[Gerben42]

Maybe they mean $450 a week. Even though you can do cheaper than that even in a place like New York, it sounds about right.

[fred]

It sounds like this story is going to have a happy ending afterall.

Thanks Panos, Dimitris, and whoever else was involved in this decision. Thanks also to a lot of BBO members for their support.

I apologize if my original post offended anyone. If so then I hope that my second post in this thread adequately explained the frustration I experienced when I read that there would be no vugraph of the World Youth Teams Championships.

At the time I wrote my original post I had just experienced another frustration - blowing a 76 IMP lead to get knocked out of the Spingold. Although I was not aware of it at the time, in retrospect it is possible that this contributed to the tone of my original post.

In any case, let me say that I do appreciate the hard work that people like Panos and Dimitris do for bridge. Obviously I strongly disagreed with their original decision regarding BBO vugraph from Thailand, but I should have chosen more respectful words in expressing my displeasure with that decision.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[geller]

The WBF constitution is at the following link:
http://www.worldbridge.org/administration/...onstitution.asp

Excerpts from a few pertinent articles]

Quote

Article 1 <snip> its resources shall be applied exclusively in furtherance of its beneficent purposes; and no part of its resources or earnings shall inure to the benefit of any private person.

Excessive expenses for dining, hotels, etc., particularly for family rather than the officials themselves, might be in violation of the above. Full disclosure of expenses would be desirable to ensure that funds are being used strictly in accordance with the above.

Quote

Article 2 The purpose of the organization shall be to promote, foster, promulgate and develop the sport of Contract Bridge throughout the world; <snip>

Broadcasting WBF events on BBO Vugraph (or other company's VuGraph) appears to me to constitute "promotion and development" of the sport of contract bridge, as specified in the above article. One would hope that the WBF would be more pro-active in organizing VuGraph broadcasts.

[the saint]

I did read the WBF constitution but somehow in my stupour failed to spot that near-identical line to the EBL one...

[mrdct]

fskoul, on Jul 22 2006, 09:37 AM, said:

But even worse is your first phrase - are you realising you are doing serious harm to BBO with what you say right there? You admit that, when it was to decide if the contract with WBF or BBO would be satisfied, YOU decided that it should be BBO. By doing so YOU decided that the players, for whom their federations have PAYED money, wouldn't see vugraph onsite, some persons (like the Vugraph commentator) wouldn't be able to do their job, etc. In other words you are saying that in view of the presence of BBO the onsite function of the event was worsened.

Let me get one thing straight, I do not work for or represent BBO in anyway. In my planning for the vugraph coverage in Sydney I investigated a number of different providers and choose BBO as it had, in my opinion, the best product and clearly the best market reach.

I was "hired" by the convenor of the 2005 World Youth Teams Championships to produce both the onsite and online vugraph. After much deliberation, correspondence and testing, the mode of coverage, which was AGREED to by the WBF was:

- BBO would be used to cover three matches per round;
- BBO's servers in the USA would be used;
- Onsite vugraph would use BBO over the public internet.

Given that mode of coverage, if the online vugraph is working properly then the onsite vugraph will too. So obviously on the few occasions when technical problems arose my immediate focus was getting the online vugraph sorted out.

The inherent risk of relying on the public internet was made clear to the WBF months before the event. The risk came to bear and there was MINOR disruption in a few evening matches, but in only one round (round 9) were problems bad enough to cause the abandonment of any coverage.

Perhaps if one less WBF freeloader wasn't along for the ride, there would've been ample funds available to have a more reliable internet connection. For example, do you really need 4 tournament directors for 18 tables in one room?

As for the impact on "the players, for whom their federations have PAYED money" virtually all of these players did their vugraph watching in the players' internet cafe (ironically sucking bandwidth away from the onsite vugraph theatre) so given that is their preferred mode of watching, having the online show working properly was clearly the priority of that cohort. As for the impact on the onsite commentators, the WBF should be more concerned about the commentators usually outnumbering the spectators.

The learning point is that the WBF need to revisit the standard tournament specifications to require a high-quality high-speed interent connection at all playing venues and to require convenors to provided comprehensive online vugraph coverage (through whatever platform they choose and which is acceptable to the WBF). The standard specs still include "pit matches" for goodness sake, which I don't think have been seen for several decades.

