[JanM]

In the Spingold semi-finals last month, two tables were on Vugraph. The ACBL organizers chose to cover both matches, by having the Open Room from each match on Vugraph. I thought that was a good decision, but I was wondering whether the audience liked that approach when there are more tables in play than shown on Vugraph or whether you'd prefer to see both tables from one match even if that means not seeing anything from another one?
Does it make a difference whether both matches are playing the same boards?
Would it make a difference if the movie showed bidding from the Closed Room?
Is there any other approach you'd prefer?

I ask now because for the USBC Round of 16 (which will have 8 teams because there are two teams with byes to the semi-finals), we will be showing 4 tables. I don't know at the moment whether all the teams will play the same boards. I am reasonably confident that I will be able to get the bidding from the Closed Room tables into the movie. The Vugraph show is for you, the spectators, so I'd like to do what most of you would prefer, so long as it doesn't interfere with the normal running of the event.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[nikos59]

Personally, I strongly prefer to have one whole match
than two half-matches. This is always my
preference, but all the more in a national
trials, like the one you are going to transmit.

NS

[Elianna]

If more than one table is being shown on vugraph, there are two main factors that affect how I choose which table to watch:

1) I like going to the slower table (the table that has results from "the other table").

2) Who's playing at which table.

The first one affects my decision much more than the second, on average.

So for me, I probably would prefer if you show both tables from the same match, so that way there will likely be a table that shows results from another table before the board is over.

[kenrexford]

I have no idea if it is possible, but when the hands are duplicated across the field, I would be interested in watching one match but having ability to check running scores and results from other matches. In fact, even if the hands are not duplicated, this would be nice.

In case this is confusing, a simple example. We are at hand #5 in the match. I would like to watch how Team A bids the hands and how Team B does similarly. It would also be nice, if the hands are duplicated, to have a running results-only scoreboard, to see how the other teams are doing (real time) and, even better, how they are doing with the hands I am watching.

[winkle]

I think I'm in the minority, but my preference is full match coverage. When there is a swing I like to see what happened at the other table. If the swing were in the bidding, the auction would suffice. But sometimes the swing is in the card play.

A more obscure reason is I like to analyze matches off line. Right now the only way to get these results is if the full match is on vugraph.

My preference would be even stronger if matches are playing different boards. I find vugraph much more fun when I can compare actions by different players on the same boards.

[hrothgar]

Few quick comments:

Like many players, I prefer to have as complete coverage as possible for a given match. Ideally, I'd like to be able to "watch", either table from start to finish. If you are working with 4 Vugraph operators, this would imply covering two matches and ignoring the rest (except for box scores and the like)...

I'm not sure if it would be possible, but I'd like to see a system by which folks on the Internet coud vote on which matching they'd like to see.

Any chance that you could build a polling script onto the tournament web site?

Ideally, when you post the final results from day X (and list matching for day Y), you could create a poll that would permit players to vote for the specific matches that they would find most interesting. In a perfect world, you'd want some security to prevent a small number of folks from voting multiple times and hijacking the process. In practice, you could probably get away with something "simple".

[Walddk]

As Jan Martel knows, BBO has a strong preference on this issue, as outlined in our vugraph guidelines:

"Vugraph of team matches is so much better if both tables are being broadcast simultaneously. We strongly suggest that you try to arrange this if at all possible", it reads.

Furthermore:

"For team matches with 8 boards or more per segment we recommend that you let the open room start with the last 2 or 3 boards, the closed room with board 1. This way the open room audience will get comparisons when you reach board 1. Traditionally, we always have many more spectators in the open room and they would appreciate as many comparisons as possible".

Two matches, four tables also fine of course. No matter what, we think that one match, two tables is better than one table from two matches.

The most important factor is that the organisers are not always able to get runners to bring results from the other room, and if they manage, the runners don't bring them frequently enough for the operators to enter.

By having both tables up from one match, the operators and spectators alike won't have to worry about this aspect. Comparisons will come automatically, and team matches with no, or even delayed, comparisons are not as interesting for the spectators as when the results are there when the boards appear.

Finally, if you can't see running scores from other matches on a web site, perhaps the operator(s) would be able to give them occasionally - alternatively that they are relayed to one of the commentators, one in each room.

Those scores don't necessarily have to come from the operators (they should concentrate on operating, and many are not experienced enough to multi-task). You could perhaps have another person at the venue who is willing to do this job.

Roland

[pclayton]

I prefer coverage of both tables and like it when there's a small lag in the reporting from table 2. This adds a little suspense, gives you something to do when the faster table finishes first and allows meaningful comparisons. being able to watch a movie of the bidding and card play from the companion table is always interesting and gives the viewer something to do when Shenkin or Rosenberg goes into a 20 minute tank

I don't think you need more than one match at once, unless there are some compelling reasons to show match 2; interesting systems for instance, or to show an underdog team that has advanced further than expected.

