Abysmal Commentary.

[pigpenz]

I am still mad about the comments made by one commentator when our Lusky team was playing.  Sour grapes is an understatement.

 

Of course I was super sensitive to it as they were personal friends but it still seemed unprofessional coming from a bridge legend.

 

Jo Anne

District 20 President (Home of the Lusky team)

being former district 20 recorder I agree

[Rossoneri]

And now for the HK Inter-city bridge we finally have no commentators....So even if I wanted to point out that Patrick Choy is (or maybe was, I'm not very sure if he still is) an active member in the WBF and Esther Khunying is the PABF President, I have no commentator to tell :)

 

Matmat seems to be enjoying the silence though, last I spoke to him.

 

Edit: There seems to be a commentator in my room, but I can't seem to msg him privately.

[Finch]

Perhaps part of the problem was that (as usual) the Spingold broadcasts appeared to be scheduled at the last minute and Roland didn't seem to be involved in organising the commentators? He normally gives us a great mix of commentators who are usually just right for a particular event.

Rumors come around, Mr Vu has been seen enjoying english summer in the noble cricket atmosphere of The Oval, with the cool drink in the hand ;)

He has indeed. I have finally met him in person.

[jillybean]

Well there you go, who allowed Roland to have a day off?

[inquiry]

I was unable to see the commentators, since I was in Vegas. But for the most part I think commentors have a difficult time. Note the comments above about commentors being harsh on certain players, etc. Also good commentators should bring aspects of the personalities to the kibitzers.

 

Commentators can have a hard time, do they point out problems the players might have faced and failed upon.

 

Imagine you are commentating on this world class event hand from a recent event......

 

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=sqj95hq9dk763c764&w=sk87hj873daqt9ck3&e=sa4h654dj85cqt985&s=st632hakt2d42caj2]399|300|Scoring: IMP

1♣* - (P) - 1♦* - (P)

1♥* - (P) - 1NT - (all pass)

[/hv]

 

This hand provided a lot of potential for discussion and commentary. Some of which would not have been very flattering to one or the other pair if it had been stated. West opened a polish 1♣, and the comments about the bidding were, well, less than totally helpful.

 

One person suggested that they thought EW played polish club, another agreed, and 1♥ was explained as it could be a weak NT hand with only 3♥'s. No one discussed the options for NS on the bidding (should south double 1♦, or even what 1♦ was), nor how the bidding might go at the other table where a natural bidding system was used EW (the bidding would be 1♦ by west, not 1♣ and 1NT by EAST, so the question is would South double 1NT for takeout at the other table and what would double of 1♦ be at this table? Diamonds? Takeout?) A discussion of this issues would have benefitial I think.

 

The commentators did tell us what EW use to play before they adopted polish 1♣ however. Next no one discussed options for the opening lead, and when south lead the heart ACE and north played the heart nine, no one discussed rather south might take the heart nine might be "encouraging" (normal count/attitude) or discouraging (upside/down count and attitude), nor advantage of EAST false-carding with the five of hearts instead of an honest four. South made the excellent switch to the spade 2 and got an obviously encouraging nine from north, so the hand should be open book now. East would have raised hearts with four, and partner would not encourage with 9x of hearts, nor waste the heart nine from Q9x, so south should guess north has Q9 doubleton heart and good spades. Not including the ACE.

 

No one discussed rather EAST should play for duck a diamond here playing for down one, or try to make by going after clubs, nor after the club king held, which way to play. No one pointed out that NS gave very honest counts in the suits lead by declearer (clubs now, diamonds later). Instead the discussion was rather or not EW was about national teams and players from various countries (not about the hand in question... during the play). And discussion of partnerships no longer playing together or either player still in this event. Then, when South took the second club, and cleared spades. East gave up on clubs (no entry) and lost the diamond hook. Now he was sure down three when the hook lost...

 

North took the diamond king, cashed top spade and played spade to south's ten. Who took the club jack in this position....

