Youth WC is off

[Gerben42]

The problem with the location is that like all other places in Bangkok, it is impossible to get there from any other place in Bangkok. So any VG operator would have to eat and sleep at the hotel.

 

That is being used as an excuse. Of course there is no such thing as a free lunch. However ONE extra person around in the hotel (of very many: 22 teams, directors, caddies, etc.) will make a huge difference for the exposure of the event. No, it's not Damiani or some other bigshot, it's the Vugraph operator.

 

Without Vugraph, they might have been playing today and you and I would read about it in two months in our national bridge magazine.

 

Also there is a difference between the WBF and the FIFA. The FIFA gets overrun by requests to promote their tournaments, whereas the WBF, with the same goal: to popularize bridge, has only one or two offers (basically BBO and one other or so). However choosing not to broadcast one of their most important events is failure to pursue their #1 goal.

[hrothgar]

The problem with the location is that like all other places in Bangkok, it is impossible to get there from any other place in Bangkok. So any VG operator would have to eat and sleep at the hotel.

 

That is being used as an excuse. Of course there is no such thing as a free lunch.

I was in Bangkok a couple years back... One of my favorite things about the city were the (near free) lunches... Every 100 meters or so there would be a strange little cart selling some bizare foodstuff dispensed in a small plastic bag.

 

I was never quite sure what i was eating, but as long as you picked a cart with a decent sized line it was inevitably very good and very cheap :-) Sure, you might find yourself chewing on a fish head, but thats part of what makes life so very fun.

[melviss666]

I'm 100% with Fred, & even though bid_em_up & I are from the same hometown, I'm 100% against his being 100% against Fred on this,lol. As I thought Fred tried to make clear, there will be no bridge for us old codgers to play if there aren't young members, so, I find the WBF's stance more than appalling. We will wind up with a world full of Texas Hold 'Em players... sounds like being in hell, doesn't it? & as for calling the occasional bureaucrat an idiot, I'm all for it whether he/she represents the United Nations, ACBL, or WBF. Amen.

[polyvlakas]

It is easy to critisize, difficult to keep silent.

For those who are missinformed, I can add the following:

 

It is us (Panos and myself) who asked help (operator) to broadcast 1 table - open VG room - through BBO.

The reply said nothing about the operator, but something about budgeting $450 as per diem.

I arranged, thanks to Mrs. Nui Vallapa (not a BBO person, but a very capable local bridge personallity), to have an operator for this broadcast.

If BBO allows, we will broadcast the open VG room from Bangkok.

 

It is very strange to me that after the reply of fskoul, confirming that there will be a broadcast, some people keep on talking.

 

Yours,

 

Dimitris Ballas

[Kaje]

I am from the rank and file, a daily user of BBO. I simply cannot understand why an organization whose very reason to be is thus being self-negated by its patent reluctance to accomplish the job myself and the thousands (millions?) of other rank and files like me have trusted it with. Boggles my mind. My anger cannot address the technicalities whether they are commercial, political or technological, I’m simply not conversant with them and thus can’t discuss them with the appropriateness they certainly deserve. Consequently I have to point at what looks indecently obvious to me and bring out my gut feeling: the WBF, which, no doubt (word :) , can be compared to a mater/pater familias refuses, point blank, to give exposure to our/its offspring. It denies them the help and assistance any child is entitled to from its parents. Organizing a somewhat huis-clos Youth World Championship (compared to what it could have been on the internet) is outrageous because it is jeopârdizing the very lives the WBF’s sole purpose is to protect and help thrive. This could be construed as child abuse. The job of the WBF is to promote the game through its actions which should/must (we gotta make room for tremendous but fruitless efforts) benefit its members at large, the masses (there’s the big frightening word). Period. Not doing it in this particular case is denial of service. All these misdemeanours in our modern times are severely punished by the law, or are they? Does the WBF think it is untouchable? That would be arrogance. The WBF is not run nor does it run for the sake of the WBF but for the sake of those who pay for the WBF to be able to run their bridge interests or any interets linked with in any licit manner we would give our support to. If there can’t be any showcase project seen worldwide, why call it “world”? Add to the aggravation the fact that my child, your children could be missing yet another opportunity to show what they can do. Bridge can surely also be understood as a mere medium through which talent would be channelled and talent that might have nothing to do with bridge directly. We want our kids to be something (?) and bridge players, at least that what I would like for my daughter. I certainly would not want her to be a bridge player period, tends to be sclerotic, not the right 9-letter adjective today . If she would still ask for my advice, I would strongly encourage her to try and develop any other skill, any other center of interest.