[JanM]

Thanks for all your thoughts. I'll try to respond to them as well as I can, and you're definitely leading me to rethink my original plan to cover all the matches, with one table "live" and the other one "invisible" (showing only the bidding and opening lead).

As far as having a "slower" vs "faster" table so as to have other table result available when a board is played, that is much more likely to happen if we have both tables from a match "live." We are not going to start the Closed Room first because of security and timing issues, and that doesn't always work anyway because sometimes the CR players are slower . If we have the 4 Open Room tables "live," there's going to be some delay in getting the bidding and results from the Closed Rooms no matter how hard we try.

We'll be posting the scorecards, bidding, play if we have it, and results on our website in something approaching "real time" - probably about every half hour. But that won't get the information posted in time to be there when the boards are being played on Vugraph, since all the matches are played at the same time and it takes some time to enter the information and get it onto the website. I suppose if the Vugraph table happens to be running behind, the information from other matches might be up, but frankly I hope not, because I hope all the matches will be played at about the same pace.

I could probably accept "votes" about which matches to see the day before, but we're only talking about one and a half days (the Round of 16) when we won't be showing all the matches, and the teams in the Round of 16 get decided halfway through the day on Monday, with the broadcast starting the second half of the day, so realistically there would only be time for such a vote before the second segment of the matches on Tuesday, and I would expect that people would rather have us just choose the two matches that are closest for each of the Tuesday segments.

[Walddk]

JanM, on Aug 2 2006, 08:37 PM, said:

As far as having a "slower" vs "faster" table so as to have other table result available when a board is played, that is much more likely to happen if we have both tables from a match "live." We are not going to start the Closed Room first because of security and timing issues.

If you read my post again, you will see that this is not necessary. There is no law that forces the organisers to start with board 1 in both rooms. It is common, in Europe at least, to do it the way we suggest in our guidelines.

Let's take a 16-board segment as an example. If you let the open room start with boards 15 and 16, and the closed room with board 1, you are pretty certain that the open room audience will get 14 of 16 comparisons.

If you start with board 1 in both rooms, as is often the case in North America and in EBL and WBF events, it's random, and spectators may have to go to the other room frequently if they want to see comparisons when the boards are being played.

Roland

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Aug 2 2006, 09:43 PM, said:

JanM, on Aug 2 2006, 08:37 PM, said:

As far as having a "slower" vs "faster" table so as to have other table result available when a board is played, that is much more likely to happen if we have both tables from a match "live." We are not going to start the Closed Room first because of security and timing issues.

If you read my post again, you will see that this is not necessary. There is no law that forces the organisers to start with board 1 in both rooms. It is common, in Europe at least, to do it the way we suggest in our guidelines.

Roland

I'm not sure whether the concept of Open and Closed rooms necessarily makes sense given all the modern technology that is available.

As I mentioned before, I have some very real concerns that folks could use an electronic Vugraph as a tool to cheat in a major event. All you need is one person working as a spotter, combined with some fairly basic electronics and you could easily relay information in real time... Given the amount of money that is entering the game, its only a matter of time.

Ideally, you might want to be thinking about adding an artificial 10 minute delay before any information gets relayed out to the Internet.

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on Aug 2 2006, 08:56 PM, said:

As I mentioned before, I have some very real concerns that folks could use an electronic Vugraph as a tool to cheat in a major event. All you need is one person working as a spotter, combined with some fairly basic electronics and you could easily relay information in real time... Given the amount of money that is entering the game, its only a matter of time.

If people really want to cheat, I am sure they can find methods with or without the help of the internet. It happens in all sports, and it has happened in bridge.

Yes, they can have electronic devices implanted behind their ears for example, but I don't think any of us should be concerned. They need a messenger, and they need a 3rd person, the surgeon who is going to implant the device. He may be wondering why the patient wants this kind of aid.

When you have at least 4 people involved, the risk of being caught is very big.

Roland

[JanM]

We did actually discuss the possiblity of time-delaying the broadcasts for security reasons. The committee was convinced that it wasn't necessary, so long as we were (as we are) very careful about electronic equipment in the playing rooms and given that we put each table in a separate room with its own attached bathroom and don't let people leave the rooms without a monitor.

However, because of the security concerns, our directors do not want to start with the last two boards in one room and with the first board in the other, and the organizing committee agreed strongly with that. So both tables will start with the first board of the segment, even though that means that there may not be completed boards for comparison.

[Aberlour10]

I would definitely prefer to watch both tables, because the ability to swich
between the rooms on the key hands of the match makes the vugraph show more exciting for me. I mean especially the declarer play and defense on the same boards.

Robert

[inquiry]

I prefer both tables same match, not so much to switch back and forth during play, but because I like to review the bidding and play at both tables from the vugraph archives.

