Cavendish Commentary

[Sigi_BC84]

1)  Regarding changes to BBO, I personally see no reason to add chat boxes, or do a re-write, or whatever...BBO works great as it is, and we are all thankful that it is here.  [but, then again, I still think Goren is alive, so what do I know?  :-))  ]

Taking that kind of position you never exceed a certain (average) level of quality with a software product (or any product). Having said that, I have heard your point being made before. Maybe it depends mainly on how much one expects from a piece of software and maybe too how much experience one has with computer games and social software (I don't have much experience developing either, but I have used quite a few so certain ideas about how it should look come to mind naturally when I'm using BBO).

 

What makes BBO great in the first place is the community, and the company's dedication to the community and Fred's idealism. It is time for the software to meet this high standard.

 

Anyways if the client was total crap nobody would be using it, so that certainly has not been suggested by anyone.

 

Fred has said already that a redesign/rewrite of the client is overdue, I'm not going to turn this into the second horse waiting to be beaten to death now :-).

 

--Sigi

[glen]

Love the idea of multiple channels - genX is about inclusive not exclusive - oh wait, ACBL bridge is not genX compatible.

 

A great redesign/rewrite crusade is part and parcel(*) of software development nights. However I'm perplexed about why the crusade will take X months. Whatever happened to building complete apps in X days? Did somebody switch to decaf?

 

(*)http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/part+and+parcel

[Blofeld]

Multiple channels would be absolutely great!

 

So consider this a plea that they be considered for the new build.

[Karen Allison]

>>I also agree that it is nice to see some of the regular commentators showing Roland the loyalty and support that he clearly deserves, but I think that those who are refusing to be involved in the Cavendish production are overreacting.

<<

 

I must disagree here, Fred. This was a slap in the face to Roland and to the commentators who have put their hearts and souls into making each and every event as interesting and exciting as the Cavendish Pairs. They are saying what? That we are good enough for 'other' events, but not their 'prime' event? Sorry, I do not buy it and obviously neither do the other commentators who have refused the invitation to slight Roland.

[HedyG]

Karen's words come straight from my heart! of course this is an insult to Roland and to his commentators.

the regular BBO vugraph broadcasts are certainly the best on the web and that is thanks to Roland and his "crew".

so the best isnt good enough for some?they can do better? i dont think so...not according to the messages the specs of the Cavendish have been sending me!

actually in the end it has just been proof that Roland does the job best!

[DenisO]

The Vugraphs of the Teams event in the BBO archive are pretty poor. Normally SDoty is on of the best operators around but maybe her coordinating role for the commentary is affecting the archiving.

 

There are no worthwhile records for Matches 1, 2, 4 and 8 - some missing completely!. There is something for Match 5 with Fred/ Michael Rosenberg playing in the OR but I don't think they are supposed to be there - well not according to the Cavendish web site.

 

Hope they can do better for the Pairs event.

[Walddk]

The Vugraphs of the Teams event in the BBO archive are pretty poor. Normally SDoty is on of the best operators around but maybe her coordinating role for the commentary is affecting the archiving.

 

There are no worthwhile records for Matches 1, 2, 4 and 8 - some missing completely!. There is something for Match 5 with Fred/ Michael Rosenberg playing in the OR but I don't think they are supposed to be there - well not according to the Cavendish web site.

 

Hope they can do better for the Pairs event.

Susan was originally also supposed to be operating in Las Vegas. It's obviously up to her to decide if she wants to tell why that did not happen. But I agree with you Denis: Susan is definitely one of the best operators we have.

 

Roland

[fred]

As far as I am concerned, any regular commentators that feels the need to get involved in a public discussion of these issues either has:

 

1) Extremely poor social skills and judgment

 

or

 

2) A massive and overly sensitive ego

 

or

 

3) The inability to listen to read or comprehend what others have written

 

or

 

4) A tendency to leap to conclusions that are not supported by the facts

 

or

 

5) Some combination of the above

 

All of these qualities are undesirable in a vugraph commentator. If I was running a bridge tournament I would not want such people being the public face of my event either.

 

The Cavendish organizers are financing these broadcasts. The Cavendish staff and players are inconvenienced by these broadcasts. These broadcasts compromise the security of the one and only bridge tournament where there is serious money at stake.

 

How do you think the organizers might feel if they read some of the comments here?

 

A natural reaction might be "Screw these people. We don't need to be publicly embarrassed. We won't be doing any more Internet broadcasts on BBO".