 

The WBF must be our two-way window/mirror. I understand from what I’ve read that they do a great job in other instances. Why stop the good work there? Is it as if to say : “the excellence we have reached there can cover our other weaknesses here”. No way.

 

What is blatantly missing here is solidarity with the have-nots. All those ever-inflating bodies which deliberately sever links with those they represent invariably become monolithic and self-serving. Do the job you were elected to do.

 

I’m not sure though that the embarrassing bit is the right thing to do, seems to be pointing at one man. This is exactly what frustration that has been building up, does; the feeling gets to the brink of explosion when you feel trapped. The other (ugly) face of the moon is that I am not capable of seeing which other lever would be efficient in making the behemoth change its way, either. So, as is always the case we (the same) are caught up between evils that systematically boil down to one thing : our own demise. The eternal dilemma between hard-core actions and middle of the road ones

 

Scuttle the ship and we wind up drowning. Try to seal off the gaps from within and it may take so long that the monster will restore its forces to the point it becomes an impregnable fortress (i.e, ship too deep in waters). Most NCBO's are a mere extension of the WBF, should be the reverse, hmm, let me think about that again :blink:

 

I understand Fred, BBO staff and Roland’s position though, how couldn’t I?

BBO is committed to keeping whatever they can free, and by golly, that’s what they’ve done. This argument is extremely tough to refute as one can experience it every/any second one wishes to. Going to and fro unrestrictedly, changing your name, leaving the table when you wish (politely whenever possible). You feel at home, you make friends, you can host them, you can block any unwanted conversation. You feel free, can't say that about a whole bunch of places today.That’s comfort or I’ve never played on BBO :) .

That’s exactly what we Bridge lovers --not necessarily good players or experts-- or simply WBF members from all the nooks and crannies of this all cracked up flat Earth have been expecting from the WBF. Why can’t they deliver?

 

No, my one and only daughter doesn’t play bridge. Why? At age 2 she had some reserves about the WBF and she preserves herself from everything on shelves.

 

Kaje, keep all jacks enlightened:)

[mrdct]

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.

In Sydney three separate wireless broadband interent connections were used. One shared wirelessly amongst the three or four broadcast tables and one about 500 metres away shared amongst a wired LAN with about a dozen computers in a players' internet cafe and three or four computers in the vugraph theatre. The third was in WBF offices for the use of the bulletin editor and WBF officials.

 

Most of the time this worked OK, but in the evenings the internet was noticably slower and on two or three occasions we had sessions (I think matches 3, 6 & 9) in which we reverted to single table coverage. When problems with the internet arose, my priority was always the online coverage for the 2000+ spectators we usually had rather than half-dozen or so people watching in the onsite theatre.

 

For the onsite vugraph theater it is true that there were a few evening matches where the connection to BBO was unstable for the few people there, but it was usually sorted out fairly quickly by restarting the wireless modem and disconnecting a few computers in the internet cafe. Only a few boards were missed iirc.

 

We fiddled a few things around as the event went on, including moving the computer on which comparitive scores were entered to the playing area and reducing the number of machine sharing a connection with the vugraph theatre, which sorted things out for the last few days of the round robin and for the KO matches (where we also had one table on dial-up to be doubly sure).

 

The internet situation in Sydney was not optimal, but it was a reality we had to deal with as a DSL connection at the venue was going to cost about $2000 compared to $180 for three one-month subscriptions to a wireless service which the provider actually threw in for free as a sponsorship.