[Erkson]

fred, on Jul 22 2006, 04:50 PM, said:

At the time I wrote my original post I had just experienced another frustration - blowing a 76 IMP lead to get knocked out of the Spingold.

With all BBO supporters I have been very sorry to read that in the bulletin.

We had the vugraph only for the first quarter of this match.

Could we have some explanations and comments about what happened in the other three quarters (maybe in a new thread) ?

Erkson

[fskoul]

Quote

Perhaps if one less WBF freeloader wasn't along for the ride, there would've been ample funds available to have a more reliable internet connection.  For example, do you really need 4 tournament directors for 18 tables in one room?

That one reminds me of a joke we have in my country. The 4 directors who were 3 (the fourth one exists only in your mind) were the following 2 Australians (Richard and Laurie) thus leaving room for the obvious 1 "freeloader" - Marc. Not surprisingly there were 2 directors (one for each room, Open and Closed) plus a Chief TD.

Quote

As for the impact on "the players, for whom their federations have PAYED money" virtually all of these players did their vugraph watching in the players' internet cafe (ironically sucking bandwidth away from the onsite vugraph theatre) so given that is their preferred mode of watching, having the online show working properly was clearly the priority of that cohort.  As for the impact on the onsite commentators, the WBF should be more concerned about the commentators usually outnumbering the spectators.

And that EXACTLY was the reason why it was FORBIDDEN to the players to watch VG on the provided PCs - which happened quite early in the event. Thus leaving only one place to watch VG - the VG room.

Quote

The learning point is that the WBF need to revisit the standard tournament specifications to require a high-quality high-speed interent connection at all playing venues and to require convenors to provided comprehensive online vugraph coverage (through whatever platform they choose and which is acceptable to the WBF).  The standard specs still include "pit matches" for goodness sake, which I don't think have been seen for several decades.

Here I am 200% with you. Yes, a good Internet connection is paramount - but not all local organisers want or even can afford the cost involved (as was also the case in the event we discuss about). In some other cases we encounter problems that couldn't have been anticipated or that are quite "random" in nature - like Verona, for example. Overall, to ask for a very good Internet connection is correct on paper, but to get it proves SO much difficult in practice. Are you maybe beginning to understand why they ask for an onsite server, so as to insure that at least they will have in any case an onsite VG - because a few posts ago you called them ignorant for doing this?

[geller]

Quote

The learning point is that the WBF need to revisit the standard tournament specifications to require a high-quality high-speed interent connection at all playing venues and to require convenors to provided comprehensive online vugraph coverage (through whatever platform they choose and which is acceptable to the WBF).

Agree with you completely. One other point worth mentioning is that for security reasons if wiFi is used it should be specified that serious encryption should be used.

Obviously if there is a good internet connection the onsite VuGraph problem is solved.

[Walddk]

fskoul, on Jul 23 2006, 11:51 AM, said:

Quote

As for the impact on the onsite commentators, the WBF should be more concerned about the commentators usually outnumbering the spectators.

And that EXACTLY was the reason why it was FORBIDDEN to the players to watch VG on the provided PCs - which happened quite early in the event. Thus leaving only one place to watch VG - the VG room.

Come on, be real now. You just don't forbid anyone to watch vugraph on the computer in order to make them go to the vugraph theatre instead. This is a simple question of supply and demand.

If the internet coverage is better, you should certainly prefer that, and vice versa obviously. No-one should decide what's best for the juniors (or anyone else for that matter). They are old enough to decide for themselves. If the commentators are good enough, the spectators on site will flock to the vugraph theatre.

The only positive I can deduce from this is that people must have thought that the BBO presentation was better. That makes us all feel good.

Roland

[geller]

I join Roland in questioning why it should be forbidden to watch BBO onsite. (Of course if the players were using PCs provided by the organizers maybe one machine should be left free for other purposes like checking email). But the attitude of "you must watch VuGraph onsite only in the VuGraph room" seems silly. If the players want to watch on PCs what's wrong with that?

