Michael Rosenberg, Bart Bramley, John Swanson, Sabine Auken, Fred Gitelman, David Burn, Jan Martel, Larry Cohen, Richie Reisig, David Greenwood, Debbie Rosenberg, Liz McGowan, Michael Barel, Migry Zur Campanile and many other top class players and commentators to every segment, but all of you will surely understand that this wish is an illusion most of the times.

 

I am not sure if everyone knows, but no volunteer commentator gets paid for her or his services (I am also among those). Would it be different if money had been an issue? There is no way one can tell, but my guess is: yes, to a certain extent but it wouldn't solve all problems.

 

Commentators donate their time because they love bridge and because they want to give something back to the game that has given them so much. I think it's fair to assume that some would find a little more time if they got paid. This applies to the bridge pros, but it would also be an issue among commentators who do not have bridge as their living.

 

For the vast majority, however, money or not would not make a significant difference. I can only speak for myself obviously, but it wouldn't change anything as far as I'm concerned. Being able and allowed to do this is a reward in itself. We would of course all like to get paid for our contributions, and I know that Fred would like to pay people for everything they do for this wonderful site.

 

I also believe that this will happen some day when Fred & Co. make a lot of money from BBO. I have no clue regarding the BBO finances, but if we all keep working hard it's bound to happen sooner or later.

 

Until then we are all happy to render our assistance where and when needed. We will always aim at doing this as perfectly as possible. We do not always succeed, but we do try hard. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but please keep it constructive and remember that there is a limit as to how much we can do.

 

Roland

[cherdano]

I'll say two obvious things:

1. A stable connection is important. Nothing more annoying than to wonder why a player is tanking, still wonder,....until the table crashes down. (E.g. it seems to me that an ethernet connection is still preferable to WLAN.)

2. Good operators make a big difference. E.g. if they are on top of it and can relay some of the explanations given at the table to the audience, it helps a lot.

 

I am sure you have thought of this, so this is just to say I agree with you B)

 

I like your idea about the closed rooms.

 

Arend

[mrdct]

During the round-robin of the World Youth in Sydney we covered three separate matches each round with a single table being broadcast and the comparitives being keyed by a single operator logged in invisibly under three separate VG IDs on the one machine. I think this worked really well and could be good model for your round of 16 and quarter-finals. Doing it this way also minimises the dilution of the audience and commentator resources.

 

The human resource requirements were four vugraph operators, a recorder at each comparitive table and a runner to bring the record sheets to the 4th operator (the one doing three tables). I mostly worked as the 4th operator so I could keep an eye on things and I found that I had plenty of time to enter all the bidding and play and still wander around from time to time - so I don't think four matches will be a problem.

 

Lots of advance planning (which you are obviously doing) is the key and make sure you get a good internet connection.

 

As for commentary, I do it for the fun of it and because of my time zone I'm usually sitting on the couch watching TV, fiddling on the laptop and having a beer at that time of night anyway. A few general pointers for commentators:

 

1. Try to think what problem/alternatives the players are dealing with and explain potential thought processes to the audience.

2. If you haven't said anything in the last four or five lines, say something.

3. Don't overuse GIB - it is often very obvious when commentators are simply relaying what GIB says.

 

BBO broadcasts are significantly enhanced when there is a website with realtime or near realtime results from all tables. This is very much the norm in several countries now and I would encourage the USBF to look at doing something like this. I know that in previous years when I've been trying to follow USBF events the timeliness of website updates has been very poor.

 

Finally, BBO broadcasts benefit greatly when the vugraph operator can give a bit of a flavour for what's going on at the table as far as body language and interaction between the players in concerned. I actually thought the recent Cavendish operators did a great job of this, particularly David Stern.

[cherdano]

One small suggestion is to display the double dummy analysys of the deal on a side so you can see makeable contracts, this will help a lot the commentators and the kibitzers, for example if 4s is makeable we may discuss how to do it, if it is realistic single dummy etc.