 

Having a BBO server onsite was considered, but I decided against it for the following reasons:

 

1. It may have been more reliable for people onsite, but much less reliable for people offsite (as was clearly evidenced with Istanbul fiasco).

 

2. It would've been a major pain in the arse to set up. including all sorts of security issues around BBO's source code, etc.

 

3. Site survey tests of the wireless connection (albeit conducted during the day) indicated that the connection would be more that capable of handling everthing.

 

4. On the reasonable assumption that the interent connection would be stable, the most likely point of failure would be the local server. BBO's servers in the USA are hosted in a climate controlled data centre with 24-hour monitoring and continuous power - so I took the view that failure was far more likely with a local server.

 

The WBF's preference for a local server is based on ignorance and lack of appreciation for the fact that only about 0.5% on the vugraph audience is onsite.

 

Slightly off-topic, but as has been said in this forum many times before, having a good quality internet connection is the key to a successful broadcast.

[mrdct]

The problem with the location is that like all other places in Bangkok, it is impossible to get there from any other place in Bangkok. So any VG operator would have to eat and sleep at the hotel.

Nonsense. I visit Bangkok every year or so and have never found transport much of a problem. The new elevated rail is very efficient and there are plenty of cheap taxis and tuk-tuks to get you around. The venue itself, the Baiyoke Sky Hotel, has plenty of 2-star to 5-star hotels within a few blocks to suit any budget.

[oblio11]

(polyvlakas @ Jul 21 2006, 07:52 PM) It is easy to critisize, difficult to keep silent.

 

Do you imagine a silent world where politicians do whatever they want, mr. Polyvlakas? I have been growing up in such a world. It is a nightmarish one. I refuse to consider that you see as normal this option. Maybe you intended to say: "it is easy to criticize, difficult to be constructive."

 

I've been reading very carefully all the posted messages; the dispute about the WBF' s job of promoting bridge, especially among youngsters, and the BBO's. Because it's obvious this is all about. Not sharing the money made from these vu-graph transmissions, because there are no money to be shared. A dispute between an entity paid to do its job and another one whose motor is only the enthusiasm (for now, at least). Who will be in the future the financial beneficiary of this promotion? WBF is certainly one. BBO could be. Who is fighting to perform this transmissions? BBO. It's hilarious, but when we draw the line we witness an enthusiastic and volunteer fight of a group to open the pocket of another one for being fulfilled with money in the future. Of course it is a small investment to be made right now (I really don't know and I wouldn't like to be wrong, but 450 $ "per diem", in Thailand seems too much), but it's how the money are usually made. Should BBO make also the investment? It sounds outrageous; enough that they build the future of bridge for some personal satisfaction.

 

I learned bridge because my new, very young and enthusiast math teacher just won the national team championship that time. At math club, instead of math we learned bridge. But it was an unbelievable chance. Anyhow, out of four enthusiasts who started it's only me who continue to play. I played on the internet for a while but, for a certain reason, I couldn't afford to pay the annual fees and I had stopped playing until, by a nice chance, I discovered BBO. No fees, no ratings (that really kill bridge), but the most important issue, the vu-graph. I had seen Nafiz Zorlu playing at the European championships for BC's, two days later I played against him in a TM. Of course it's not an isolate case, it is just an example. I will be a teacher. I will make a Bridge Club in school, for sure. Do those guys from WBF know what means to be able to tell the students: "Look how it's in bridge, you connect on BBO, you see guys like you playing there in the World Championship for Youth and maybe you can disscuss right after that with your heroes about the boards, play against them because most of them have accounts on BBO; you can personally congrats Fulvio Fantoni for his last successes, you can see every evening champions playing around, like Benito Garrozzo, Meckstroth and his sons, and so on; you can disscuss with commentators about boards while they are played, and commentators are champions themselves; of course they are nice, because they do what they do only for moral satisfactions; is this possible in any other sport or game? No thick glasses between you and the champions' world but a big family?". This being the case, they have a chance to surpass the various difficulties they need to confront with in order to become good and loyal to bridge players.

 

So BBO is doing exceptionally well its job. Does WBF?

