[FrancesHinden]

Appeals Committees: if you look at sports, the trend seems to be away from allowing the 'on-site' referee/TD/Umpire to have the final say and in favour of appeals - look at how e.g. cricket & tennis have changed where originally the umpire's decision was always final, and now players have a number of challenges available to correct clear misjudgements.

[mike777]

http://justinlall.com/

You might want to take the time and read Justin's blog entry for March 30 2012

------

http://webutil.bridg...tch.php?id=1116

Full interview with Bob H.

[Statto]

Re: bridge on TV.

It has been done before. There was a series on BBC2 (UK) in the 1980s featuring Zia Mahmood and 3 other good players of the time playing on a cruise ship, I guess rubber bridge because there were only the 4 of them. With expert commentary it seemed to work well, but doesn't appear to have been experimented with since, though I can't speak for all countries in the world...

[barmar]

Statto, on 2012-May-16, 19:15, said:

Re: bridge on TV.

It has been done before. There was a series on BBC2 (UK) in the 1980s featuring Zia Mahmood and 3 other good players of the time playing on a cruise ship, I guess rubber bridge because there were only the 4 of them. With expert commentary it seemed to work well, but doesn't appear to have been experimented with since, though I can't speak for all countries in the world...

And of course there was the "Championship Bridge with Charles Goren" series in the early 60's. It was also rubber bridge, and episodes would have celebrity players in addition to bridge champions. There's a YouTube video of the episode with Chico Marx:



But there's a big difference between this style of bridge, which is more like party bridge, with plenty of table talk. Televising a major bridge tournament would be very different.

[nigel_k]

People watch stuff because it's on TV. They don't have to understand it. If baseball or cricket was only watched by people who understand what is going on, those sports would never be on TV. You just need entertaining commentary and the occasional ball disappearing over a fence and people will tune in. The hard part is getting it on TV in the first place.

Possibly the answer is a bridge reality show. We can watch jlall brushing his teeth and maybe they throw in a couple of bridge hands as well.

[barmar]

nigel_k, on 2012-May-17, 14:03, said:

People watch stuff because it's on TV. They don't have to understand it. If baseball or cricket was only watched by people who understand what is going on, those sports would never be on TV.

I'll bet that in most households where it's being watched, at least one of the viewers understands the game. Others may be watching it to socialize with them, but they're probably not going to tune in on their own just because it's on. Maybe there are a small number of people who just like sports, and will find any kind of sports to watch, but I don't think a TV broadcaster can really depend on them.

It's possible that a niche cable channel like ESPN2 could put on a show like this, since they typically show lower-interest sports.

[mike777]

doubt without violence or gambling or sex you can expect an audience, a large enough one.

Poker at least has the gambling and the verbal, emotional violence in the game. There is certainly an undercurrent of violence in the game of Poker and hints of sex.


Football has all three factors but very heavy on the gambling and violence.

With Bobby Fisher and Chess you had the emotional violence and the whole USA vs the evil USSR thing going...

[the hog]

barmar, on 2012-May-16, 13:13, said:

I don't think anyone was doing that, they were just expressing their disagreement. Isn't that the point of this thread -- to discuss what we think of Hamman's ideas? Some expressed their opinions sarcastically, is that a problem?

Mine was not a sarcastic reply. In our notes my regular partner had defences to 3 card minor openings. They were written. Maybe 3 card minors are "natural" to Hamman; they aren't to me or to Acol players.


So Trinidad, my question is legitimate. Would he want 3, (or less in the case of Clubs), card minor openings banned?

[Hanoi5]

So, why doesn't Mr Hamman himself initiate this Individual Bridge League with money prizes?

[billw55]

nigel_k, on 2012-May-17, 14:03, said:

People watch stuff because it's on TV. They don't have to understand it. If baseball or cricket was only watched by people who understand what is going on, those sports would never be on TV. You just need entertaining commentary and the occasional ball disappearing over a fence and people will tune in. The hard part is getting it on TV in the first place.

Possibly the answer is a bridge reality show. We can watch jlall brushing his teeth and maybe they throw in a couple of bridge hands as well.

The general conclusion that people will watch anything that is on seems doubtful. Perhaps, anything will get a few viewers, but a lot of programming doesn't get enough. Dozens of shows are cancelled every year. The stations and networks delivering these shows keep very careful track of what is being watched in meaningful numbers, and what is not. If anything was good enough, none of this would be necessary.