 

Your service to BBO and the world's bridge players is certainly appreciated, but are you really doing this for the "right reasons" (to contribute)? Your posts make it seem like this is just a big ego trip for you.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[rona_]

Susan Doty in my view, has done a terrific job so far. All the commentators I kibbed in about 5 matches were wonderful PLUS. Larry Cohen was a treat! The Cavendish used one of the options that was offered to them by BBO so why we are starting world war III here. Why can't everyone support Susan in what she is doing instead of trying to pull the rug from under her feet... :D

[Elianna]

I think that the Cavendish commentating is likely to be the best commentating effort I've seen on BBO. I really appreciate that Susan has found (or is that "taught") commentators that STAY ON SUBJECT.

 

I don't believe that she elected this option as a slight to BBO/Roland/etc., but even if she did, I feel that she has definitely seen an area that was not going so well, and improved on it.

 

This was an event that she is responsible for. If I had a huge event in which it was important to present a good public image, and my being retained for next year depended on it, would I retain my ability to be responsible for that image, or would I turn it over to someone else, who is responsible for all other vugraphs, and thus doesn't have a vested interest in making MY vugraph the best? I know which I'd choose. (This is not an insult to Roland, I know that he tries to make every vugraph special. I'm just pointing out that people like to be in control of their own destiny.)

[Al_U_Card]

To each their own. Style, like taste, is subjective and personal. The little that I have seen of the commentary has been succinct, to the point and uncluttered with personal asides and jocularities. Which do I prefer? Depends on my mood. Am I glad that the two can (hopefully) coexist? You bet! More power to all of you.

[bid_em_up]

What is not being said directly, and I am inferring is (and I could be entirely off-base):

 

The Cavendish asked Susan to be the onsite tournament/vugraph operator/coordinator for their event, due to her prior experience.

 

She felt that as such, it was her responsibility to select the commentators herself (rightfully so, imo).

 

If the coordinator position is a "paid" position, then it is definitely her responsibility to select the commentators herself, rather than delegate it to someone else, since their performance will reflect on her.

 

It is always possible that there are certain people that the Cavendish organizers would prefer not to have commenting and how do you tell Roland to invite everyone but abc and xyz? Or please exclude commentators from a given country? I have no idea if this was a reason, but even if it was....it is their tournament. They can choose who they want or do not want as their commentators as they see fit, along with whether or not it is broadcast at all.

 

In either case (Susan or Roland), both do excellent jobs. Be thankful that the organizers have allowed the vugraph to be broadcast for the world to see.

 

I know I am. ;)

 

I just wish I didnt have to work today!! (No bbo access) :D

[andych]

Susan doesnt owe anyone an explanation of her decison.

She has already indeed explained very clearly her rational.

 

Is Roland being a coordinator handling a tough job?

I think so. So does Susan.

 

Is the VG previously organised 'wonderful', 'fantastic', etc?

I think it is overrated. There has been preivous posts that people are too tired of the # of cokes.

 

Some previous commentators reject Susan invitation.

No big deal. The best players are playing. There are not that many hands double dummy that needs so much bridge talent to make a difference. Get someone presnetable, humorous. There is not too much related to bridge skills for a good commentator. If one could get e.g. jec & his crews in BBO to be the commentators it is another story.

 

Is it 100% voluntary work?

Coordinators shd be getting fun themselves.

 

Roland deserves the support for what he has done.

Why dont we extend the same support to Susan?

 

Everyone has their own choice, be a personal/objective. There is nothing wrong for 'I simply like xxxxx to be the coordinator'.

 

Does Susan need to do a better job in order that she take over the coordination?

Not necessarily. If she is not up to it, she would not be able to continue next year. But there is nothing wrong to be in control of one's destiny.

 

 

Looking fwd to the event, and would like to see something different.

 

:D ;)

[inquiry]

Events shown on Vugraph have always had the option of providing the commentators, when they do, it is THEIR choice, and they don't need to explain their reasons. Having said that, Susan and the Cavendish have exercised their option and that should be all the explaination anyone needs. Speculation as to why they did is not helpful. I could speculate, for instance that their reason was a discussion that started "oh my god, we have not control over the commentators and Roland might let that --inquiry-- guy comment. To make sure that doesn't happen, we will appoint all of them." Or, "wouldn't it be great if we matched up the perfect mix of commentors that we would like see doing to the broadcast, we know just who we want." But it really doesn't matter why.

 

The board moderators have discussed this thread and decided that further "debate" which is evolving into two camps (one "Roland was screwed" and the other "sdoty is doing a great job") is not benifitial. So for the time being, we are locking this thread. The reason being that little more needs to be said on this issue. I will just add in closing.

 

Thank you Roland for your tireless effort to organize commentators

Thank you Cavendish organizers for allowing the Vugraph to be broadcast

Thank you Susan for your efforts to make the 2006 broadcast a success

Thank you Fred and Uday for allowing free access to these broadcast.