[fskoul]

Most of the time this worked OK, but in the evenings the internet was noticably slower and on two or three occasions we had sessions (I think matches 3, 6 & 9) in which we reverted to single table coverage.  When problems with the internet arose, my priority was always the online coverage for the 2000+ spectators we usually had rather than half-dozen or so people watching in the onsite theatre.

 

...

 

The internet situation in Sydney was not optimal, but it was a reality we had to deal with as a DSL connection at the venue was going to cost about $2000 compared to $180 for three one-month subscriptions to a wireless service which the provider actually threw in for free as a sponsorship.

 

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.

[Walddk]

Glad to see that the WBF has found the money. One table is better than no table. Perhaps we will be able to find volunteers so that we can broadcast from the closed room too.

 

By the way, $450 a day can cover the expenses for more than one person.

 

Roland

[Gerben42]

Maybe they mean $450 a week. Even though you can do cheaper than that even in a place like New York, it sounds about right.

[fred]

It sounds like this story is going to have a happy ending afterall.

 

Thanks Panos, Dimitris, and whoever else was involved in this decision. Thanks also to a lot of BBO members for their support.

 

I apologize if my original post offended anyone. If so then I hope that my second post in this thread adequately explained the frustration I experienced when I read that there would be no vugraph of the World Youth Teams Championships.

 

At the time I wrote my original post I had just experienced another frustration - blowing a 76 IMP lead to get knocked out of the Spingold. Although I was not aware of it at the time, in retrospect it is possible that this contributed to the tone of my original post.

 

In any case, let me say that I do appreciate the hard work that people like Panos and Dimitris do for bridge. Obviously I strongly disagreed with their original decision regarding BBO vugraph from Thailand, but I should have chosen more respectful words in expressing my displeasure with that decision.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[geller]

The WBF constitution is at the following link:

http://www.worldbridge.org/administration/...onstitution.asp

 

Excerpts from a few pertinent articles]

Article 1 <snip> its resources shall be applied exclusively in furtherance of its beneficent purposes; and no part of its resources or earnings shall inure to the benefit of any private person.

Excessive expenses for dining, hotels, etc., particularly for family rather than the officials themselves, might be in violation of the above. Full disclosure of expenses would be desirable to ensure that funds are being used strictly in accordance with the above.

 

Article 2 The purpose of the organization shall be to promote, foster, promulgate and develop the sport of Contract Bridge throughout the world; <snip>

Broadcasting WBF events on BBO Vugraph (or other company's VuGraph) appears to me to constitute "promotion and development" of the sport of contract bridge, as specified in the above article. One would hope that the WBF would be more pro-active in organizing VuGraph broadcasts.

[the saint]

I did read the WBF constitution but somehow in my stupour failed to spot that near-identical line to the EBL one... :)

[mrdct]

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.

Let me get one thing straight, I do not work for or represent BBO in anyway. In my planning for the vugraph coverage in Sydney I investigated a number of different providers and choose BBO as it had, in my opinion, the best product and clearly the best market reach.

 

I was "hired" by the convenor of the 2005 World Youth Teams Championships to produce both the onsite and online vugraph. After much deliberation, correspondence and testing, the mode of coverage, which was AGREED to by the WBF was:

 

- BBO would be used to cover three matches per round;

- BBO's servers in the USA would be used;

- Onsite vugraph would use BBO over the public internet.

 

Given that mode of coverage, if the online vugraph is working properly then the onsite vugraph will too. So obviously on the few occasions when technical problems arose my immediate focus was getting the online vugraph sorted out.

 

The inherent risk of relying on the public internet was made clear to the WBF months before the event. The risk came to bear and there was MINOR disruption in a few evening matches, but in only one round (round 9) were problems bad enough to cause the abandonment of any coverage.

 

Perhaps if one less WBF freeloader wasn't along for the ride, there would've been ample funds available to have a more reliable internet connection. For example, do you really need 4 tournament directors for 18 tables in one room?

