[mrdct]

Semi-final coverage limited to two 6-board stints per session for "security reasons". When will these nimrods running ACBL events get their act together?

[Gerben42]

The summum of incompetence. They say players were concerned with security. This is completely nonsense - just take the BBO table to be the table furthest from the door and no one is allowed to peek.

Kibitzers who come too close have to leave the venue immediately, players who get too close get a full board penalty 1st time, DQ 2nd time.

Clear rules = no security risk.

[Walddk]

I can (barely) understand that the players were concerned. What I can't understand, however, is why the organizers didn't foresee this by organizing a barometer format (all tables play the same boards at the same time).

You can do this easily by using 10 sets of boards (2 tables sharing a set), or if that is too big a risk, then offer them 20 sets. That approach would hardly make the ACBL budget collapse.

Regarding Dave Thompson's comment, I don't think he should hold his breath. For some reason (only known to themselves) ACBL organizers refuse to look elsewhere to see how this can be done to everyone's satisfaction. Let me mention Australia, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Poland, England, Ireland, Estonia and Netherlands as examples.

There is no law against learning from others. On the contrary; it's often a splendid idea.

Roland

[mrdct]

The ACBL really are pathetic.

I don't buy the excuse of "players were concerned with security". Who is in charge of the these events, the directors/convenors or the players? Surely a movement and other protocols could've been organise to ensure security of hand data. In any case, with boards not being played simulataneously the great security risk is players wandering around between boards discussing hands that other pairs haven't played yet; which obviously has nothing to do with vugraph.

And you have to love the results service from Hawaii. They provide the results of all the meaningless side-events, but nothing from the main event!

[Gerben42]

Dave publishing the scores from something as important as the Reisinger would be a security risk. Gotta keep that secret.

[mrdct]

Completely hopeless.

For the last 2 rounds that they graciously chose to show us, both 3-board matches were the same 3-boards including an extremely boring 6♠ contract.

To add insult to injury, they wouldn't keep the room open at the end to tell us who made the final.

[hrothgar]

There are two different issues that need to be addressed here:

Issue 1: Does the Vugraph technology that we have available today present a real security risk?

From my perspective, the answer to this question is a clear and resounding yes. As I've commented a couple times in the past, it would be fairly easy to use a simple radio system to wire information about boards to players. A lot of money changes hands at these types of events. The pros sure as hell aren't playing for free. You have motive and opportunity. Bridge has seen a fair number of cheating scandals. Its naive to believe that someone isn't going to start taking advantage of this option. Personally, I think that someone probably has.

We might not like the fact that Vugraph has been canceled, but it strikes me as a reasonable precaution. BTW, given this decision, I wouldn't go and hold my breath hoping to see the Cavendish this year. The stakes are higher, and I expect that the security concerns are larger as well.

Issue 2: Can Vugraph be modified in such a way that it doesn't present a security threat?

Here once again, I think that the answer is yes. The easiest and most effective way to proceed would be to introduce a constant time delay into the Vugraph feed. Delay all the hands by a set amount to guarantee that everyone has finished playing a given hand before they are available on Vugraph.

BTW, it would be interesting to understand whether the same set of restriction was extended to the on site vugraph of whether it only impacted Internet coverage.

Issue 3: (And this is the controversial one)

I have long argued that an electronic playing environment would significantly improve event security, while simultaneously improving the quality of the Vugraph by an order of magnitude.. I won't bother retracing the arguments here, however, I would very much like to see organizations like the WBF and the ACBL recognize that their membership base want to be able to watch these events and take steps to serve the folks who actually pay the bills. (Admittedly, I don't pay anything to the ACBL, then again its been a long time since I believed that the organization had my best interests at heart)

I know lots of “top players” object to the idea of playing competitive bridge on a PC. However, from my perspective, the top players are completely fungible. Anyone can be replaced with someone almost as good. If the great “Red Team” is unwilling to compete using an electronic playing environment, the almost as great “Purple Team” will be more than happy to take their place. Furthermore, after a couple years without their sponsor I suspect that the Red team will suddenly discover that playing on a PC isn't nearly as bad as they originally thought.

[keylime]

I can't disagree with anyone here; this is really bad. Something to me seems to have happened that was discussed if I didn't know any better.

[Gerben42]

Quote

As I've commented a couple times in the past, it would be fairly easy to use a simple radio system to wire information about boards to players

This was already possible in the old on-site vugraph theatre used in championships for ages. The BBO Vugraph is no different.

Quote

We might not like the fact that Vugraph has been canceled, but it strikes me as a reasonable precaution. BTW, given this decision, I wouldn't go and hold my breath hoping to see the Cavendish this year. The stakes are higher, and I expect that the security concerns are larger as well.

I'm not buying that. All you need is some very simple rules in place.

* Kibitzers should be in the playing area before start of play. No late entries.
* Once you leave the playing area, no coming back.
* Whoever enters the corner of the room where the VG can be seen, is removed from the room.
* Players are screened to be bug-free

Quite elementary.

But don't get me wrong, there will be ways to cheat, I think it should be in the rules of the Cavendish that cheating there is a real crime and worse things will happen to you than being thrown out of the ACBL.

[hrothgar]

Gerben42, on Nov 26 2006, 04:56 PM, said:

* Players are screened to be bug-free

Administrators need a lot of different skills to run a bridge tournament.
Electronic survellience and bug sniffing really shouldn't need to be one of them.

I think its much easier to design the electronic vugraph in such a way that you can't profitably relay information rather than going to the expense and bother trying to block every possible way that folks might relay information.

[helene_t]

But if you don't screen players for bugs, they can still use bugs to communcate with each other.

