Bermuda Bowl Final 1995

[Walddk]

We are now ready to present a replay of the Bermuda Bowl Final 1995 between Canada and USA in Beijing, China. The broadcast was scheduled last year but had to be postponed when Mark Molson (one of the Canadian players from then) passed away.

 

All 160 boards will be shown over 10 days from January 30 through February 8. Two rooms will be up at all times.

 

I have tried to get in touch with all 11 players in order to get the most appropriate commentary possible, but only Fred Gitelman and George Mittelman have responded to my e-mail. They will be available, at least some of the time. The others must have other commitments, alternatively not interested in commentating.

 

We have a few people to thank for making these broadcasts possible. They are:

 

Denis O'Kane, Roger Bryant, David Collier, Barry Margolin, Dan Neill, Mark Reeve and Dave Thompson. Thanks guys! I'm sure your efforts will be much appreciated by the audience.

 

For full schedule, please go to:

 

http://online.bridgebase.com/vugraph/sched...?order_by=event

 

Roland

[Tomi2]

Hi

 

thx for presenting us such a nice show.

 

While the boards were broadcasted I was chatting to Pony Nehmert, a member of the German Women Team. As far as I know they won the ladies final that year and she was playing the same deals. May be it would be an idea to ask the women and seniors, who were in the finals 1995 too, if they can help commentating. So they maybe can tell us, what happend at their tables

[mr1303]

Just out of interest, what do the spectators think of the tempo that us operators went at yesterday? Obviously in a normal broadcast you have to go at the speed of the players, but in this event we have much more control over it.

[DenisO]

I thought it went very smoothly - well done to yourself and Dan :). However it was a little fast for me - I think it took about 1hr 10mins - maybe 90 mins would be a better target.

[Walddk]

I thought it went very smoothly - well done to yourself and Dan :). However it was a little fast for me - I think it took about 1hr 10mins - maybe 90 mins would be a better target.

I agree with Denis, it went a little too fast. 6 minutes per board on average would be about right. I told Dan Neill (operator in the closed room) after the segment yesterday, and he will ask the operators to slow down a little bit.

 

Roland

[fred]

I am not sure what the spectators thought, but as a commentator I thought it was too fast. Probably I am a faster typist and analyst that most commentators, but on several hands I found myself unable to say anything about the play and defense because I was using that time to try to finish what I was trying to say about the bidding.

 

Vugraph is for the spectators, not the commentators, so if the audience seemed to enjoy the fast pace I don't think you should change just because the commentators (me at least) could not keep up.

 

I got the sense that a lot of people were confused about the non-live nature of this broadcast. I would have hoped that the fact that I was both commentating and playing might have helped them to understand, but I received a lot of chat messages from confused people. Maybe it would be a good idea if every once in a while (at the start of each hand for example) one of the commentators sends a brief chat message to let the audience know what is going on.

 

Sorry if this post sounds overly critical. I should also mention that I received about 20 e-mails from people who really enjoyed the show. Thanks to Dan, Denis, and Roland for making these broadcasts possible.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[david_c]

Good question Mark: I thought it was a little too fast as well, particularly on the first trick of the play. There should definitely be a little pause when dummy goes down (as it were).

 

I can imagine it's quite difficult to pace yourself. I'll be doing this myself on Friday and would certainly appreciate people telling me "faster" or "slower" at the time, if need be.

[hrothgar]

I am not sure what the spectators thought, but as a commentator I thought it was too fast. Probably I am a faster typist and analyst that most commentators, but on several hands I found myself unable to say anything about the play and defense because I was using that time to try to finish what I was trying to say about the bidding.

 

Vugraph is for the spectators, not the commentators, so if the audience seemed to enjoy the fast pace I don't think you should change just because the commentators (me at least) could not keep up.

 

 

Sorry if this post sounds overly critical. I should also mention that I received about 20 e-mails from people who really enjoyed the show. Thanks to Dan, Denis, and Roland for making these broadcasts possible.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Hi Fred:

 

I don't mean to sound snarky here, however...

 

I was curious whether this replay has caused you to rethink building a time delay into "live" Vugraph.

