[Walddk]

Within a year we have had 4-5 instances where planned and even scheduled vugraph broadcasts have been cancelled before or during!? the event, because some players/pairs refused to appear before an on site or internet audience.

The countries in question have been Indonesia, Colombia and Portugal. Now we can add Scotland where a planned broadcast of the cup final on May 7 is off, because one team is uncomfortable about being exposed to a large audience.

In many nations it is clearly stated in Conditions of Contest that players cannot refuse to appear on vugraph if asked to by the organisers. We strongly suggest that this becomes standard procedure everywhere.

If you can play at the highest level, you can definitely also play in front of spectators; before the whole world for that better. In most instances spectators are not even physically present. As far as the internet is concerned, the players don't even have an idea about how many will be watching.

Maybe it is embarrassing to some if they make serious errors in public, but this is part of the game if you play at a reasonably high level. Therefore, you must accept the conditions.

Roland

[joker_gib]

Are there players amongst us that never made a serious error ?

Playing bridge implies errors and as Roland says they are part of the game !

Btw, how do you want to win if your opps don't make errors

Alain

[mr1303]

I agree completely. Most top class players are quite happy to play on Vugraph but the fact that a few don't feel comfortable with it should be tough luck on them. If you represent your country in a national competition you should have to play in public. If you don't want to, then don't play in the trials etc to be selected for these events.

PErsonally I would love to appear on Vugraph, although it looks like it'll be a while off.

However, I have noticed that the commentators can occasionally be quite scathing in their comments about poor play by the players. Maybe this might have something to do with it?

Mark

[Walddk]

Everyone makes mistakes, experts less than others. The problem is, however, that no one really likes when those mistakes are exposed to a large audience. They are if the event is broadcast on site and/or the internet.

The answer is simple: That can't be helped. If you want to play there, you must accept the rough with the sweet. I mean, great play is not an exception either, is it? In those cases you don't mind that the world applauds.

Roland

[joker_gib]

Poor play is always easier to see double dummy !

[Walddk]

mr1303, on Apr 20 2005, 05:48 AM, said:

However, I have noticed that the commentators can occasionally be quite scathing in their comments about poor play by the players. Maybe this might have something to do with it?

Mark

I am sure you are right, and it does indeed happen that commentators are somewhat harsh on the players. But then again, would it not be hypocracy if "we" didn't point out that this was a serious mistake?

Should we just pretend that this looks quite normal when it does not? I don't think so, but having said that I think it's fair to add that this can be said in many different ways.

There is absolutely no need ro be rude no matter how serious a mistake the player has made. No one makes those errors deliberately. We all know how bad the player must be feeling when he/she realises what the consquence was.

A serious error yes, but that's the end of it. Forget it, it's history now, and let's move on to the next board.

Roland

[hotShot]

Let us be fair, there are people that feel uncomfortable when performing in front of an audience. There are people who would do anything to appear on TV, and those who would do anything to avoid it. There are people who hate to hold a speach or a lecture and there are some who cannot concentrate on their play if they know they are being watched.
Perhaps this disqualifys them to be counted as a top player, but they might still be succesful bridge players.

Do we want that good players avoid tourneys because they don't want to apear on vugraph? I hope not.

Lets not adopt the attitude of some media people who negate the right of privacy.

[FrancesHinden]

I agree it should be part of the conditions of contest. I agree that people should be pleased to help widen the appeal of bridge.

But one consequence of the huge increase in BBO vugraph is that many of the events broadcast are not of the highest quality, nor are the players experts. The standard of play in the recent Lady Milne, for example, was nothing resembling "high level" *.

Having played on BBO vugraph (and normal vugraph) I know it is a little off-putting the first time, and this may give the opposing team an advantage if they are used to it and you aren't. I think it's important that if there is going to be a BBO broadcast of an event it should be made clear before people enter, so they know what they are letting themselves in for.

It always used to be the case that there was a "closed room" and an "open room", and that if you were uncomfortable with an audience you could hide yourself away in the closed room. We have sometimes felt we had seating rights in every set because we knew which of the opposing team would never play in the open room. Now there may be a BBO broadcast from both rooms.

*if you are reading this and were playing in the Lady Milne then obviously I mean everyone playing except you.

[Chamaco]

I would like to discriminate two categories of bridge players who usually compete in Vugraph-candidate events.