I am against this :P Except for the very best, most vuegraph commentators make too many double-dummy comments already in my opinion.

Of course not everyone can be Michael Rosenberg, but I much prefer when the commentators try to figure out how the play in 4S should go, rather than telling how to make it double dummy, and then trying to figure out whether that line is realistic etc.

 

Arend

[Walddk]

One small suggestion is to display the double dummy analysys of the deal on a side so you can see makeable contracts, this will help a lot the commentators and the kibitzers, for example if 4s is makeable we may discuss how to do it, if it is realistic single dummy etc.

I am against this :P Except for the very best, most vuegraph commentators make too many double-dummy comments already in my opinion.

Of course not everyone can be Michael Rosenberg, but I much prefer when the commentators try to figure out how the play in 4S should go, rather than telling how to make it double dummy, and then trying to figure out whether that line is realistic etc.

 

Arend

I agree that GIB and/or DF are overused. There is nothing shameful about making a wrong analysis even if you are an expert commentator. Even Michael Rosenberg and Bart Bramley, the world's best analysts, make mistakes. They just make fewer than the rest of us.

 

While we're at it; it amazes me how Michael and Bart, like the best chess players, are able to look several steps (moves, tricks) ahead even on very complex hands. A fantastic ability when you're a commentator.

 

Sometimes it's way over our heads, and certainly for the vast majority in the audience. I am impressed every time I see how accurately they analyse one hand after the other.

 

Roland

[hrothgar]

Still, I wonder why you'd be willing to pay commentators, who (I think it's fair to say) are doing it because it's fun for them, but aren't willing to pay the other performers on the "show" - the players, who'd be the ones who would benefit if we actually made money from Vugraph to offset other tournament expenses and thus charged a lower entry fee?

My position regarding fees / compensation and the like is based on fairly practical grounds:

 

US copyright law is quite clear about what types of information can/can not be protected. You can not copyright the record of a game. I understand the desire of organizations like FIDE to hold the copyright to all the moves in a given game of chess, however, the case law in this area is pretty clear. Chess games, bridge matches and the like are viewed as collaborative art and not subject to copyright. Even the large sports leagures like baseball and football are being forced to recognize that the can't copyright statistics. (For anyone seriously interested in this topic, the last major finding in the US was a case between Motorola and the NBA. There is an ongoing lawsuit between Major League Baseball and some of the fantasy baseball leagues. However, I'd be shocked if MLB were to win).

 

It is possible to copyright the commentary surrounding a game. The analysis, verbal description, and "color" that the commentators provide is viewed as a creative work and can be protected. (Its also possible to copyright a collection of statistics such as the phonebook how this discussion is probably a too detailed for the current thread)

 

Let's assume for the moment that the USBF were to create a live feed showing all of the matches from the teams trial. If I wanted to, I could piggyback off your feed, strip off all the commentary, and rebroadcast the hands with new commentary. Legally, there is almost nothing that you could do to stop me. (I'm sure that Fred and Uday could block me as an individual user, but this would simply start a technical arms race). In short, I don't see how you can "win" trying to charge money for the rights for hand records. The most likely scenario is that you won't be able to generate any significant amount of money. The act of trying to create a large revenue stream will damage the evolution of the market. If you are able to generate any real "rent" competitors will jump in and quickly arbitrage this out of the system.

 

As I noted earlier, I don't have any problem with folks trying to turn a buck creating revenue streams from Vugraph. However, if you plan to do so you need to understand the business realities...

 

Personally, I think that your best course of action is to recognize what the end game looks like and jump directly to it.