 

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=sqj95hq9dk763c764&w=sk87hj873daqt9ck3&e=sa4h654dj85cqt985&s=st632hakt2d42caj2]399|300|Scoring: IMP

1♣* - (P) - 1♦* - (P)

1♥* - (P) - 1NT - (all pass)

[/hv]

 

This is now VERY hard for the commentors. What should the commentors say after this HUGE blunder by south? Would something like "a blind spot by south", or "how the hell could south miss the endplay on dummy"? Be too harsh? It was clear this was an obvious blind spot and it is equally clear all the kibitzer saw it too. One doesn't want to beat south up for the misplay. But the commentors actually said....

 

"n/s got all their tricks

good def"

 

Really? One has to wonder if the commentors were watching at all. Perhaps this "good def(ence)" comment was made to avoid humiliating the south player. But I suspect the commentors were not watching nor thinking about the hand. In fact, during the entire hand, there was not one useful comment about the bidding (if you skip the fact that "are they playing polish club" might be a useful comment) and the discussion of what a 1♥ bid might be. And absolutely no comment about the play, other than the quote above.

 

Fortunately, the standard of commenting is much higher than what was displayed on this hand as a whole, and bear in mind... it is very important not to try to show how much smarter you (the commentor who can see all 4 hands) is than the player (who sees only their hand and dummy). So sometimes, a commentator has to bite their lip when a play like the one above happens... we all make mistakes, even the best players as this hand shows.

[nige1]

I didn't watch much of the Spingold but for the few other events I have kibitzed, the standard of commentary has been pretty good -- especially, if you choose commentators like David Burn. I enjoy the humour; and the odd snippet of autobiographical information adds interest.

 

I guess it is quite hard to comment on-line with the constant worry that you may make a mistake in analysis or just duplicate what others are typing.

 

It would be great if the gist of each pair's system card were fed to BBO's Full Disclosure software, so that kibitzers could click on some calls to discover their meaning.

[TimG]

especially, if you choose commentators like David Burn.

 

It would be great if the gist of each pair's system card were fed to BBO's Full Disclosure software, so that kibitzers could click on some calls to discover their meaning.

Yes, I often choose which table to kibitz by looking to see where David is doing commentary.

 

As for system, in a WBF or USBF event (or others) where system cards are available online, commentators ought to be responsible for briefly reviewing the cards of those playing in the matches for which they are doing commentary. And, when something comes up that they are not sure about, they should first refer to the card rather than making blind guesses or asking if anyone knows what is going on.

[Finch]

As for system, in a WBF or USBF event (or others) where system cards are available online, commentators ought to be responsible for briefly reviewing the cards of those playing in the matches for which they are doing commentary. And, when something comes up that they are not sure about, they should first refer to the card rather than making blind guesses or asking if anyone knows what is going on.

When I commentate, I always look up the system cards. They are rarely any use beyond opening bid and possibly first response. It is also normal to receive lots of private messages telling you what the bidding means, many disagreeing with each other.

[matmat]

When I commentate, I always look up the system cards. They are rarely any use beyond opening bid and possibly first response. It is also normal to receive lots of private messages telling you what the bidding means, many disagreeing with each other.

hehe... well... you weren't commenting during the LV nationals :/. And it was pretty clear that a bunch of the people that were had no clue about the systems in place, or, for that matter, even about some of the easier standard bids...

[Walddk]

Perhaps part of the problem was that (as usual) the Spingold broadcasts appeared to be scheduled at the last minute and Roland didn't seem to be involved in organising the commentators? He normally gives us a great mix of commentators who are usually just right for a particular event.

Rumors come around, Mr Vu has been seen enjoying english summer in the noble cricket atmosphere of The Oval, with the cool drink in the hand :)

He has indeed. I have finally met him in person.

Indeed. We had a very pleasant evening in a French restaurant. jallerton (Jeffrey Allerton, Frances' husband) and eggy (Steve Eginton) were also present.