On one side we have the bridge pros: they play and play, they are strong, and in my opinion their exhibitions should be broadcasted (after all this *right of broadcast* is payed through sponsorship).
Please note that in my definition of "Pro" I would like to include not only people who earn their life by playing, but also people who do not gain money from bridge, but have the money and time to study and play bridge full-time.


On the other side we have "power-amateurs".
Power-amateurs are skilled players who do not live of bridge.
Some of them may be perhaps of the same level or even stronger than pros (I cannot judge), but I suppose many of them are not.
Above all, they play bridge as a pleasure, as a hobby, and, if they are not used to be exposed to Vugraph, and they wish to play at their best, I think it's only fair to respect their right not to be exposed.

After all, when we like to kibitz at a table of good players, we ask for permission to kibitz, and most times thay'll say yes, but if they say no- unpleasant as it may seem - it's a legitimate right of theirs'.

Of course, as the level of the competition lowers down, the number of "power-amateurs" increases, and so it increases the likelihood to find a team that prefers not to be broadcast on Vugraph.

[Walddk]

Chamaco, on Apr 20 2005, 07:26 AM, said:

On the other side we have "power-amateurs".
Power-amateurs are skilled players who do not live of bridge.
Some of them may be perhaps of the same level or even stronger than pros (I cannot judge), but I suppose many of them are not.
Above all, they play bridge as a pleasure, as a hobby, and, if they are not used to be exposed to Vugraph, and they wish to play at their best, I think it's only fair to respect their right not to be exposed.

I disagree. How can they get used to playing on vugraph if they don't practice? We were all nervous the first time we were exposed to the public, but this is like everything else in life: you get used to it sooner or later.

Very few live on bridge, so that is not a valid point. We would have very few broadcasts if players can refuse to be on vugraph because bridge is not their living.

Besides, 99% of our broadcasts are from domestic championships or better. If you want to compete at that level, you must accept the conditions, one of which must surely be to appear on vugraph when asked.

I agree with Frances that this must be pointed out in Conditions of Contest. Then people can choose to register for the event or not. I also accept people's right to refuse if it is not stated in the CoC.

Frances is also right regarding open and closed rooms. Whereas there is an open and closed room in real life (specs have no access to the closed room), there is not as far as broadcasts are concerned. You can't hide any more.

I think this is just how it should be.

Roland

[Chamaco]

Walddk, on Apr 20 2005, 12:46 PM, said:

I disagree. How can they get used to playing on vugraph if they don't practice?

Perhaps they do not care of getting used to Vugraph.
I would disagree with them, but it's a legitimate right.

i mean, the fact that we all (probably) disagree with such a position does not mean the position is not legitimate, and I think we should respect it.

[Chamaco]

Quote

Sorry for anyone that disagrees with my view,

No problem for me, Wayne !! :-)

Quote

it makes it sort of elitist, (I am the best and you have no right to watch me)

It may also be the other way around.
Let me try to explain my point with a real example.

During last Olympiads I watched the Vugraph of Italy vs San Marino.
San Marino is 10 kms from my hometown so I have friends who played there.

The first part of the match was ok for RSM, but in the second part, the pair in one room screw up board after board.

I went to watch the Vugraph commentaries in Italian: the Vugraph commentators were making fun board after board of the RSM players.
Every card played, every bid made was made ridiculous by the Vugraph commentators themselves.
This, to my opinion, was rather unfair.

Now, if I were a RSM player, I would ask the next time not to broadcast the match, to avoid being ridiculized and treated as a fool.

This would not be elitism, but rather lack of confidence if you like.

------------------------------------------------

In any case, I have been taught always to try to put myself in other person's shoes, and try to understand actions that I would not do: I personally would not refuse a Vugraph broadcast, but I think we should accept that other persons have different views than ours :-)

[Walddk]

Chamaco, on Apr 20 2005, 08:04 AM, said:

Walddk, on Apr 20 2005, 12:46 PM, said:

I disagree. How can they get used to playing on vugraph if they don't practice?

Perhaps they do not care of getting used to Vugraph.
I would disagree with them, but it's a legitimate right.

i mean, the fact that we all (probably) disagree with such a position does not mean the position is not legitimate, and I think we should respect it.

Let me ask you a direct question then. Team A enters a competition that will be broadcast on the internet for example. Team A's members don't like to appear on vugraph, and fortunately for them they haven't been asked to until they reach the semi-finals, or even finals.

Do you think it's their legitimate right to tell the organisers: "Sorry, but we don't want to appear on vugraph"?

