After Shanghai

[Walddk]

"And now, the end is near ...". It's a farewell to the World Team Championships and Shanghai in a few hours. How was it for you back home in your office, bedroom, living room, wherever? We are obviously interested in presenting the best show possible, and there will always be things that can be improved on.

 

Your feedback is much appreciated. We will read all of it, and I am sure that your input will help us for future broadcasts.

 

I am now going to ask seven questions and give you three options. Please use one of the three when you reply. You are obviously very welcome to comment further. It would actually be very nice if you go into details.

 

Excellent - Average - Disappointing

 

- 1. How was the internet connectivity from Shanghai?

- 2. How was the quality of the operators?

- 3. How was the presentation from the venue regarding internet broadcast?

- 4. How was the co-ordination away from the venue?

- 5. 6 tables per session we had. Was that satisfactory?

- 6. How did you like the commentary?

- 7. Should we continue with multiple languages?

 

"I did it my way". Now over to you. Thanks for your co-operation!

 

Roland

[Aberlour10]

Due to the daily brodcasting time in Shanghai I could follow this BB only very fragmentary in Vugraph Theater, so I am not able to give a detailed opinion but I had a feeling that these 2 weeks met the usual high standard of BBO Vugraph.

 

PS. 7) I would prefer that the multiple language commentary will be continued only in events at the "national stage". ( like polish, french or italian etc. championships)

 

Robert

[paulg]

I think it's all been stunning.

 

Aside from your own outstanding personal contribution, I would like to single out the operators for the highest commendation - they were just superb.

 

Paul

[muggle]

BBOTV has really added value to the experience, letting me watch both rooms at the same time.

 

Of course the 12 hour time difference has been killer. I'll watch the 1st session and usually fall asleep midway through the 2nd session.

 

- 1. How was the internet connectivity from Shanghai? Excellent

My connection to BBO has been rock steady.

 

- 2. How was the quality of the operators? Excellent

 

 

- 5. 6 tables per session we had. Was that satisfactory? Excellent

 

- 6. How did you like the commentary? Excellent

 

- 7. Should we continue with multiple languages? Yes

Sure. Why not. No skin off my back. Maybe add a way to 'gag' particular commentators per session so foreign language doesn't show up, but still run multiple languages in the same room.

[inquiry]

- 1. How was the internet connectivity from Shanghai?

Excellent We have had disasters from other sites. I have to admit I only watched the ones starting at 11 pm EDT, due to the time difference, but the connections seemed much better than we had other sites.

 

- 2. How was the quality of the operators?

Excellent This group was very sound.

 

- 3. How was the presentation from the venue regarding internet broadcast?

Average

I guess I will have to admit I don't know what this question was asking. Did you have to be in Shanghai to answer it? If so, My answer would be not applicable.

 

- 4. How was the co-ordination away from the venue?

Average Leaning towards towards Disappointing. It would have been nice to have the matchup longer in advanced. Also, the commentators could have been a tad bit better prepared (see commentary question).

 

- 5. 6 tables per session we had. Was that satisfactory?

Disappointing I always want more, more, more. Imagine only one of the two semifinal matches in the Bermuda bowl up at a time. At a minimum, both semifinals should be shown live.

 

- 6. How did you like the commentary?

Disappointing

We should be getting better at running the commentary by now. A couple of problems, the first and most important is there are too many "cooks" in the kitchen. By that I mean too darn many commentators. This has long been pet peeve of mine. I could see four as a maximum for any one table. One each that knows each partnership playing very well (having a Viking Club expert commenting was very helpful), a "head" commentator who is expert at analyzing the details of the hand and explaining them to a audience with wildly different skill levels, and a humorist/historian type person to add levity. At one table I counted eight different people commenting, and at least 5 different "conversations" going on.

 

Having said the commenting was disappointing, let me add, that all the individual commentators seemed to be doing a fair job (average at least, and some were excellent), I am just commenting on the unruly nature of the presentation without assigned jobs. I also know the commentators were selected probably BEFORE the matches were assigned to Vugraph, and that complicates things.