 

As for the cricket I did not make it to The Oval, but I was at Lord's and Rose Bowl in Southampton for the Twenty20 Cup Finals Day. Must have been because of me that my team, Middlesex, won the trophy.

 

I have been away for 9 days and allowed myself not to have access to a laptop. Even if I had been at home, there is no guarantee that I would have been able to recruit better commentators.

 

Back now, and I'll try hard, as usual.

 

Roland

[peachy]

I am pretty sure I know who the "pompous misanalyst" is that folks here were talking about. Maybe someone could cue Roland in on that person's identity.

[jkdood]

yes good idea peachy, Please tell him:)

[Guest Jlall]

I am pretty sure I know who the "pompous misanalyst" is that folks here were talking about. Maybe someone could cue Roland in on that person's identity.

Don't out me!

[jkdood]

No way, Justin. It's a MissAnalyst we're talkin about :D , not a MisterAnalyst

[peachy]

yes good idea peachy, Please tell him:)

Why me? You tell!

[jkdood]

"Why me?"

 

Your Good Idea!!! :D

[inquiry]

To get back on track about commentating, I don;t think it was necessarily abysmal. The commentators try to liven the game up, and fill the time between teh very slow play of the participants. Having said that, there are great commentators, good commentators, and not so good commentators. If anyone is wondering which is which, it is easy enough to open any of the vugraph files on the bridgebase webpage and click on different vugraph events and read the comments while looking at the hands to determine which commentators you prefer (david burns is a great one, as pointed out earlier).

 

Things to look for with good commentors.

1. Do they talk about bidding issues on the hand during the auction?
   
2. Do they give insight to the options (bid a versus bid :blink: during this time?
   
3. Do they give more than the fleeting "3NT was off one at the other table when all the kibitzers can see the result in the little box right on their own screen
   
4. Do they give useful carding/lead information early in the play.
   
5. Do they analyze the hands as to the best line, regardless of where the cards are actually sitting.
   
6. Do they assume a lowest common denominator so explain bids, rather than just say "michaels" or "too strong for 1NT" rather than elaborate on what those statements mean.
   

Things bad commentators do:

1. Speak publically to every kibitzer they know (usually hello and goodbyes)
   
2. Only make cursory remarks about the hand (if at all) ("4♠ made at the other table and will make here too" for instance as the only comment about a given hand
   
3. Go on at legnth about issues unrelated to the bridge hand before us, and often not even making any comments at all on the given hand.
   
4. When (rarely) making comments about play it seems comments are based upon GIB and not serious analysis. Reason being, comments are far from bridge related issue or simply not true.
   
5. The bridge to non-bridge ratio of comments is less than 0.4 (often less than 0.1).
   

Of course on any given hand, a commentator might take the hand off, or not be their best. But if you look through the files (or a few of them), you will quickly determine which commentators meet your personal standards of commentating. Here is one hand where I think the commenting could have gone better.

 

[hv=n=sa865h3dk97642ca6&w=sj743ht9752dackt8&e=sqt2h8dqj3cqj9742&s=sk9hakqj64dt85c53]399|300|1h 2d

2h 3d

3h 4h

all pass[/hv]

 

The comments started with "other room 3NT was down one" (3N -1 was on screen for all to read. No one talked about 3NT being a better contract (in theory) than 4♥, winning 6♥, 2♠ and a ♣ against normal heart splits, while 4♥ might lose 3♦ and a club against normal distributions.

 

After a spade opening lead, won by declarer.... the commentors missed the entire point of the hand, and made several errors in analysis. In fact, thier entire analysis ... every point seemed to miss the mark on this hand.

 

The play was spade to the king, heart ace and king. The key to the play of the hands is interesting, and not all that difficult. Declarer, running into the 5-1 trump split, has to elope with his two small trumps (6♥, 1♦, 1♣, 2♠.) For this he needs to ruff two spades == or at least threaten to ruff two spades ==, so he needs entries to dummy, which he has. On the queen of hearts, however, he chose kept all those long, and useless diamonds, and threw away on of his incredibly valuable small spades. Here is how the play should go....