 

As for the impact on "the players, for whom their federations have PAYED money" virtually all of these players did their vugraph watching in the players' internet cafe (ironically sucking bandwidth away from the onsite vugraph theatre) so given that is their preferred mode of watching, having the online show working properly was clearly the priority of that cohort. As for the impact on the onsite commentators, the WBF should be more concerned about the commentators usually outnumbering the spectators.

 

The learning point is that the WBF need to revisit the standard tournament specifications to require a high-quality high-speed interent connection at all playing venues and to require convenors to provided comprehensive online vugraph coverage (through whatever platform they choose and which is acceptable to the WBF). The standard specs still include "pit matches" for goodness sake, which I don't think have been seen for several decades.

[Erkson]

At the time I wrote my original post I had just experienced another frustration - blowing a 76 IMP lead to get knocked out of the Spingold.

With all BBO supporters I have been very sorry to read that in the bulletin.

 

We had the vugraph only for the first quarter of this match.

 

Could we have some explanations and comments about what happened in the other three quarters (maybe in a new thread) ?

 

Erkson

[fskoul]

Perhaps if one less WBF freeloader wasn't along for the ride, there would've been ample funds available to have a more reliable internet connection.  For example, do you really need 4 tournament directors for 18 tables in one room?

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.

 

As for the impact on "the players, for whom their federations have PAYED money" virtually all of these players did their vugraph watching in the players' internet cafe (ironically sucking bandwidth away from the onsite vugraph theatre) so given that is their preferred mode of watching, having the online show working properly was clearly the priority of that cohort.  As for the impact on the onsite commentators, the WBF should be more concerned about the commentators usually outnumbering the spectators.

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.

 

The learning point is that the WBF need to revisit the standard tournament specifications to require a high-quality high-speed interent connection at all playing venues and to require convenors to provided comprehensive online vugraph coverage (through whatever platform they choose and which is acceptable to the WBF).  The standard specs still include "pit matches" for goodness sake, which I don't think have been seen for several decades.

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?

[geller]

The learning point is that the WBF need to revisit the standard tournament specifications to require a high-quality high-speed interent connection at all playing venues and to require convenors to provided comprehensive online vugraph coverage (through whatever platform they choose and which is acceptable to the WBF).

Agree with you completely. One other point worth mentioning is that for security reasons if wiFi is used it should be specified that serious encryption should be used.

 

Obviously if there is a good internet connection the onsite VuGraph problem is solved.

[Walddk]

As for the impact on the onsite commentators, the WBF should be more concerned about the commentators usually outnumbering the spectators.

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

[geller]

I join Roland in questioning why it should be forbidden to watch BBO onsite. (Of course if the players were using PCs provided by the organizers maybe one machine should be left free for other purposes like checking email). But the attitude of "you must watch VuGraph onsite only in the VuGraph room" seems silly. If the players want to watch on PCs what's wrong with that?

[fskoul]

As for the impact on the onsite commentators, the WBF should be more concerned about the commentators usually outnumbering the spectators.

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.

[Walddk]

Don't flatter yourself for the quality of the comments

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 others decide if I do a good job or not!

 

I even take the full blame if "my" commentators make an error. I feel that I'm responsible.

 

Roland

[geller]

And thus we had the phenomenon of having in 6-7 computers the same match, absorbing the less than enough bandwidth.

I don't know the bandwidth available in Sydney, but my home internet connection in Tokyo is over 10 Magabits/sec for $30 per month, so with any kind of decent high speed connection available on site the burden of a few PCs watching BBO broadcasts should be be negligible.

[fskoul]

Don't flatter yourself for the quality of the comments

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.

[Echognome]

And thus we had the phenomenon of having in 6-7 computers the same match, absorbing the less than enough bandwidth.

I don't know the bandwidth available in Sydney, but my home internet connection in Tokyo is over 10 Magabits/sec for $30 per month, so with any kind of decent high speed connection available on site the burden of a few PCs watching BBO broadcasts should be be negligible.

Onsite almost always means at a hotel. It is very different from residential service as you don't have such a captive market. Needless to say it's not such a simple matter.