Would you care if vugraph was not live?

[fred]

The reason I am asking is because some tournament organizers are concerned that live vugraph presents security problems. They think that including a delay in our broadcasts will eliminate such exposures.

 

Of course feel free to discuss whether or not you agree with this, but for now I am mostly curious to find out if people would care if vugraph included a delay.

 

I will state my opinions in a couple of days.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[helene_t]

I voted "I would be less inclined to watch" but not by a large margin. Most of the time that I watch vugraph it is just in order to watch some good bridge, and in that case a 30 min delay would not bother me.

 

If I am strongly rooting for one of the teams and watch because I am excited to see if they will win, a 30 minute delay would take some of the excitement away.

[G_R__E_G]

I agree that I would only be slightly less inclined to watch - but there is a certain psychological difference between watching something that you know to be live and something that's on a time delay. It's just not the same.

[Aberlour10]

I would miss f. ex. all these "small things" that happen at the table and are live commentate by the operator, there are many, many hands, where this "feeling" makes the broadcast really exciting.

 

Robert

[jdonn]

I would hardly care at all.

 

I would also be quite sure that people who think they will care will over time not care much, if at all.

[se12sam]

1. I would not really care -- provided it has the same "feel" as a live match. I mean with all the pauses as declarer/defenders stop to think etc. If it were to become a GIB-like high-speed bidding and play of cards with no time for expert commentators, I will almost certainly not watch.

 

2. How will it work in practice? Will the commentators be typing "live" into a set of bids and plays that Vugraph has logged about 30 minutes earlier? I have often seen commentators point out to vugraph operators about an input error. If (a wrong) Vugraph entry was done 30 min. earlier, there is no opportunity to correct!

[paulg]

A delay of one hour may be less noticeable ... none of us can really work out the time at different places around the world.

 

I'm guessing that a delay would mean that the vugraph operator is still at the table, tapping away, but all the keystrokes are delayed by a set time. That is, we get the same delays in the operator's input that we get today, but start 30 minutes later.

 

One concern is that vugraph operator errors may not be picked up. Currently the commentators, and Roland, will frequently help an operator correct a mistake by (1) noticing it early, (2) suggesting what is wrong and (3) suggesting a correction.

 

Missing this early warning mechanism could lead the operator to just enter the board result, missing the play and/or bidding, in order to catch up with the following board.

 

I would note that events that provide 'live scoring', such as the current European Open Championships, would need to delay this too. Vugraph is not creating any more of a problem in this area.

 

Paul

[jillybean]

I voted don’t care but now I'm not so sure. Like Helene, I mainly watch VG to watch some good bridge so a delay is irrelevant but there are times in a close finish where broadcasting live could be important. If delayed you couldn’t prevent the results from being leaked to the VG audience, ruining the finish.

 

We would lose the commentator/kibitzer interaction, at times some real gems are passed from kibitzers to commentators.

[hrothgar]

Hi Fred

 

I have a (slight) preference to see events in "real time"; However, I think that the security requirements of the tournament sponsors far outweigh this consideration.

 

From my perspective, the only real "cost" is that the results of a big match will "leak". This would (obviously) detract from the suspense of the tail end of a big/close match.

 

With this said and done, I don't watch VuGraph in order to see the results in real time. To me, the value of the VuGraph is the opportunity to watch the bidding and play and listen to the commentary. These elements are "timeless".

[Echognome]

I think if you had a half hour delay which fed the hands and the vugraph operators "color commentary", you would only lose very little. You would lose the interplay between the vugraph operator and the commentators (which could be asking for clarificaiton on whether the play is accurately reflected, etc.

 

I think what would be great is if the play could be captured electronically with, for example, bar code scanners. I don't think it would be very annoying for the players either, as they might appreciate having the record for training and their coaches etc. In theory, one can imagine a nearly automated system, where north just pushed a "next deal" button and the players took it from there. Then one vugraph operator might be able to monitor multiple tables as a vugraph director and we could see more coverage. But that is neither here nor there. Just a wish for the future.

 

Given the choice of no vugraph or delayed vugraph, I'm sure most people would have an easy decision.