 

- 7. Should we continue with multiple languages?

Excellent - Average - Disappointing Hmm, does excellent mean we should continue, or does disappointing me we should. To be honest, I barely could follow the english commentary as I was studying the hands and so many people were talking at cross issues that I failed behind in grasping their points. Also, english is the only language I can really understand. HAving said that, I think at the very least, we should support the main language of each team in the match, and probably a few of the other major ones. I think language channels will eventually solve this issue.

 

In closing, I want to thank those on site and Roland for all the hard work to make this thing come off. While I was "disappointed" in two areas, really it is all about the bridge, and that was presented beautifully and consistently. The entire presentation has to be rated as excellent despite my pet peeves.

[nickf]

- 1. How was the internet connectivity from Shanghai?

Seemed good in that I dont recall many dropouts. Certainly better than previous broadcasts we have had from the region.

 

- 2. How was the quality of the operators?

Variable - clearly there were a couple of Aces and a couple who mucked up claims. Still, it's a tough job and impossible to get everything right.

 

- 3. How was the presentation from the venue regarding internet broadcast?

Not sure. If you're asking how good a job the on-site VG manager did, then it was very good.

 

- 4. How was the co-ordination away from the venue?

Good. I suppose - certainly we were kept up to date on upcoming broadcasts as soon as possbile.

 

- 5. 6 tables per session we had. Was that satisfactory?

Always a tough question. What you gain in broader exposure, you lose in smaller audience numbers and the need to use your less than "gun" operators. For some strange reason I find watching a table with small kib numbers more hollow than a table with 5000.

 

- 6. How did you like the commentary?

Variable again. Some like woolsely, swanson, jtr, bjacobs are outstanding - there are probably more really good ones that I cant recall. Once again, when you have a lot of tables, you're forced to use a lot of commentators who just arent good analysts or cant enagage in meaningful discussion. Then there was one who all too often commentated only using just suit symbols, card designations and punctuation marks.

 

- 7. Should we continue with multiple languages?

100% yes. Maybe more.

 

nickf

sydney

[kenrexford]

I have watched vugraph many times, and I find it enjoyable. The commentary is critical to avoid head explosions during tanks.

 

If I were to get my wish for a change, it would be to add in live feed of the players themselves. A face for a real person, preferably live, would make the experience more realistic for me. I expect that this would be difficult, perhaps, on one screen. But, with the ability to split screens on one's computer, I would imagine that some type of bird's eye web cam of the entire table might do the trick, maybe on a separate web site.

 

For that matter, it might also be nice to have a sound feed, even if quiet most of the time.

[mrdct]

Disclaimer: This post is not intended to be critical of any of the many hard-working volunteers that make BBO vugraph possible. It is intended to stimulate discussion on how an already excellent service can be improved. Moreover, my comments may relate to matters completely outside the control of BBO so can only really be addressed through lobbying event convenors and sponsoring organisations.

 

1. How was the internet connectivity from Shanghai? Excellent.

 

2. How was the quality of the operators? Excellent. I don't think I've ever seen better (aside from when shaving of course).

 

3. How was the presentation from the venue regarding internet broadcast? Average. Hooking into what seemed to be a very professional looking TV camera system at the main table would've been nice, there was no web access to line-up data, WBF website very slow to post official scores, the commercial issues around the multiple vugraph providers detracted from the viewers' experience, a lot of the bridgemate data seemed to be inaccurate, and match selection was suboptimal (although largely beyond BBO's control) with many teams getting little or no coverage.

 

4. How was the co-ordination away from the venue? Excellent. However, I remain of the view that some degree of automation should be developed for commentator assignments.

 

5. 6 tables per session we had. Was that satisfactory? Disappointing. Only covering three matches per round and often one or two of those from the VC or SB lead to very scant coverage of "non-fancied" teams in the BB. Where the number of operators is a constraint, I'm generally of the view that it's better to have single table coverage of more matches; which is particularly feasible when bridgemates are used.