[mrdct]

Walddk, on Aug 2 2006, 01:43 PM, said:

There is no law that forces the organisers to start with board 1 in both rooms.

It's quite common for supplementary regulations to require that boards be played in the same sequence at both tables. This is certainly a requirement in a number of Australia's major events. I think it creates a more "pure" result as it means that both tables will get the awkward hands at the same point of the match which if played in a different sequence may affect the "state of the match" mentality that a player may apply to a board.

In answer to Jan's initial question, I actually have a strong preference for choice and would vastly prefer to be able to watch the match I want to watch with one table than not have the opportunity to watch that match at all.

In the World Youth last year we did single-table coverage of three separate matches each round, which meant on average each team had about six appearances on vugraph during the round robin, with leading teams getting as many as a dozen appearances on vugraph. We had a 4th operator entering auction, lead, result and (if time permitted) play details on a single machine so that the final LINs had good (although not complete) comparitive info that could also be referred to live during the broadcast.

[PeterE]

mrdct, on Aug 2 2006, 09:00 PM, said:

Walddk, on Aug 2 2006, 01:43 PM, said:

There is no law that forces the organisers to start with board 1 in both rooms.

It's quite common for supplementary regulations to require that boards be played in the same sequence at both tables. This is certainly a requirement in a number of Australia's major events. I think it creates a more "pure" result as it means that both tables will get the awkward hands at the same point of the match which if played in a different sequence may affect the "state of the match" mentality that a player may apply to a board.

Exactly.
It will be a big difference whether you miss a lay-down 7 NT in your first board or in your second-last.

[Walddk]

PeterE, on Aug 3 2006, 09:39 AM, said:

mrdct, on Aug 2 2006, 09:00 PM, said:

Walddk, on Aug 2 2006, 01:43 PM, said:

There is no law that forces the organisers to start with board 1 in both rooms.

It's quite common for supplementary regulations to require that boards be played in the same sequence at both tables. This is certainly a requirement in a number of Australia's major events. I think it creates a more "pure" result as it means that both tables will get the awkward hands at the same point of the match which if played in a different sequence may affect the "state of the match" mentality that a player may apply to a board.

Exactly.
It will be a big difference whether you miss a lay-down 7 NT in your first board or in your second-last.

That's not a valid point. You may just as well miss it on board 1 rather than on board 15.

Roland

[JanM]

Walddk, on Aug 3 2006, 07:05 AM, said:

PeterE, on Aug 3 2006, 09:39 AM, said:

mrdct, on Aug 2 2006, 09:00 PM, said:

Walddk, on Aug 2 2006, 01:43 PM, said:

There is no law that forces the organisers to start with board 1 in both rooms.

It's quite common for supplementary regulations to require that boards be played in the same sequence at both tables. This is certainly a requirement in a number of Australia's major events. I think it creates a more "pure" result as it means that both tables will get the awkward hands at the same point of the match which if played in a different sequence may affect the "state of the match" mentality that a player may apply to a board.

Exactly.
It will be a big difference whether you miss a lay-down 7 NT in your first board or in your second-last.

That's not a valid point. You may just as well miss it on board 1 rather than on board 15.

But David's point is that both tables should confront the possibility at the same time during the set, since what happens on the "important" boards may influence what a pair does on other boards. That's one of the reasons our organizing committee rejected playing the last two boards first in one room. Another reason was that it presents an extra security issue if some of the hands are known well in advance of when they will be played at half the tables.

[mrdct]

JanM, on Aug 3 2006, 10:11 AM, said:

But David's point is that both tables should confront the possibility at the same time during the set, since what happens on the "important" boards may influence what a pair does on other boards. That's one of the reasons our organizing committee rejected playing the last two boards first in one room. Another reason was that it presents an extra security issue if some of the hands are known well in advance of when they will be played at half the tables.

Much as we all like to claim that we play every hand on its merits and don't let good or bad results affect our play on future boards, the truth is that momentum is a real dynamic at the bridge table.

Personally, I invariably have a strong session if I can pull out a few good things in the first couple of boards of a session (say a thin vul game where I guessed a 2-way finesse or correct squeeze layout). In fact, in long matches (16+ boards) I generally try to be really tight in all aspects of my game on the first 4-boards and then settle into a rhthym. If there are 4-boards in a set that are well suited to my strengths, I would much rather those boards come up early in the match to give me some momentum.

The fatigue factor could also be relevant. For example in a 20 board match late into the evening lets say that boards 19-20 contain complex problems for North-South (maybe a defence that requires particularly close attention to the pips and a declarer problem requiring some deep analysis of some esoteric inference to be drawn from the auction and play in the mid-game). With teams of similar ability, I would expect the team that had the problems at the end of the match rather than the beginning of the match to be disadvantaged.