[fskoul]

Walddk, on Jul 23 2006, 05:05 AM, said:

fskoul, on Jul 23 2006, 11:51 AM, said:

Quote

As for the impact on the onsite commentators, the WBF should be more concerned about the commentators usually outnumbering the spectators.

And that EXACTLY was the reason why it was FORBIDDEN to the players to watch VG on the provided PCs - which happened quite early in the event. Thus leaving only one place to watch VG - the VG room.

Come on, be real now. You just don't forbid anyone to watch vugraph on the computer in order to make them go to the vugraph theatre instead. This is a simple question of supply and demand.

If the internet coverage is better, you should certainly prefer that, and vice versa obviously. No-one should decide what's best for the juniors (or anyone else for that matter). They are old enough to decide for themselves. If the commentators are good enough, the spectators on site will flock to the vugraph theatre.

The only positive I can deduce from this is that people must have thought that the BBO presentation was better. That makes us all feel good.

Roland

Come on now, be real. The organisation provided some PCs to the players in order for them to be able to send their mails or do some other things they wanted (BTW, it was one of the really exceptional services in Sydney, since in many times that is done only by providing just a place to plug in their laptops). The players have the right to use the service for the purpose provided, but not for other purposes.

Don't flatter yourself for the quality of the comments - just remember that it was just the opportunity for the players to watch another match than the presented one, in most cases the match of THEIR country. And thus we had the phenomenon of having in 6-7 computers the same match, absorbing the less than enough bandwidth.

I am sure that you understand the Internet connection was provided for the VG room to operate correctly, and not for other purposes - or not? At least, the local organiser (who after a while switched off the free computers) clearly understood that.

[Walddk]

fskoul, on Jul 23 2006, 12:35 PM, said:

Don't flatter yourself for the quality of the comments

This is offensive and uncalled for. Never, and I repeat never, have I put myself before the cause, and I did not do it here either. I let others decide if I do a good job or not!

I even take the full blame if "my" commentators make an error. I feel that I'm responsible.

Roland

[geller]

Quote

And thus we had the phenomenon of having in 6-7 computers the same match, absorbing the less than enough bandwidth.

I don't know the bandwidth available in Sydney, but my home internet connection in Tokyo is over 10 Magabits/sec for $30 per month, so with any kind of decent high speed connection available on site the burden of a few PCs watching BBO broadcasts should be be negligible.

[fskoul]

Walddk, on Jul 23 2006, 05:43 AM, said:

fskoul, on Jul 23 2006, 12:35 PM, said:

Don't flatter yourself for the quality of the comments

This is offensive and uncalled for. Never, and I repeat never, have I put myself before the cause, and I did not do it here either. I let other decide if I do a good job or not!

Roland

It was YOU that clearly implied that the commentators in the onsite Vugraph were not good enough, not me. Just read your post.

[Echognome]

geller, on Jul 23 2006, 10:44 AM, said:

Quote

And thus we had the phenomenon of having in 6-7 computers the same match, absorbing the less than enough bandwidth.

I don't know the bandwidth available in Sydney, but my home internet connection in Tokyo is over 10 Magabits/sec for $30 per month, so with any kind of decent high speed connection available on site the burden of a few PCs watching BBO broadcasts should be be negligible.

Onsite almost always means at a hotel. It is very different from residential service as you don't have such a captive market. Needless to say it's not such a simple matter.

[Walddk]

fskoul, on Jul 23 2006, 12:47 PM, said:

Walddk, on Jul 23 2006, 05:43 AM, said:

fskoul, on Jul 23 2006, 12:35 PM, said:

Don't flatter yourself for the quality of the comments

This is offensive and uncalled for. Never, and I repeat never, have I put myself before the cause, and I did not do it here either. I let other decide if I do a good job or not!

Roland

It was YOU that clearly implied that the commentators in the onsite Vugraph were not good enough, not me. Just read your post.

I didn't imply anything. I stated a fact after years of experience all over the world. If the commentators are good enough (and not least entertaining), the spectators will flock to the on site theatre. Try to get the likes of Zia and David Burn, and you will see.

Nowhere did I write that Roland Wald's commentary on BBO is great. You were the one who wrote "Don't flatter yourself ...". That's what I find offensive and uncalled for!