 

6. How did you like the commentary? Average. Hard to assess this objectively as I commentated several times myself. I think the limit of four or five commentators per table is a good idea as things can and do get a bit cluttered at times. Having said that, when you are watching vugraph it is very easy to quickly mark any commentator that you find annoying as an enemy and you wont see what they are saying.

 

- 7. Should we continue with multiple languages? Average. I think it's great for non-English speakers, but would be better if there was multi-channel chat.

[Erkson]

A few points of view in my basic english :

- I enjoyed very much the Vugraph from Shangaï. Many thanks to BBO and congratulations for all the organizers.

 

- I only watch super high level bridge matches. I will not give players' names here, but I know what I mean. I can't bear watching lower level bridge and I consider it a waste of time for me.

 

-My pet peeve is multilanguage. I am totally opposed if it is not on a special channel. First thing a bridge kibitz should do is learning basic english before giving his time to bridge.

[han]

Excellent - Average - Disappointing

 

- 1. How was the internet connectivity from Shanghai?

- 2. How was the quality of the operators?

- 3. How was the presentation from the venue regarding internet broadcast?

- 4. How was the co-ordination away from the venue?

- 5. 6 tables per session we had. Was that satisfactory?

- 6. How did you like the commentary?

- 7. Should we continue with multiple languages?

1. Usually quite good.

 

2. Excellent as far as I could see.

 

3. Not sure what you are asking for.

 

4. Not sure how we can judge that either.

 

5. I would have liked more. We always want more! I thought that sometimes the BB coverage was marginal, especially in the quarter- and semi-finals. I really enjoyed the round robin matches.

 

6. Varying greatly. It got better when I clubbed my least favorite commentators. I especially appreciated the commentators who could explain the systems and the occasional world class player who showed up.

 

7. I don't care for myself but it seems like a good idea.

 

Overall I really enjoyed it. My main complaint was outside of BBO's control, I hope WBF will assign BBO more Bermuda Bowl matches next time.

[fred]

My current sleep schedule made it impossible for me to watch more than the first segment every day, but what I saw was really great.

 

Lots of people helped make this possible, but Roland Wald and Herve Lustman deserve special thanks for the amazing effort they put into our vugraph presentations from Shanghai.

 

You only get to see part of what Roland and Herve do. I can assure you that they do a lot more "behind the scenes" including plenty of difficult crisis-management. The fact that these crises are rarely noticed by the general public is a further testament to the fine work that Roland and Herve do on behalf of the world's bridge players.

 

Thanks also to the WBF and CCBA for their ongoing support. These 2 organizations also deserve to be congratuled for running what appeared from my vantage point to be an outstanding World Championships.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

Overall I really enjoyed it. My main complaint was outside of BBO's control, I hope WBF will assign BBO more Bermuda Bowl matches next time.

Actually, I do think that this one is within BBO's control (at least in the long term).

 

We all got surprised when BBO wasn't permitted to cover all the matches that they might want. In retrospect, we should have seen this coming. Space considerations prevent more than on (at most two) separate Vugraph observers from covering a given match.

 

Unfortunately, I expect that this is only going to get worse with time. Demand is going to grow, while the fundamental constraint stays the same.

 

As I noted earlier, the most reasonable course of action would seem to be finding some way to cooperate with the other online bridge sites. Agree on a protocol by which a single Vugraph observer can relay content to BBO, OKB, Swan, what have you.

 

If we're lucky, the WBF will add a requirement that any Vugraph recorder is able to support this capability starting in two years or some such. Alternatively, they could deal with the congestion problem the old fashioned way: Auction the right to broadcast the match to the highest bidder...

[ralph23]

Great job, Roland. Kudos to all concerned, and keep it up!!

[Walddk]

Lots of people helped make this possible, but Roland Wald and Herve Lustman deserve special thanks for the amazing effort they put into our vugraph presentations from Shanghai.

 

You only get to see part of what Roland and Herve do. I can assure you that they do a lot more "behind the scenes" including plenty of difficult crisis-management. The fact that these crises are rarely noticed by the general public is a further testament to the fine work that Roland and Herve do on behalf of the world's bridge players.