 

Win the queen of hearts and lead a diamond immediately. Can not afford fourth heart, or East returns a heart killing one of declarers small trumps. East wins the diamond ACE, no return matters, lets assume a club. Win ACE, cash spade ace, ruff a spade... Play the heart jack to pull EAST down to one trump (declarer too).. then lead a diamond in this position...

 

[hv=n=sa865h3dk97642ca6&w=sj743ht9752dackt8&e=sqt2h8dqj3cqj9742&s=sk9hakqj64dt85c53]399|300|1h 2d

2h 3d

3h 4h

all pass[/hv]

 

Perhaps the elopement is hard to see, and neat hands are often missed, but still the discussion on this hand surely missed the mark, talking about setting up diamonds for a club pitch, and a great teaching hand was missed for the kibitzers. (Even the theortical comparision of 3NT versus 4♥ was missed... ) All the necessary components were there for finding the elopment play, even to the third best spade opening lead giving count. With no chance for a diamond establishment, no reasonable chance for a squeeze, and four certain losers, elopement seems the only straw to grasp too to boot. One wonders how many of the kibitzers noticed the trump elopment play, the situation was textbook for this standard play so i am sure several must have saw it. It is a shame others did not get to see it and learn from this neat ending. Clearly the great commentators would not have missed this elopement play, this is why as kibitizers, it might be more useful to pick who is commenting rather than who is playing.... :)

[Walddk]

I agree with most of what Ben writes, but there are a few issues one must take into consideration:

 

- 1. It is an unpaid job to be a vugraph commentator.

- 2. You can't get the best every time.

- 3. Number of tables being broadcast.

- 4. Written commentary compared to voice commentary.

- 5. The majority of spectators are not experts.

 

Regarding ...

 

1) You get what you pay for (no offence intended, Fred & Uday).

 

2) It is obviously impossible to get the star commentators when they must give (time) rather than receive (money). Time difference is also an issue.

 

3) We often have many simultaneous broadcasts, or/and several tables from one event. Just go back to the European Championships 6-7 weeks ago where we had 12-16 tables three times a day for two weeks. Money or no money, how can one expect to get around 70-80 top class commentators every day for so long? It is not going to happen.

 

4) It is much more difficult to work with written commentary. Using voice you can express your views more or less instantly, whereas one has to think, analyse and type at the same time when using written commentary. Some are slow typists.

 

5) It's a fact that the vast majority of our spectators are average club players or below. While I agree that the analysis provided by for example David Burn, Kit Woolsey and Michael Rosenberg is splendid, it is also true that some of it is way over most people's heads.

 

My point is that not only do we need very good analysts, we also need other commentators who can explain some of the basic stuff. I know for a fact that many of our spectators appreciate that. Vugraph presentations are not only for experts; they are also supposed to be entertaining and educational for lesser players.

 

By and large it's my impression that we have got a little of everything among the 287 potential commentators on my contact list. It is far from perfect, but given the circumstances I think it's good value for (no) money.

 

Roland

[matmat]

I agree with most of what Ben writes, but there are a few issues one must take into consideration:

 

- 1. It is an unpaid job to be a vugraph commentator.

- 2. You can't get the best every time.

- 3. Number of tables being broadcast.

- 4. Written commentary compared to voice commentary.

- 5. The majority of spectators are not experts.

 

Regarding ...

 

1) You get what you pay for (no offence intended, Fred & Uday).

 

2) It is obviously impossible to get the star commentators when they must give (time) rather than receive (money). Time difference is also an issue.

 

3) We often have many simultaneous broadcasts, or/and several tables from one event. Just go back to the European Championships 6-7 weeks ago where we had 12-16 tables three times a day for two weeks. Money or no money, how can one expect to get around 70-80 top class commentators every day for so long? It is not going to happen.

 

4) It is much more difficult to work with written commentary. Using voice you can express your views more or less instantly, whereas one has to think, analyse and type at the same time when using written commentary. Some are slow typists.

