Vugraph from Tenerife

[Finch]

This may not be the right place for this, as I'm not sure what control BBO had over the format, but I know this forum gets read and maybe someone can contribute something helpful!

 

The Open Pairs final was a 26-table "endless Howell" with every pair moving after each two board round, played with screens. There was a (fairly strictly enfored) time limit of 17 minutes a round. That sounds a lot, but in practice was actually pretty tight - the screens slow things down, and many pairs were playing systems unfamiliar to their opponents, often with minimal common language, so the auctions could be rather slow.

 

Just to make the moves more difficult, there were three separate vu-graph tables, one each for the local vugraph, Swan games and BBO (I think Swan games ran the local vugraph but there were onsite commentators). The tables shown on 'graph varied by round, so when you came to move the table you were moving to might have a notice on it saying "Swan", "BBO" or "Vu-Graph" and you moved somewhere else instead.

 

I can see the advantage of this - the vu-graph operators could select which pairs they showed with the top names were rather more frequently on the graph, as that is what the spectators want. It also allowed the operators to choose who to show depending on the results - after we had a huge first session we were on the Swan graph about 5 times in the next session (but BBO never wanted us the whole event, sob).

 

But:

The TDs had considerable extra work moving the signs around, moving the boards and the Bridgemates to the 'graph tables and back again.

 

The movement took longer, as the 'graph tables tended to start slightly later than every other table, so the pairs coming out of each round were usually behind at the start of the next round, slowing down 2 new tables.

 

The move out of one of the graph rooms was slow, as you had to work out where you were moving to for the next round; there were personal guide cards but this still slowed things down, at least it did for me!

 

This was (supposedly) a high-standard event; certainly there a quite a few expert pairs in action. Was it so important to pick exactly who was on the 'graph each round?

 

So I was wondering if things would be rather smoother, and hence more fun for everybody - including spectators - if

 

- 3 particular tables were permanently on vu-graph, so if you moved to table 1 you knew if was, say, the BBO graph

 

- Or for each session, 3 particular pairs were permanently on vu-graph (this would speed up the movement a bit, but not as much as the first option)

 

Also, it seems a bit silly to have 3 different vu-graph systems at 3 different tables. Would it be asking too much to have all 3 tables on both BBO and Swan, with the local 'graph selecting which one to show? Otherwise, why not have one table only with 2 operators for the 2 technologies?

[mrdct]

Vugraph of pairs events is problematic for all parties concerned (players, spectators, operators and organisers).

 

From the spectators' perspective, the quality of the viewing experience is somewhat limited by the lack of comparitive scores and the endless waiting around between rounds.

 

A really nice software feature that I would like to see for pairs events would be an indicative comparitive result on a board, perhaps generated by getting 10 tables of "Jack" (world computer bridge champion) playing against themselves.

 

In terms of streamlining the movement, instead of using a Howell movement, run a movement that has 3 stationary pairs (obviously at least 2 of the stationary pairs will need to be different each session so that everyone plays eachother). It would probably take a fair bit of work by the CTD to design the appropriate movement and prepare guide cards.

 

I don't buy the argument that playing with screens slows things down. A couple of years after introducing screens at my local bridge club, most players were quite comfortable with their use and there was virtually no discernable difference between the speed of play at tables with screens and the tables without screens (such as in an event with screen being played in knockout matches whilst a swiss repechage continues without screens - but matches/segments of the same length). What does happen is that when players are playing in a super-important event (such as the Open Pairs Final at Tenerife) they slow themselves down a bit anyway.

[Walddk]

This may not be the right place for this, as I'm not sure what control BBO had over the format.

 

<snip>

 

Also, it seems a bit silly to have 3 different vu-graph systems at 3 different tables. Would it be asking too much to have all 3 tables on both BBO and Swan, with the local 'graph selecting which one to show? Otherwise, why not have one table only with 2 operators for the 2 technologies?

No control whatsoever. BBO played second fiddle (I would claim third) throughout the pairs final. Before each of the 4 segments, Barry Rigal on behalf of the on site vugraph (read Swan) chose his pairings, then Swan chose theirs, and finally we could choose ours.

 

I wasn't entirely happy about the fact that the order was Swan, Swan .... and then BBO! Even objectively speaking, this was surely the wrong priority if the organisers had paid attention to the interest on the internet bridge sites. At some point BBO had 1650 spectators; at no point did Swan have more than 120!

 

I decided, rightly or wrongly, to go for Meckstroth-Rodwell as often as possible, and we did that in 43 of the 51 rounds. My reasoning was that they were the defending champions, and even if they would not be in contention this time (and they were not as you recall), our members would enjoy watching them anyway.

 

As to your second question: I suppose that this might have been a practical question, because you can only have operators in two corners of one table. A third, let alone a fourth, would have been obstructed by the screens.

 

You and Jeffrey Allerton were very unlucky to miss out on BBO vugraph as you will understand when I add: In 8 of the rounds where we were not able to show Meckwell (taken by one of the others), we had 4 "new" pairs at our table. You did very well, especially in segment 1, and there is every reason to congratulate you on your excellent performance!

 

Roland

[Aberlour10]

Something out of topic..

 

By review of the vugraph schedule for upcoming weeks,

I missed the annonce for the broadcast of the Spingold Knockout Teams.

The semi- & finals were traditionally transmiting by BBO, not this year?

 

Robert

[Walddk]

Something out of topic..

 

By review of the vugraph schedule for upcoming weeks,

I missed the annonce for the broadcast of the Spingold Knockout Teams.

The semi- & finals were traditionally transmiting by BBO, not this year?

 

Robert

Nothing is listed on our vugraph schedule page yet, because we haven't got details from the organisers regarding broadcasts from Atlanta, Georgia (ACBL Summer Nationals from July 21-31).

 

I would be surprised if we don't get the Spingold Knockout Teams this time. In the meantime you can read about the event at:

 

http://www.acbl.com/nabc/Atlanta2005/specialEvents.html

 

Roland

[DenisO]

Nothing is listed on our vugraph schedule page yet, because we haven't got details from the organisers regarding broadcasts from Atlanta, Georgia (ACBL Summer Nationals from July 21-31).

 

I would be surprised if we don't get the Spingold Knockout Teams this time.

Roland

Hopefully there will be enugh resources to cover both semi-finals this time - just in case ;)

 

Denis

[Gerben42]

I can tell you why Swan had less viewers than BBO: simply the quality of the BBO vugraph is higher.

 

Anyway I understand why it happened as it was: Swan and BBO are competitors so they will organize their own Vugraph how they want to. Also the BBO software (and I guess Swan also) is set up to interact directly with their own program, and not transmit the played cards etc. to the other, and why should they?

 

I just hope that the EBL learns from this and goes with BBO all the way next time.

[Walddk]

There is a reason for everything. I think all of you agree with me when I claim:

 

1. BBO has the best software.

2. BBO has the best operators.

3. BBO has the best commentators.

 

and this leads to .....

 

4. BBO has the best broadcasts.

 

Give full credit to Fred, Sheri, Uday and our wonderful vugraph staff in all areas.

 

Roland Wald

Vugraph Co-ordinator