 

In short:

 

1. Focus on raising enough money to compensate for costs associated with providing a Vugraph feed.

 

2. Don't try to use Vugraph as a cash cow to subsidize other parts of the event.

 

I'll also note in passing that I'd be much less skeptical about event organizers skimming off revenue if they had better track records with their own budgets. (Please note, I am not talking about the USBF here). The ACBL and the WBF have dreadful track records with respect to spending. Thinking back to all of the idiocy related to

 

A. Bridge as an Olympic Sport

B. Anti- Doping

C. Bridge is Cool

D. The debacle d'jour

 

I don't trust these organizations with money.

I don't want to provide them with resources.

[JanM]

I've messed up the quoting, but Gerben said: "Since this is a national level team event I'm surprised about this statement. I would expect every pair to submit a sufficiently filled out WBF convention card in electronic format (either made on the PC or handed in some time upfront so someone can scan them). If you want to improve the Vugraph putting these online (and handing them to the onsite Vugraph commentators if you are going to have such a thing) this will help a lot."

 

Because this is a "national" event, we don't use WBF convention cards. The players are required to complete and bring with them to the table an ACBL convention card. We do this because the event is designed to be an enjoyable one for all of the players, including those who don't expect to win, and some of them are very unfamiliar with the WBF convention card.

Many of us feel that the ACBL card doesn't provide all of the information an expert opponent wants to see. So we developed the "System Summary" which hopefully incorporates the good things from the WBF card without being so dificult to complete. I don't think we'll see WBF cards used in the forseeable future. Some of the players complete their ACBL cards electronically, and we could ask them to submit those cards to us - many just do them in (messy) pen and pencil, and although we could try scanning them, I'm not sure how good the quality would be.

You can read about the System requirements and get links to the forms we use here: http://www.usbf.org/forms.html. We are always interested in recommendations for improvement.

[JanM]

A couple of people have mentioned the internet connection, and of course I agree. I have been told that for White Plains our only choice is the hotel's wireless network. I'm hoping that it is a good one and will be "loud" in the playing areas (which are individual hotel guest rooms). I will definitely be testing the connection in advance, but that isn't always adequate. I don't think that this hotel has hard-wired ethernet connections, which of course would be best. Having done a day of the Cavendish using a S-L-O-W telephone connection, I can tell you that that has its own problems - I'd think I'd sent a bid only to see it wasn't on my screen because the phone connection had still been working on the last one. The good news is that hotels are getting better and better with their wireless networks, so we can hope for a stable fast connection that way at most of our future events.

[asdfg2k]

You might want to take the entire network out of the hands of the hotel. For a minimal fee these days you can get a broadband/wireless card that you can insert directly into a laptop. You can then run your own sneaker net, if necessary, to the one laptop that would then have fast access. Or, you can set up your own internal network (either wired or wireless), if the layout allows; or, you can set up multiple computers with their own broadband/wireless, which might become a bit pricey.

 

Here's one:

 

http://www.sprintwirelessinternet.com/

[hrothgar]

You might want to take the entire network out of the hands of the hotel. For a minimal fee these days you can get a broadband/wireless card that you can insert directly into a laptop. You can then run your own sneaker net, if necessary, to the one laptop that would then have fast access. Or, you can set up your own internal network (either wired or wireless), if the layout allows; or, you can set up multiple computers with their own broadband/wireless, which might become a bit pricey.

 

Here's one:

 

http://www.sprintwirelessinternet.com/

Most hotels in the US forbid guests from running their own private networks.

Hell, half the airports license the wireless rights to single provider.

 

There was a lawsuit here in Boston between Logan airport and United over the fact that United wanted to provide free Wi-Fi in their first class lounge.

[Gerben42]

Because this is a "national" event, we don't use WBF convention cards. The players are required to complete and bring with them to the table an ACBL convention card. We do this because the event is designed to be an enjoyable one for all of the players, including those who don't expect to win, and some of them are very unfamiliar with the WBF convention card.

 

The national organizations I've been part of (Germany and Netherlands) require the large NATIONAL convention card (which happen to be the same as the WBF convention card but in the national language).