 

I note with some amusement that last month's Bridge World had an editorial discussing some of the problems that high chess tournaments are encountering with high tech cheating. It seems that some less than scrupulous inidividuals are using Wi-Fi connections to communicate with third parties during the actual matches. The confederates are able to use chess books and computers to analyze the board position in real time and feed moves back to the ringer. This type of aid can be devastating in a timed event like tournament chess. It also decreases the need to memorize the books of opening positions. As I've noted in the past (and the Bridge World discusses today), it would be trivial to apply similar methods to a bridge game.

 

In short, I don't think that we can long afford the luxury of live Vugraphs that don't encompass some kind of time delay.

 

putting the snark behind me, I'd like to thank everyone for the time and effort required for this new BBO event. I hope that we get to see many more.

[fred]

I am not sure what the spectators thought, but as a commentator I thought it was too fast. Probably I am a faster typist and analyst that most commentators, but on several hands I found myself unable to say anything about the play and defense because I was using that time to try to finish what I was trying to say about the bidding.

 

Vugraph is for the spectators, not the commentators, so if the audience seemed to enjoy the fast pace I don't think you should change just because the commentators (me at least) could not keep up.

 

 

Sorry if this post sounds overly critical. I should also mention that I received about 20 e-mails from people who really enjoyed the show. Thanks to Dan, Denis, and Roland for making these broadcasts possible.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Hi Fred:

 

I don't mean to sound snarky here, however...

 

I was curious whether this replay has caused you to rethink building a time delay into "live" Vugraph.

 

I note with some amusement that last month's Bridge World had an editorial discussing some of the problems that high chess tournaments are encountering with high tech cheating. It seems that some less than scrupulous inidividuals are using Wi-Fi connections to communicate with third parties during the actual matches. The confederates are able to use chess books and computers to analyze the board position in real time and feed moves back to the ringer. This type of aid can be devastating in a timed event like tournament chess. It also decreases the need to memorize the books of opening positions. As I've noted in the past (and the Bridge World discusses today), it would be trivial to apply similar methods to a bridge game.

 

In short, I don't think that we can long afford the luxury of live Vugraphs that don't encompass some kind of time delay.

 

putting the snark behind me, I'd like to thank everyone for the time and effort required for this new BBO event. I hope that we get to see many more.

My opinion in this area remains that the liveness of our broadcasts contributes greatly to their drama and excitement.

 

I will continue to do what I can to resist the efforts of tournament organizers to include a delay in the broadcast of their events. If the time comes that some tournament organizers refuse to allow us to broadcast unless we impose a delay then probably I will have no choice by to give them the delay that they want.

 

The possibility of cheating using electronic devices will be present regardless of whether or not there is real time vugraph coverage. My opinion is that the solution to this problem involves better security at tournaments. For example, there has been extensive discussion in the USBF's security committee (of which I am a member) with respect to things like scanning players for the presence of electronic devices.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Walddk]

My opinion in this area remains that the liveness of our broadcasts contributes greatly to their drama and excitement.

Absolutely spot on. The same applies to watching a recorded hockey or football game. Even if you don't know the result, it is not and will never be the same as if you watch a live broadcast.

 

Roland

[DJNeill]

Agree that we need to give enough time for commentators to analyze. I think that it would be totally fine for the commentators, Roland, Fred, anybody to tell their operator to slow down or speed up, as need be, while the broadcast is happening.

 

Dan

[hrothgar]

The possibility of cheating using electronic devices will be present regardless of whether or not there is real time vugraph coverage. My opinion is that the solution to this problem involves better security at tournaments. For example, there has been extensive discussion in the USBF's security committee (of which I am a member) with respect to things like scanning players for the presence of electronic devices.

Hi Fred:

 

I have mixed thought about scanning players for electronic devices. I don't doubt that this would be desirable. At the same time, I question whether whether the WBF or the USBF can realistically be expected to develop some kind of electronic surveillance suite and transport it from point to point. Associated with this, I'll make a very basic observation: The amount of information that one would need to transmit to get a significant edge at the table is very low. A single bit of information is incredibly valuable (Am I a max or min for my bidding so far... Should you consider an unusual lead) The reason that the bit rate is significant is quite simple: If I only need to transmit a single bit of information I can build a very simple system that would be extremely difficult to detect.