So the chief tournament director or whoever must announce: "Sorry all, there will be no broadcast from the final. One team refuses to play on vugraph".

That has happened on BBO vugraph. Last year it was. I can assure that specs were not happy. Would you have been just before the climax of the event: the final?

Roland

[Chamaco]

Walddk, on Apr 20 2005, 01:22 PM, said:

That has happened on BBO vugraph. Last year it was. I can assure that specs were not happy. Would you have been just before the climax of the event: the final?

Roland,
perhaps my english is not good enough to explain subtleties:

1) I LOVE Vugraphs
2) if I were playing, in 95% of the cases (see my reply to Wayne for the 5%) I would never refuse the Vugraph broadcast

BUT:
I do not think an organization of competition can IMPOSE the Vugraph broadcast.

I think it's a right for players to say no, even if that makes me very sad, because I'd much prefer to view the finals.

This is just my opinion, though, and I do not think it matters so much :-)

[hrothgar]

Hi Roland

I very much agree that it is necessary to establish firm guidelines and standards regarding Vugraph. With this said and done, its critical to understand that you'd be opening Pandora's box and what comes out might not be to your liking...

There are some complex legal issues at play here. The most interesting probably surround the Intellectual Property rights surrounding the bidding / play. Within the United States, professional sports teams have asserted copyright to basic statistics such as baseball pitcher's ERA (Earned Run Average) or a batter's Slugging Percentage. Personally, I find such assertions ridiculous, but I don't get to make the Laws. If we extend the same principle to bridge, I could easily see the ACBL or the WBF attempting to claim copyrights over the hand records from major events like the Bermuda Bowl or the Vanderbilt. Here, once again, I would consider any such effort to be laughable. Most noteably I doubt that play records from the Bermuda Bowl will ever generate the same revenue as Fantasy Baseball. However, I've learn to never underestimate the venal nature of the the WBF...

I contend that "Bridge" is best served if Online Vugraph's are made widely available. I have argued on several occasions that major events such as the Bermuda Bowl should be held using an electronic playing environment simple to facilitate Vugraphs. With this said, and done, its important to focus on the word "Bridge". Note that I did not say "Bridge Pros"... As I noted in another thread, I don't care if Player XYZ loses his table feel because he's staring at a computer screen rather than studying his opponent looking for subtle tells.

I agree with the other posters that Vugraph needs to be built into the cnditions of contest. However, in addition to this I think that its critical to sort out the Copyright issues.

[Gerben42]

I think it is important to have these kinds of events on Vugraph. I also agree with Roland that if you enter an event that is scheduled to broadcast that you should accept being on Vugraph.

Of course as commentator you have to criticize bad play but we also applaud good play. That's what commentators do.

I did not play well my first time on Vugraph. The second time I played very well. If you keep running from the first time you will not have a second time!

[Walddk]

Chamaco, on Apr 20 2005, 08:30 AM, said:

BUT:
I do not think an organization of competition can IMPOSE the Vugraph broadcast.

They can and they should! At least we agree that we disagree.

Roland

[hotShot]

Everyone who posted here has a history to stand up and say what (s)he thinks. I don't think anybody of us would have a problem to adjust to being displayed at a vugraph (although of some of us might wonder why anyone should bother to watch...).
I had a colleague once who had to report about his excellent work at a conference, just 15 min about what he did last year. He could not eat starting from the evening before his talk and did not sleep all night.
We should accept that there are people that prefer to be audience.

I have read complains here in this forum of players that hated to know, that if they are the last table playing everybody is watching.

If not all player of a team are that shy, perhaps one should offer to leave the closed room alone.

[Chamaco]

hrothgar, on Apr 20 2005, 01:34 PM, said:

There are some complex legal issues at play here.  The most interesting probably surround the Intellectual Property rights surrounding the bidding / play.

That's a huge Pandora's box.

I had huge discussions in the chess newsgroups on this topic with my fellow chessplayers friends.

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on Apr 20 2005, 08:34 AM, said:

I agree with the other posters that Vugraph needs to be built into the cnditions of contest.  However, in addition to this I think that its critical to sort out the Copyright issues.

Which copyright? My initial post relates to appearing on vugraph or not. If it is clearly stated in the Conditions of Contest that everyone must accept to be on vugraph at any time if asked to by the organisers, there is not a copyright issue at all. Either you play according to the rules and regulations or you stay away from the tournament.

You can't enter a competition, knowing that the rules are such, and then later claim the right to refuse.

In other words: If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Roland