 

Maybe now the System Summary forms will be better but I have commented a USBF match and in that particular match I found that the summary had very little information. Maybe this was just a problem that there were no penalties on not filling it out with ALL the relevant information, but that was my experience with them.

 

Many of us feel that the ACBL card doesn't provide all of the information an expert opponent wants to see. So we developed the "System Summary" which hopefully incorporates the good things from the WBF card without being so dificult to complete. 

 

Well in a way having something extra on top of your standard CC is very good, of course, the question is what. It's just that last time I was confronted with this "lack of information" from the summary.

[luis]

One small suggestion is to display the double dummy analysys of the deal on a side so you can see makeable contracts, this will help a lot the commentators and the kibitzers, for example if 4s is makeable we may discuss how to do it, if it is realistic single dummy etc.

I am against this :P Except for the very best, most vuegraph commentators make too many double-dummy comments already in my opinion.

Of course not everyone can be Michael Rosenberg, but I much prefer when the commentators try to figure out how the play in 4S should go, rather than telling how to make it double dummy, and then trying to figure out whether that line is realistic etc.

 

Arend

Precisely,

If we can see what is makeable double dummy commentors can focus more in the single dummy analysis of the deal which is a lot more interesting.

And sometimes it will help find nice squeezes or plays that are hard to see while doing many things at the same time.

 

Luis

[JanM]

Maybe now the System Summary forms will be better but I have commented a USBF match and in that particular match I found that the summary had very little information. Maybe this was just a problem that there were no penalties on not filling it out with ALL the relevant information, but that was my experience with them.

There's always a learning curve with something new. Compare WBF cards from the first year they were introduced (1987 I believe) and now. Or if you don't want to go back that far, compare the Advance Submission forms for Brown Sticker bids from their introduction to now. Hopefully this year's System Summary Forms will be better than last year's.

[hrothgar]

Because this is a "national" event, we don't use WBF convention cards. The players are required to complete and bring with them to the table an ACBL convention card. We do this because the event is designed to be an enjoyable one for all of the players, including those who don't expect to win, and some of them are very unfamiliar with the WBF convention card.

This is the second time that I've seen comments that the Conditions of Content for USBF events need to accomodate players who are pretty much competing for the fun of it. (The last time was during the HUM discussion where I suggested that USBF matches should use the same set of systems regulations and disclosure requirements as the WBF events that they mapped on to)

 

I'm somewhat surprised that accomodating social players is given such high priority. In theory, the purpose of these events is to select National Teams for the US. Personally, I'd like to Conditions of Contest that are

 

1. Designed to select the best team

2. Ensure that said teams are as well prepared as possible when they enter these events...

 

Accomodating social play really seems like an inappropriate design goal for the national teams trials.

 

I'll note that during the parent thread, Fred suggested that it was appropriate for the USBF to block players from using high variance methods that would be legal in WBF events but are banned in the North America. He justified this based on the need to select the best team.

 

I would argue that if its appropriate to prevent players from being able to use high variance methods you might want to also block under qualified social players from particiapting in these events. Surely they inject ever bit as much variance into the process as an Ekrens 2D opening...

[Walddk]

Maybe now the System Summary forms will be better but I have commented a USBF match and in that particular match I found that the summary had very little information. Maybe this was just a problem that there were no penalties on not filling it out with ALL the relevant information, but that was my experience with them.

There's always a learning curve with something new. Compare WBF cards from the first year they were introduced (1987 I believe) and now. Or if you don't want to go back that far, compare the Advance Submission forms for Brown Sticker bids from their introduction to now. Hopefully this year's System Summary Forms will be better than last year's.

This is an area where virtually all organisers can improve. They rarely give us system cards in advance (most of the time not at all), so way too often the commentators must guess and seek info among a few very knowledgeable spectators.

 

Maybe this could be included in Conditions of Contest, at least for major events. That will make commentating a lot easier, and it will surely be of significant service to the audience if one is able to explain bids and carding when they appear. One can always hope.

 

Roland