[barmar]

mike777, on 2012-May-17, 20:39, said:

doubt without violence or gambling or sex you can expect an audience, a large enough one.

I don't think any of these figure into the popularity of golf, though. In this case, I think it's the fact that most of its audience actually plays the game, and they tend to be an upscale demographic (when there was a rain delay that caused the final round of the Masters to be bumped to Monday, it caused an enormous spike in Internet traffic due to corporate executives watching it online from their offices).

[TimG]

barmar, on 2012-May-17, 19:51, said:

I'll bet that in most households where it's being watched, at least one of the viewers understands the game.

There are casual (from an understanding of the game standpoint) baseball fans out there watching games on a regular basis. I'd bet that a significant portion of the regular viewership of Red Sox games couldn't tell you the rules regarding when a ball is fair or foul, much less teach children how the ball should come in from the outfield in various score/out/baserunner situations.

In the same way, there is likely a significant portion of the poker watching audience that can't remember whether a flush beats a straight or the other way around.

[barmar]

I don't think we're talking about knowing as much about the game as a professional or umpire, but just knowing enough so that they can understand what's going on on the field.

Most poker TV shows I've seen include a quickie tutorial at the beginning: what beats what, and the mechanics of Texas Hold-Em -- it takes less than a minute to bring someone who knows the rudiments of poker up to speed. It would be hard to do anything similar for bridge, though.

[Trinidad]

the hog, on 2012-May-17, 21:02, said:

So Trinidad, my question is legitimate. Would he want 3, (or less in the case of Clubs), card minor openings banned?

I don't know (I think it is unlikely). But I don't care as long as Hamman is not in a position to make decisions like that. Out of respect for one of the very best players of the game, I regard his view as "interesting", whether I agree or disagree with it.

Rik

[barmar]

We're not in the days of Harold Vanderbilt, when a lone authority can make radical changes to the game. If any changes were to take place, it would have to involve deliberations of a committee, approval from a board of directors, etc. Players like Hamman do have some influence, but I'll bet they'd take JLall's opinions into consideration as well. Even Bobby Wolff, who was extremely active in ACBL politics, didn't get his way all the time.

[the hog]

" I regard his view as "interesting", whether I agree or disagree with it."
Interesting as in the Chinese sense? I regard his views as misguided at best and mischievous at worst.

[Statto]

barmar, on 2012-May-18, 11:14, said:

I don't think we're talking about knowing as much about the game as a professional or umpire, but just knowing enough so that they can understand what's going on on the field.

Most poker TV shows I've seen include a quickie tutorial at the beginning: what beats what, and the mechanics of Texas Hold-Em -- it takes less than a minute to bring someone who knows the rudiments of poker up to speed. It would be hard to do anything similar for bridge, though.

If you assume the audience knows how to play whist, then run through what the bidding means in terms of how many tricks you are hoping to make with a better than average hand? And counting MW points to determine if you have a better than average hand. Then the experts cut in on the commentary saying why some 9 hcp distributional hand is worth an opening bid, or not.

Simples.

Anyway, they don't do that much on poker on TV now, they assume you already know.

[Trinidad]

the hog, on 2012-May-18, 18:01, said:

" I regard his view as "interesting", whether I agree or disagree with it."
Interesting as in the Chinese sense? I regard his views as misguided at best and mischievous at worst.

I don't know what you mean by "the Chinese sense", but I will clarify what I mean by "interesting". Let me know if that is "in the Chinese sense".

I find Hamman's view more interesting than Aunt Millie's and less interesting than the view of members of the WBFLC or Gianarrigo Rona.

And note that it is possible for views to be both interesting and misguided (or mischievous) at the same time.

Rik

[kevperk]

the hog, on 2012-May-17, 21:02, said:

Mine was not a sarcastic reply. In our notes my regular partner had defences to 3 card minor openings. They were written. Maybe 3 card minors are "natural" to Hamman; they aren't to me or to Acol players.


So Trinidad, my question is legitimate. Would he want 3, (or less in the case of Clubs), card minor openings banned?

As I posted earlier, his ban was referring to agreements that currently (in the ACBL) require users to provide a written defense (one that is approved by the ACBL) in order to play, ie. some Midchart conventions.

[the hog]

The Chinese sense is in the form of the Chinese saying "We live in interesting times". For example, looking at current stock market and financial trends, we could say "These are interesting times".