Thanks Fred. Time to catch up; I am about 60 hours behind as far as sleep is concerned, but it has been worth it. Fortunately I have all of next week off.

 

Roland

[jkljkl]

Hello,

 

first a big thank you to all the people that helped.

 

 

- 1. How was the internet connectivity from Shanghai?

Excellent - didn't notice any problems

 

 

- 2. How was the quality of the operators?

Excellent - I do not mind an occasional mishap ( I have been operator myslef and know that itis not that simple).

 

 

- 3. How was the presentation from the venue regarding internet broadcast?

Average - But I must admit that my only source was the bridge bulletin, didn't look about internet broadcast on the official homepage.

 

- 4. How was the co-ordination away from the venue?

Excellent - Of course speaking about BBO.

 

- 5. 6 tables per session we had. Was that satisfactory?

Excellent - I must admit that I am a little bit biased, being half italian and half german I find often enough one of "my" teams. I think that there is a limit to what BBO can and should do as long as they want to put up commentators.

 

- 6. How did you like the commentary?

Excellent - Allow me to mention one name as example to explain why I choosed excellent: Kit Woolsey. And he was not the only one. I do not expect a world class commentator. If I get him great, if not well in the end I am there to watch bridge.

 

 

- 7. Should we continue with multiple languages?

Unconditionally, yes.

[Codo]

- 1. How was the internet connectivity from Shanghai?

- 2. How was the quality of the operators?

- 3. How was the presentation from the venue regarding internet broadcast?

- 4. How was the co-ordination away from the venue?

- 5. 6 tables per session we had. Was that satisfactory?

- 6. How did you like the commentary?

- 7. Should we continue with multiple languages?

 

1. Great

2. -4 Sorry I cannot comment but I had no problems while watching the game.

 

5. I like to see as much as possible and I like that you choose matches from BB, VC and SB, so more tables are fine, less are worse. And I like it that you choose 3 matches, I disagree that 6 tables from 6 matches is a better idea.

 

6. They are real excellent commentators, where it is a delight to follow them. But there are still too many who are not worth listening. Even if they will kill me at my next appearance in the real world: Expecially most of my fellow germans in the final had been not convincing to me.

 

I know it is hard to find people who have the ability to tell interesting things, know about the system and are capable in analysing the bridge stuff- and all this for free.

But I agree with Ben that 4 commentators at one table are enough.

 

7. No, sorry I am the lone voice against it. I would like to have anything done in English, because I sometimes tried to watch tables and got to know that my limited knowledges in Chinese/French/Polish makes it impossible to follow the comments. And funnily it is even worse for me to understand nothing then to hear horrible comments.

 

Of course there are people who cannot understand English good enough to follow english comments, but you asked about my opinion and I do not have to take care of them. (This is your responsibility).

[bid_em_up]

As I noted earlier, the most reasonable course of action would seem to be finding some way to cooperate with the other online bridge sites. Agree on a protocol by which a single Vugraph observer can relay content to BBO, OKB, Swan, what have you.

Bah.

 

The most reasonable course of action would be to obliterate/dominate the other online sites to the point where BBO becomes the exclusive carrier of vugraph coverage.

 

Failing that, then your course of action is a distant second.

 

:rolleyes:

[bid_em_up]

- 1. How was the internet connectivity from Shanghai?

- 2. How was the quality of the operators?

- 3. How was the presentation from the venue regarding internet broadcast?

- 4. How was the co-ordination away from the venue?

- 5. 6 tables per session we had. Was that satisfactory?

- 6. How did you like the commentary?

- 7. Should we continue with multiple languages?

 

1. Excellent.

2. Excellent.

 

4. Average/Disappointing. Unless you knew to look on BBO forums for the schedule of times and team listings, I don't think it was really notated who/what/when were announced that much. I don't recall seeing a log-in announcement when you logged onto BBO (that does not mean there wasn't one, I just do not recall seeing one). I am not sure if the Vugraph schedule was updated each day with its appropriate matches or not since I just looked here instead.