[pigpenz]

they should have made all participants log on to BBO and play the first Nationaly rated event on line......if they were worried about security all of the problems would have been taken care of

Honestly, these are the worlds best players!!
they couldnt have them playing the same boards at the same time, let them do like the rest of us deal shuffle play.

[glen]

A "tape-delayed" approach might have been best. Have a vugraph operator record all the deals as they happened - then, a few hours later, at a pre-announced time, launch a vugraph with commentators, and treat the event as "live". One could even skip any lengthy pause between rounds thus we would have a very good show. Given ACBL results are not immediately available on the net, the drama of the occasion could still be kept.

[Gerben42]

Any delay more than a few minutes is completely weird. You'd be watching and suddenly the winner is announced.

[hrothgar]

Gerben42, on Nov 26 2006, 08:17 PM, said:

Any delay more than a few minutes is completely weird. You'd be watching and suddenly the winner is announced.

Who cares?

If all you care about is the result, you don't need any Vugraph coverage to begin with.

Alternatively, if you're main interest is seeing the hands, along with exposition the end result probably isn't that significant.

I recognize that in practice people are interested in both aspects of the presentation. However, I'd like to think that there is some value to watching hands with good commentary even if this doesn't happen in real time. Lots of people seem to use televised poker as model of what bridge vugraph should be. Almost none of these events take place in real time. Most have been heavily edited to focus on the exciting parts.

[pigpenz]

even watching the Super Bowl on a five minute delay would be worthless

[Walddk]

Why is that USA is the only country in the world where security regarding bridge tournaments is such a big issue? In all other countries they seem less concerned and yet they cope quite well.

Now, some may claim that only in the USA do they play for big money prizes and that the risk of cheating therefore is a factor one can't ignore. Sure, the risk is there, but that applies to all competitions in all sports - whether money is involved or not.

Note that in this context we are talking about the Reisinger. Although I acknowledge that this is one of the world's prestigious events, there is not a single penny to be won!

It's all about masterpoints, seeding points, and glory. What's the big deal? Relax and play bridge for goodness sake. And don't forget to let the world watch. I know the intention is the opposite, but the organisers in the USA actually harm their cause by denying vugraph spectators on the internet.

In a few hours we will all be watching the finals in real time. Great, but why on earth did that not happen yesterday in the semi-finals? Because the format was wrong. How difficult can it be to organise the same format two days in a row?

Better luck next time!

Roland

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Nov 26 2006, 09:40 PM, said:

Why is that USA is the only country in the world where security regarding bridge tournaments is such a big issue? In all other countries they seem less concerned and yet they cope quite well.

Now, some may claim that only in the USA do they play for big money prizes and that the risk of cheating therefore is a factor one can't ignore. Sure, the risk is there, but that applies to all competitions in all sports - whether money is involved or not.

Note that in this context we are talking about the Reisinger. Although I acknowledge that this is one of the world's prestigious events, there is not a single penny to be won!

I couldn't swear to this, but my impression is that major bridge matches within the US are substantially less likely to offer cash prizes than other parts of the world. You have the Cavendish and the Prize Money Bridge events, but these are all few and far between. With the exception of the Cavendish, the prizes that do get offered are pretty small. In contrast, I've seen a wide number of events in Europe and Asia that offer cash prizes of one form or another.

All of which is completely irrelevent....

Waldkk is claiming that there is not a single penny to be won at this year's Reisinger.
Anyone know how many of the pairs competing are being paid by well heeled sponsors?
Anyone know how much an elite pair like Meckwell charge for an event like the Reisinger?
Anyone care to estimate what the discount present value of the future cash flows associated with first or second place in an event like this might be worth?

I'd be willing to wager that its quite a bit larger than the proverbial penny...

The professional game is much better established here in the US than other parts of a world. (There's a good reason why top foreign player tend to emigrate to the North American). Its possible that this has given rise to a greater concern about security.

Then again, some place needs to be first...

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on Nov 26 2006, 09:02 PM, said:

Waldkk is claiming that there is not a single penny to be won at this year's Reisinger. 
Anyone know how many of the pairs competing are being paid by well heeled sponsors?
Anyone know how much an elite pair like Meckwell charge for an event like the Reisinger?
Anyone care to estimate what the discount present value of the future cash flows associated with  first or second place in an event like this might be worth?

I'd be willing to wager that its quite a bit larger than the proverbial penny...

No matter how much the big guns are paid by their sponsors, it is no business of the ACBL. They don't interefere, and that's how it should be. It is ACBL's concern, however, to organise a tournament without denying anyone from watching.

They seem capable of organising an acceptable format (hence allowing specs throughout) when we reach the finals. It makes absolutely no sense to me that the same is impossible the day before.

Roland

[mrdct]

hrothgar, on Nov 26 2006, 08:29 AM, said:

1:  Does the Vugraph technology that we have available today present a real security risk? 

From my perspective, the answer to this question is a clear and resounding yes.  As I've commented a couple times in the past, it would be fairly easy to use a simple radio system to wire information about boards to players.

Nonsense. The security risks to which you refer are either identical to those associated with having kibitzers or can be easily mitigated by any and all of:

- deal enough boards so everyone plays the same hands at more-or-less the same time.

- don't allow people to enter the playing area during a session.

- don't allow mobile phones and other electronic devices in the playing area.

If someone is going to cheat using a means such as a concealed radio ear-piece, vugraph isn't the problem. Security is more about avoiding inadvertant comments about about hands in between rounds and from adjacent tables, which I'm sure must have been an issue at the Reisinger Semi-Final due to the decision to only prepare four sets of boards.