 

One additional point that is well worth considering... I've noted in the past that transitioning to an electronic playing environment would significantly improve security by making collusion between players much more difficult. An electronic playing environment would permit one to place all of the North players in one room, South players in a second, East in the third, ... The greater the physical distance between players, the more powerful your transmitter needs to be and the easier it is to detect.

 

Last, but not least... Layered security is one of the foundations of security architectures. A firewall is all fine and dandy, however, you still want a secure desktop. In a similar fashion, I don't think that its sufficient to focus on electronic surveillance. The conditions of contest should be designed in such as way that electronic cheating produces very little value. Introducing a time delay to vugraph seems like an obvious step. If you believe that the fans would find this too objectionable, you might consider ensuring that Vugraph's always covered Barnett Shenkin's table. You'd very quickly get a time delay with no additional coding required.

[Walddk]

I can imagine it's quite difficult to pace yourself. I'll be doing this myself on Friday and would certainly appreciate people telling me "faster" or "slower" at the time, if need be.

Wednesday (segment 2) was perfect in my view, around 1 hour and 45 minutes. I think it gave all commentators time to analyse. Keep up the good work!

 

If I'm around, I will try remember to message the operator(s) privately if I think it goes too fast or too slowly.

 

Roland

[mrdct]

The possibility of cheating using electronic devices will be present regardless of whether or not there is real time vugraph coverage. My opinion is that the solution to this problem involves better security at tournaments. For example, there has been extensive discussion in the USBF's security committee (of which I am a member) with respect to things like scanning players for the presence of electronic devices.

Hi Fred:

 

I have mixed thought about scanning players for electronic devices. I don't doubt that this would be desirable. At the same time, I question whether whether the WBF or the USBF can realistically be expected to develop some kind of electronic surveillance suite and transport it from point to point.

.....

Introducing a time delay to vugraph seems like an obvious step. If you believe that the fans would find this too objectionable, you might consider ensuring that Vugraph's always covered Barnett Shenkin's table. You'd very quickly get a time delay with no additional coding required.

For about US$20 you can buy a bug sweeper on Ebay which scans for RF from 50Mhz to 6Ghz which covers most potential electronic devices players could use to cheat. It would be cost effective to buy a couple of them and just wander around the room with them during qualifying and have one permanently sitting at the table in the final.

 

I can't stand watching any sport on delay and I don't think bridge would be any different.

[mycroft]

As I have said before, I think 5-7 minute - a *consistent* 5-7 minute - delay wouldn't kill the "live" feeling for me, while stopping a lot of potential cheating.

 

Evidence for that for me was last month where I was listening to the unofficial commentary on the Ashes with about an over's delay (3-5 minutes); also watching the cricinfo commentary (usually about 3-5 minutes behind that).

 

I realize this delay won't help against slow tables, ones that get more than a board behind the Vugraph. If the organizers think that 30 minutes is minimum acceptable, I think there's three problems:

 

- Now it is feasible for the results to be out long before the vugraph finishes, which kills the "live" feeling (I think most would be willing to ignore the results for the last board with a 5 minute delay)

- The live vugraph would also have to be delayed the same amount, which plays merry with supper and taxi arrangements;

- There would be considerable pressure to "unlive" the commentary, especially in the last half hour. In Bridge, the tempo of the game is very important - where the pauses are, where the fast play is; cutting them out would change the understanding of the future plays. In addition, it takes a certain amount of time to work the problems on your own in the audience; cutting out the pauses, or staggering them to suit the commentators' remarks, would make it feel more like boxscore and less like "I'm there".

 

Michael.

[mrdct]

Putting a delay on vugraph coverage mitigates a risk which is more than adequately dealt with by other security measures.

 

How are the commentators meant to interact with the operator?

 

I may rethink my position if and when the authorities catch someone with a secret communication device in their shoe, but until they do I think the risk is pretty much a fantasy.