 

5. Dissappointing. There were many matches that I (and others) would like to have seen in the Round Robin. However, it was adequate for the RR stage. While the Venice Cup and the Seniors were nice, I would have preferred more coverage of the Bermuda Bowl and less of the others, if anything. Having only one semi-final match from each is somewhat less than desirable if the capability exists to have all the semi-finals. Personally, I would much prefer to see both BB semi's than I would either of the Venice or Seniors.

 

6. Excellent/Average/Disappointing. This is to be somewhat expected, some of the commentators are really good. Others, well....

 

Overall, I would rate the commentators as excellent. There are also a few commentators that I think would do a much better job commentating in their native language than they do attempting to comment in English. Then there are a few that are just plain awful, imo.

 

I don't know that you can ever change this either. What I don't like about any one particular commentator, someone else may like, it's just personal preference.

 

7. Only if you can find a way to present both rooms in 1) English and 2) both teams native language (if not English). There were several occasions when the pair I would prefer to watch would be in the non-English speaking room. I'd watch for a while, but because I could not understand what was being said, I would eventually go to the English speaking room.

 

At the same time, I am sure that in a match of Italy vs. Poland, or France vs. Spain, there is likely a lot of users who would like to see both rooms in Italian and both rooms in Polish, etc. so that they could also watch their favorite pair in their native language.

 

jmoo.

[pclayton]

1. How was the internet connectivity from Shanghai?

 

Good as far as I can tell. There was one RR match I remembered that had an outage across the tables. (A)

 

- 2. How was the quality of the operators?

 

Not perfect but excellent. A few times they got behind in the play and had to claim. (A-)

 

- 3. How was the presentation from the venue regarding internet broadcast?

 

I'm not sure what this means, and it may not be relevant anyway.

 

- 4. How was the co-ordination away from the venue?

 

Same as 3; not sure its relevant to me.

 

- 5. 6 tables per session we had. Was that satisfactory?

 

The more the merrier. Agree with others that one table per match in some of the less important RR's would have allowed some of the smaller countries that want to be on VG the opportunity. (A).

 

- 6. How did you like the commentary?

 

With 4-5 commentators, I think the commentary is effective. During the finals, it seemed there was about 10 commentators working.

 

I sense a political issue here Roland. It seems that there are several commentators (no names mentioned) that will commentate the less glamorous VG's throughout the tournament calendar. If you feel the need to schedule them for the BB final, by all means do so, but I can tell you that a lot of the hand analysis by some of these regulars is pretty bad.

 

Furthermore, with many announcers, the commentary turns into a cacophony of random comments. The finals are always enjoyable because of the significance of the event.

 

I was a commentator for mostly the RR matches. I was in a small group with some very intelligent co-commentators, so it was very enjoyable.

 

(B-)

 

- 7. Should we continue with multiple languages?

 

Not my call, nor does it affect me. I'm on record supporting the concept of 'channels' however.

[jocdelevat]

I watched only the 11pm New York Time Vugraph sessions. I couldn't stay for the other two.

1 to 5 excellent

6 As otehrs said Kit Woolsey was oustanding. I can say the same for Lary Coehen , David Bird and David Burn.

What I saw and maybe was just me is the debate,discussion of the biding and play most of the times goes to an agreement with the commentator with more authority.

I give an exemple: the table where Kit Woolsey was commenting all the others (except the ones above and Roland Wald)commentators do not try to "combat" (not sure this is the right word) Kit Woolsey opinions about play or biding. same thing was happend at Lary Coehen table. I woould like to see some pro and contra arguments between for exemple Lary and Kit however they wasn't at same table. I remember a long time ago world class players from England and Kit had though discussion about play and biding.

7. I do not agree with commentary in multiple languages however I understand the reason for that. One more thing here is no reason for exemple to have polish commentary at the table where polish players are if the time zone(exemple 11pm New York Time) is not good for polish people.

[pclayton]

I give an exemple: the table where Kit Woolsey was commenting all the others (except the ones above and Roland Wald)commentators do not try to "combat" (not sure this is the right word) Kit Woolsey opinions about play or biding. same thing was happend at Lary Coehen table. I woould like to see some pro and contra arguments between for exemple Lary and Kit however they wasn't at same table. I remember a long time ago world class players from England and Kit had though discussion about play and biding.

