Why (IMO) delayed vugraph is not the answer

[JanM]

A problem with shorter segments is that the entire day ends up being longer. Not only are there more breaks, but it is less likely that the time for a slow board will be made up by the end of the segment - and although sometimes the same boards are slow at both tables, that is not always the case (one table bids a difficult slam and so takes a long time in the play; the other table doesn't bid slam or bids a different one and so is faster). Also, when the bathroom is in the playing room, so that the dummy can go to the bathroom, that saves time over waiting until a break (whether at the end of 8 or 16 boards) for everyone to go. When we play behind screens, the day is already very long, adding more time is not a good option.

In Vugraph matches, when all matches are using the same boards, we can't start the Vugraph of any match until all matches are ready to start. This means that we either have to make the "faster" match wait for the slower match to catch up, or we have to let the faster match start and begin the Vugraph broadcast partway through the segment, or we have to use a different set of boards for the slower match. None of these alternatives is ideal, and adding two more times when we'd have to deal with disparity in timing of different matches would be worse.

[awm]

If time is really such a concern, why not consider following the published conditions of contest and requiring players to complete eight boards in an hour? The fact that this is ignored (and that bridge in the Spingold is effectively not a timed event) certainly creates a substantial advantage for some teams (and disadvantage for others).

 

And if cheating is really a concern, why not consider this style of simultaneous play, a simple approach which costs nothing, and imposes minimal inconvenience on either players or spectators, and stops a wide range of cheating possibilities cold in their tracks... before banning electronic devices, delaying vugraph, and purchasing expensive video cameras and potentially cell-phone scanning devices all of which do very little to stop well-known low-tech cheating tactics (like exchanging notes in the restroom or discussing hands in the smoking area)?

[NickRW]

If time is really such a concern, why not consider following the published conditions of contest and requiring players to complete eight boards in an hour?

I think there is a lot to be said for that. I know decent players who won't play in some high level competitions simply because there is no enforcement of rules like these.

 

Nick

[JanM]

I don't know what "published conditions of contest" you're looking at. But if you look at the actual Conditions of Contest for the Vanderbilt and Spingold, you will see that the playing time for matches with screens is two and a half hours for 16 boards. That means that if everyone plays on schedule, a 64 board match takes ten hours of playing time, plus time between segments to compare and a dinner break. The late rounds of the NABC KOs take something like 13 hours from start to finish - that's more than enough!

 

I have no idea what you mean by "simultaneous play" - in most serious Knockout matches, the boards are played in the same order at both tables. If you're suggesting that both tables (or all tables playing the same boards?) should wait to start board 2 until board 1 is over, that really doesn't make sense. We'd have to allow even more playing time in that scenario because a board that happens to take a long time at one table would slow all the other tables down.

[qwery_hi]

I don't know what "published conditions of contest" you're looking at. But if you look at the actual Conditions of Contest for the Vanderbilt and Spingold, you will see that the playing time for matches with screens is two and a half hours for 16 boards. That means that if everyone plays on schedule, a 64 board match takes ten hours of playing time, plus time between segments to compare and a dinner break. The late rounds of the NABC KOs take something like 13 hours from start to finish - that's more than enough!

 

I have no idea what you mean by "simultaneous play" - in most serious Knockout matches, the boards are played in the same order at both tables. If you're suggesting that both tables (or all tables playing the same boards?) should wait to start board 2 until board 1 is over, that really doesn't make sense. We'd have to allow even more playing time in that scenario because a board that happens to take a long time at one table would slow all the other tables down.

The tables need not wait, just the publication of the results of the boards to the outside world.

[rbouskila]

I am with Fred here. I think vugraph can be an excellent spectator event, especially if well-commentated, but 75% of the interest is gone if it's not live. If you know who won with half an hour left to play, are you really going to watch the rest? I mean, you may, but the suspense is gone. There's no comeback to be rooting for anymore.

 

Last year's sports games might have been great, but who's watching the reruns today?

[eyhung]

I'll note in passing that one of the competitors during this years Scripps spelling bee was using the spell check functions on his iPhone during the contest.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowit...i_b_209013.html

 

He made it quite a ways through before getting noticed.

 

This was just some random kid cheating in a fairly transparent manner.  Imagine just what someone could do if they were willing to invest $20-30K on some custom hardware.

 

 

Did you check the author of this report? The spelling bee report you are citing is written by Andy Borowitz, a famous comedian who makes his living writing cutting sendups of current events. Examples of his humor can be found at the Borowitz Report website online, including such recent articles as "Sanford : I'm Too Sexy For My State" and "Madoff to share Cell with OJ -- who promises to find the real swindlers". So I don't think this "source" helps your point that transparent cheating via an electronic device is hard to detect.

[TimG]

I'll note in passing that one of the competitors during this years Scripps spelling bee was using the spell check functions on his iPhone during the contest.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowit...i_b_209013.html

 

He made it quite a ways through before getting noticed.

 

This was just some random kid cheating in a fairly transparent manner.  Imagine just what someone could do if they were willing to invest $20-30K on some custom hardware.

 

 

Did you check the author of this report? The spelling bee report you are citing is written by Andy Borowitz, a famous comedian who makes his living writing cutting sendups of current events. Examples of his humor can be found at the Borowitz Report website online, including such recent articles as "Sanford : I'm Too Sexy For My State" and "Madoff to share Cell with OJ -- who promises to find the real swindlers". So I don't think this "source" helps your point that transparent cheating via an electronic device is hard to detect.

I thought the loss of millions of dollars in endorsement deals was a tipoff. I'm sure Richard was just playing with us.

[hrothgar]

I'll note in passing that one of the competitors during this years Scripps spelling bee was using the spell check functions on his iPhone during the contest.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowit...i_b_209013.html

 

He made it quite a ways through before getting noticed.

 

This was just some random kid cheating in a fairly transparent manner.  Imagine just what someone could do if they were willing to invest $20-30K on some custom hardware.

 

 

Did you check the author of this report? The spelling bee report you are citing is written by Andy Borowitz, a famous comedian who makes his living writing cutting sendups of current events. Examples of his humor can be found at the Borowitz Report website online, including such recent articles as "Sanford : I'm Too Sexy For My State" and "Madoff to share Cell with OJ -- who promises to find the real swindlers". So I don't think this "source" helps your point that transparent cheating via an electronic device is hard to detect.

I thought the loss of millions of dollars in endorsement deals was a tipoff. I'm sure Richard was just playing with us.

Actually, I fell for the gag...