[CSGibson]

Like others have expressed, my only concern about tape-delay is that the interaction between the viewgraph operator, the commentators, and the kibitzers could not possibly be as lively as it is now. The viewgraph operator would be working in real time, the kibitzers on tape delay, and whether the commentators are allowed in on the live feed, with their analysis tape delayed, or if they comment "live" on the tape delay, some part of the interaction between the three parties will be lost.

 

If I had to guess at the best solution, I'd say that it would be for the kibitzer-comentator relationship to be lost (allowing a live-viewgraph theater at events, and a relationship between the commentator and viewgraph operator), but that would not be as effective in tightening up the security problems, as commentators would then have knowledge of results (and even if you believe 100% in thier honesty, you still have the appearance of conflicts of interest, like when Danny Sprung was commenting on his wife's match).

[Phil]

LOL would we even know the difference?

 

As long as the players don't start twittering immediately after the event I'm good.

 

No reason why you couldn't edit out the 10 minute tanks and smoke breaks too.

[hotShot]

I can think off some reasons that would make a "delayed" vugraph a great thing.

 

1) If the delay is long enough, all those pauses where nothing happens could be removed. Allowing for a better time management.

 

2) Operators and commentators could correct mistakes.

 

3) If a match is during office hours, I could not view it anyway.

 

4) If the vugraph is delayed, it would not take much to allow anyone to watch the vugraph at the time he wants and with the speed he likes.

[TimG]

I seldom watch vugraph other than the really big events. And, I'm not watching them so much to study the hands as I am too see the results. For instance, I don't watch much of the JEC matches and I think that is in large part because these are exhibitions, not because I would never learn anything from watching the play. I am more likely to watch one of these matches if someone I know is involved.

 

I have almost never looked through the vugraph archives. A 30-minute time delay is not much different than reading the archived files whenever you want, except that with the 30 minute time delay the pace is forced upon you where as you could easily skip a dull deal when looking through the archive.

 

NESN (the station that carries Red Sox games) replays Red Sox games (condensed to 2 hours) within 24 hours of the original broadcast. I do watch some Red Sox games live, but never watch the rebroadcasts. NESN also rebroadcasts "classic" games. These I might watch a bit of if I recognize the game and know that something good is going to happen soon.

 

Watching baseball is not the same as watching bridge (though sometimes they both seem to crawl along at the same pace). I mention this as supporting evidence that watching live does make a difference in my baseball viewing habits. I think it would be the same for bridge.

 

In short: I think I am less likely to watch if the shows are delayed 30 minutes and my viewing habits in other areas support this notion.

 

On a side note, I have little sympathy for organizers who are worried about security but who are unwilling to keep players in the playing area for an entire segment.

[Jlall]

Agree with Richard.

[Sadie3]

I don't think a delay will cure the security issue. As long as a vugraph operator is inputting the data "live" and the commentator is analyzing "live" the security issue is still a problem. Putting the commentators in a closed room away from everyone else would help and/or using a camera to record the actual play would help for later data entry. I like the feel of live vugraph, but I have gone to the archives and replayed movies from there and it feels the same as viewing 'live' to me.

 

On the other hand, I think a delay will result in a more accurate vugraph movie in that the plays and commentary will reflect actual play better. From my personal experience as a vugraph operator, I know that it is sometimes difficult to keep up with the tempo used by the players and many hands are "claimed" much earlier by the operator than the actual play was.

[nickf]

I fully endorse the idea.

 

Of course, there will sometimes be (sadly not often enough) real time scoring that might provide a spoiler but my gut says the proportion of VG watchers who'd

 

- know of the existence of realtime scores

- care enough to go check the result

 

is so small it's insignificant.

 

When I was watching the Euros last night, I didnt even know what time it was in Sanremo, let alone care that the match was live. That it could have started 30mins prior in no way detracted from the spectacle.

 

I organise a lot of VuGraph here, and aside from the dinosaur who runs a lot of tournaments here, the only grief I get is the occasional question about security.