[hrothgar]

I may rethink my position if and when the authorities catch someone with a secret communication device in their shoe, but until they do I think the risk is pretty much a fantasy.

Dave:

 

Please reference the editorial in last month's Bridge World.

 

We all know of the multiple cheating scandals that have rocked tournament bridge

Chess players have already been caught using these types of devices.

 

Why is it a "fantasy" to believe that a bridge player would do the same?

[barmar]

As an occasional VuGraph operator (I operated the 2005 Reisinger, and I'm doing this week's 95BB Replay), I think there may be some technical difficulties to overcome with adding a delay. These involve feedback to the operator or commentators.

 

There are two possible scenarios that I imagine: 1) the commentators post simultaneously with the operator entering the action, and their comments are delayed to the spectators along with the play; or 2) the commentators see the delayed action just like the specs, and comment as they see it.

 

In 1, this makes it practically impossible for specs to send questions to commentators. By the time the spec sees something and ask their question, the commentators are already talking about the next board. And if the commentator answers, it will show up in the middle of the commentary about that next board, 2 delay periods after the question was sent.

 

In 2, the commentators can't point out to the operator that he probably made a mistake in transcribing the action (a common one is leaving out a Pass, so the bids get out of sync with the players). By the time the commentator's message gets to the operator, he's busy with the next hand.

 

We could probably live without specs being able to send comments and questions to commentators, but I think the experience of BBO VuGraphs is much enriched by having this ability.

[mrdct]

Getting this thread back on the topic of the 1995 Bermuda Bowl Final, I had my first turn as an operator this morning and must say that it was one of the most enjoyable and rewarding vugraph operating sessions I've ever had.

 

The experience was greatly enhanced by having one of the participating players (Joey Silver) commentating. It was particularly insightful seeing Joey's comments during a run of bad boards he and Kokish had mid-way through the 6th segment.

 

The consistently high spectator numbers clearly indicate a demand for this sort of virtual vugraph presentation which I think we should try to replicate in future for closing stages of other major finals where we can secure some of the actual participants as commentators.

[barmar]

And I got to operate on Friday with Fred commentating about his own play.

 

The nice thing about operating this type of VuGraph is that the "players" can't bid/play too fast for you to enter what they're doing.

[chicken]

i am trying to watch every session because getting comments from the involved players in retrospective is one of the most effective learning tools i have ever seen.

[roghog]

Glad it's going so well :)

 

As you know, all this will end up on Nikos Sarantakos' "Vugraph Project" - http://www.sarantakos.com/bridge/vugraph.html

 

We're hoping to get it as accurate as possible, but there may be a problem on Segment Five, Boards 65-80. According to Eric Kokish's book of the event, Hamman sat North for that set in the Closed, and Woolf was South. Several kibs thought they had sat the other way round. Certainly, Hamman was South when the pair were NS in other sets.

 

Does anyone have the definitive answer?

 

Thanks. Roger

[mrdct]

There will be some serious action in today's segment 7 with the first of two acrimonious appeal hands from the final coming up.

[nikos59]

About Roger's query re Segment 5.

I checked the Bridge World issues; that segment is reported

in 4/1996 issue (a report jointly written by Edgar Kaplan and Jeff

Rubens, presumably because EK was the npc of the US team).

 

It turns out that the report of the Bridge World corroborates

the spectators, i.e. it seems that the official report, on which

our data are based, is wrong: Hamman was South and Wolff

was North in that segment, so we must change the data

when they'll be posted at my Vugraph site. While we are at it,

we'll also change Wolff's spelling (not Woolf).

Note that this inversion concerns only that pair and that

segment, at least as far as I checked.

 

Nikos

[nikos59]

Now that the virtually live Vugraph transmission is over, all the data together

are posted at my Vugraph site:

http://www.sarantakos.com/bridge/vugraph/1995/1995-bb.html

 

along with pbn format.

 

I would like to thank all those who participated in it!

I guess everyone will agree that this was an excellent collaborative experiment

and I am sure that the spectators loved it. It remains to be seen whether

the experiment can be repeated and if yes what would be a suitable candidate

event.

 

Nikos Sarantakos