Roland

[mrdct]

fskoul, on Jul 23 2006, 04:51 AM, said:

Are you maybe beginning to understand why they ask for an onsite server, so as to insure that at least they will have in any case an onsite VG - because a few posts ago you called them ignorant for doing this?

No I am not. Having an onsite server perpetuates the head-in-the-sand attitude that the quality and continuity of the onsite vugraph is more important than the online vugraph. The WBF remain ignorant of the reality that 99.5% of vugraph spectators at major events are watching on the internet. Moreover, the demographic watching online are the very people that the WBF needs to promote the game to.

The WBF specifications should explicitly ban onsite servers as they clearly represent a risk to the quality of the online presentation.

If sufficient resources are put into the online presentation, both the online and onsite vugraphs will be first-class. Conversely, if more resources are put into the onsite vugraph, there is high risk that the online coverage will suffer (as was the case in Istanbul).

As an aside, it's ironic that the WBF harp on about events like the World Youth not being run for BBO's benefit, but were more than happy on a number ocassions in Sydney to enjoy the convenience of being able to switch the onsite theatre match from the originally schedule match to another of three matches being covered on BBO when it looked like a different match was a bit more interesting.

I'll respond to your inaccurate comments about WBF staffing levels tomorrow when I get my hands on the tournament magazine which I can't find at home at the moment. In the meantime, why don't you identify yourself FSKOUL as you are beginning to sound like one the WBF freeloaders.

[geller]

Quote

Onsite almost always means at a hotel. It is very different from residential service as you don't have such a captive market. Needless to say it's not such a simple matter.

This may depend on the country, but it isn't a problem these days in Japan. Other countries, even modern industrial economies, may be a few years behind. But this will probably change rapidly, so I suspect within a very short time it won't be a problem anymore.

Also, once the organizers sign a contract with a hotel they are at the mercy of the hotel's standard (extortionate) fees for net access, but if this is negotiated with the venue before the contract is signed a much better deal should be available.

[kezzerz]

In response to fskoul's comment about Roland "flattering himself" this is completely uncalled for and complete rubbish.

Roland goes out of his way to help people and never puts himself first! I should know he has helped me numerous times in more ways than one with regards to bridge.

Anyone who has spoken to Roland will know that he goes out of his way to help people and dedicates excessive amounts of his time to vu graph operations, and does a brilliant job!!

I am helping to organise a camp in Bristol, England next summer, and Roland is coming to help all of us juniors in anyway he can, as is David Burn, and they are paying their own expenses. This is fantastic and we are so grateful, this does not sound like anybody putting themself first does it?

So I am sorry but I will not listen to people who say that he "puts himself before other people"

Keep up the good work Roland

Kerri

[mrdct]

fskoul, on Jul 23 2006, 05:47 AM, said:

Walddk, on Jul 23 2006, 05:43 AM, said:

fskoul, on Jul 23 2006, 12:35 PM, said:

Don't flatter yourself for the quality of the comments

This is offensive and uncalled for. Never, and I repeat never, have I put myself before the cause, and I did not do it here either. I let other decide if I do a good job or not!

Roland

It was YOU that clearly implied that the commentators in the onsite Vugraph were not good enough, not me. Just read your post.

You are on shakey ground FSKOUL (whoever you may be).

The main point Roland was making was that people should be free to choose how, who, when and where they watch their vugraph. Obviously, if Zia was in the theatre more people would be in there listening to his sage words, but that neither belittles the actual commentators in Sydney nor overstates the abilities of the online commentators.

At the very least BBO had two more matches to offer and was clearly a viable choice for spectators onsite in the internet cafe for such reasons as:

1. On a computer you can watch the match you want rather than than the one the WBF have picked for the theatre.

2. On a computer you can chop and change between the different matches as and when you feel like it.

3. On a computer you can chat with your friends and make obscene comments and gestures without getting into any trouble.

4. On a computer you can tune into your favourite commentators which may, on occasion, be more to your personal taste than the commentators onsite.

5. On a computer in an interent cafe setting (in Sydney 12 computers in a ring) you can peek at the machines on either side of you and keep track of all three matches.