 

nickf

sydney

[Echognome]

Having the commentators live would obviously be problematic for the security issue. However, having the vugraph operator live and the commentators delayed with the rest of the audience would keep the security issue contained. The operator is on site and can be monitored by the TD's, for example. Once you open it up to the commentators, then the information is transmitted more broadly.

 

I'm sure there will be some technical items to work out in the delay, but that those are relatively minor or Fred wouldn't be asking us.

[y66]

I'd care. Very hard for me to say how much this would affect my viewing habits though.

[Cascade]

My feeling is that a significant number of people would prefer live. It seems to be that way with other sports that are broadcast on television. We sometimes have a situation where a sports game is on delayed on a free to air television station and these seem to be much less popular than live broadcasts.

 

When you know some of the players it is fun to be able to watch the vugraph live and then contact the players very shortly after the game time.

 

Live vugraph is also very useful onsite at events. Although I suppose there is a security issue here. But if the organizers are having an onsite vugraph then they must be comfortable with the security.

 

Is security a real or only a perceived problem? I have never heard of anyone walking into the vugraph room or contacting someone outside to get information about a hand to be played. Nor have I ever heard of anyone being suspicious that this is happening. Most people are reasonable and don't want to play that way. So security should be easily overcome with good rules - no cellphones etc on site, no players wandering out of the playing room/area - and harsh penalties if anyone is caught.

 

My understanding at the PABF is that there is a 2 VP penalty for being caught in possession of a cellphone whether or not it is in use.

[fred]

I'm sure there will be some technical items to work out in the delay, but that those are relatively minor or Fred wouldn't be asking us.

That is not necessarily true.

 

I think it is safe to predict that the one and only reason we would have for making this change would be if a major tournament organizer (the WBF for example) said "introduce a delay or you won't be able to broadcast our events in the future".

 

If that were to happen and if we decided the tournament organizer in question was being foolish (I am not going to offer my opinion about this yet), we would try to convince them that they were being foolish.

 

If we failed to convince them, then we would do the necessary development work to introduce a delay even if this amounted to something "more than minor" (I am guessing it would). I suppose if the work involved turned out to be "sufficiently major" we might not do it, but I am guessing that this would be unlikely.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebasecom

[matmat]

I generally agree with the view that it's no big deal to have a delay.

 

I think that there are a couple ways of doing this. One is to have the opperators comment real-time and then have the whole broadcast delayed (1), the other is to have just the operator delayed and have the commentators do their thing with a lag (2).

 

(2) is obviously more secure.

 

The problem with (1) is that there will be virtually no interaction between the kibitzers and commentators, though any operator errors will likely be found.

 

The problem with (2) is that whatever the operator gets wrong, likely won't get fixed, and, I'd guess, we'd miss out on the cute little tidbits that are often sent by the operator from the table.

 

I suppose some combination of (1) and (2) is possible, but that might be getting just a little bit too complex.

[Echognome]

I'm sure there will be some technical items to work out in the delay, but that those are relatively minor or Fred wouldn't be asking us.

That is not necessarily true.

 

I think it is safe to predict that the one and only reason we would have for making this change would be if a major tournament organizer (the WBF for example) said "introduce a delay or you won't be able to broadcast our events in the future".

 

If that were to happen and if we decided the tournament organizer in question was being foolish (I am not going to offer my opinion about this yet), we would try to convince them that they were being foolish.

 

If we failed to convince them, then we would do the necessary development work to introduce a delay even if this amounted to something "more than minor" (I am guessing it would). I suppose if the work involved turned out to be "sufficiently major" we might not do it, but I am guessing that this would be unlikely.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebasecom

I stand corrected. Apologies. I assumed the feasibility issue had already been explored and that you were going on to the desirability issue.

 

Of course, there's no reason not to tackle them in the opposite order or concomitantly.

[matmat]

concomitantly.

ok. i gotta look this up.

[inquiry]

I would not care as long as some #9$#@&84%)%*^_@ didn't come on and tell us who won 30 minutes before the delayed match is over. That is, so long as we have no one blurting out the final results while the "delayed match" is being played on the BBO. Such activity would poison the event for me (if it was close of course).