 

It takes stones as a commentator to stand up to this. I commentated a match earlier with Kit and the PIQ held a 5332 with AKQxx of spades, with an outside King white on red with a 1N opening on his right, and pard was a passed hand.

 

I think bidding with these hands is rather silly, but Kit was convinced bidding was correct. We had an exchange of ideas, and I hope the audience gleaned something out of the discussion.

 

I would hope all commentators would realize that one person's opinion is not dogma, and they shouldn't fear expressing their own opinion.

[Finch]

- 1. How was the internet connectivity from Shanghai?

- 2. How was the quality of the operators?

- 3. How was the presentation from the venue regarding internet broadcast?

- 4. How was the co-ordination away from the venue?

- 5. 6 tables per session we had. Was that satisfactory?

- 6. How did you like the commentary?

- 7. Should we continue with multiple languages?

1. Excellent

 

2. Excellent

 

3. Don't know, I wasn't there.

 

4. Not sure what this question means.

 

5. It was satisfactory, but personally I'm not really bothered how many tables there are as long as there is at least one good one. I can only watch one match at a time, so I'm not interested in whether there are 0, 3, or 10 that I am not watching. My preference is always to watch the highest standard bridge available, I don't care what country is playing or what the event is.

 

6. The biggest problem with the commentary is when there were too many people commentating (for me, too many = more than 4, though 5 can be just about OK). I guess that the problem is that

- once a commentator is ungagged, they stay ungagged until the next server reboot

- commentators generally like to 'hear' themselves speak (that's why they commentate, for the majority it's at least partly an ego thing)

- so whether scheduled or not, far too many will just go to the room they like and start talking. And I imagine that it's difficult to shut them up politely.

 

(this doesn't apply to everyone, but to too many)

 

I also think there are a few commentators who shouldn't have been commentating on the BB & VC KO stages as their bridge standard is just too poor. Being a good player does not necessarily make a good commentator, but there's a correlation. However, again it's a bit difficult to say to someone 'thanks for offering, but can you stick to lower standard events please'.

 

Like everyone else, I have commentators I like and those I don't (e.g. one of the people sometimes mentioned as a very good commentator I find exceptionally irritating and try to avoid) but this is a personal thing; the quality-of-analysis point is more objective.

 

7. Yes, I think multiple languages are a good idea, but perhaps my vote shouldn't count as English is my first language.

[y66]

I’m an intermediate level player. Prolly kibbed Shanghai matches for 20 hours or so. Internet communications, vugraph operation, match coverage and commentary were all first rate, imo.

 

I really appreciate commentators who try to help specs understand problems from the players’ point of view, and why a player might make one decision instead of another. See lots of commentary along these lines. More of this please!

 

Would appreciate more commentary on carding decisions.

 

Thank you and your colleagues for providing many enjoyable hours of vugraph coverage.

 

p.s. Would enjoy audio commentary. Hope this becomes possible soon.

[Rossoneri]

1. Excellent. Didn't remember any outages.

2. Excellent. They rose to the occasion.

3,4. Average. I think more could be done regarding line-ups, match-ups etc.

5. Excellent. Would appreciate more choice, but there's only so much one can see...

6. Mostly Excellent. There were some times when the commentary reached really low points but most commentators did their job well. I agree that Kit Woolsey deserves special commendation.

7. I would prefer no given the current UI, but it would have to stay. Perhaps something could be done to have different language "channels".

 

Note: I watched mainly on weekends as I could only reach home around 6 pm everyday. (I live in the same timezone as Shanghai.)

[andych]

- 1. How was the internet connectivity from Shanghai? Excellent

- 2. How was the quality of the operators? Excellent

- 3. How was the presentation from the venue regarding internet broadcast? ???

- 4. How was the co-ordination away from the venue? ???

- 5. 6 tables per session we had. Was that satisfactory? Excellent

- 6. How did you like the commentary? Disappointing

- 7. Should we continue with multiple languages? No