 

5) It's a fact that the vast majority of our spectators are average club players or below. While I agree that the analysis provided by for example David Burn, Kit Woolsey and Michael Rosenberg is splendid, it is also true that some of it is way over most people's heads.

 

My point is that not only do we need very good analysts, we also need other commentators who can explain some of the basic stuff. I know for a fact that many of our spectators appreciate that. Vugraph presentations are not only for experts; they are also supposed to be entertaining and educational for lesser players.

 

By and large it's my impression that we have got a little of everything among the 287 potential commentators on my contact list. It is far from perfect, but given the circumstances I think it's good value for (no) money.

 

Roland

1. agree. i also understand that it can be a thankless job.

 

2. true. but perhaps in certain cases it would be better not have anyone at all?

 

3. there is nothing wrong with leaving some fraction of the tables without commentary. Or, perhaps, there is no need to have so much vugraph (yes, I am going to get whacked for this comment, aren't I?)

 

4. again, you're right. _However_ for the commentators i had in mind with the OP, typing speed was not an issue at all. lines flew by the screen at the speed of light. problem was, thinking wasn't an issue for them either...

 

5. yes. but a good commentator will appreciate that and be able to touch all levels of spectators. sort of like a good teacher will help the slow kids along as well as interest the brighter ones.

[Walddk]

Or, perhaps, there is no need to have so much vugraph (yes, I am going to get whacked for this comment, aren't I?)

You won't be whacked by me. 14-16 tables from France was a bit over the top if you ask me. On the other hand, I am in two minds, because with all those tables we also give our viewers from say Belgium the chance to watch their heroes.

 

We don't get more spectators though. The number will just be spread over the 16 tables rather than if we only had 4.

 

Regarding the number of broadcasts, there is one issue I do not want to touch. I am not going to tell any organiser that "your tournament is not worthy of a broadcast."

 

I agree that some broadcasts are more interesting than others and that sometimes it is difficult to get enough commentators for lesser events. However, in our guidelines, we have the following paragraphs:

 

"Please be aware that occasionally several tournaments broadcast on the same day. In this event, it may be difficult for us to provide you with a full commentary staff. I will let you know if I think this may be an issue.

 

Tournament organisers also have the option of contacting local experts and asking if they would be willing to provide online commentary for some number of sessions. This may be a particularly attractive option for smaller tournaments, even if BBO commentators are available.

 

Local experts have the advantage of being familiar with the players and the events, and the first-hand information and anecdotes they are able to provide is always well received by the online audience."

 

Roland

[JoAnneM]

I have a definite opinion about the commentators and their "volunteer" status. These people are professional players and these commentating stints are nothing more than free advertising for them, and if they haven't realized that then they are not very smart.

 

If I like a commentator I might go buy his book.

 

If I like a commentator I might hire him.

 

If I like a commentator I might take his cruise.

 

Where else am I going to get a personal glimpse of these commentators? Certainly not at the bridge table where the ACBL has neatly shielded them from the run-of-the-mill members with their bracketed knockouts and special rooms for the NABC+ events.

 

And, the reverse is true. If one of these commentators turns me off, as one certainly did, then I am very disappointed and sorry I have two of his books in my house, and there won't be anymore coming in.

 

I would think that they should be paying for the privilege of commentating, and putting on a good display of their bridge expertise.

[Echognome]

I'm sure Roland can verify this, but I know several commentators that are not professional players. They commentate for love of the game. I highly suspect that the professional players that commentate do not need the clientele or do not view commentating as a money generating activity (although I concede that it may happen indirectly). I just don't believe they do it with that intent.

[cherdano]

I think most commentators commentate because they have fun commentating.

[Walddk]

I'm sure Roland can verify this, but I know several commentators that are not professional players. They commentate for love of the game. I highly suspect that the professional players that commentate do not need the clientele or do not view commentating as a money generating activity (although I concede that it may happen indirectly). I just don't believe they do it with that intent.

You are absolutely right. Only a tiny percentage is professional players and/or bridge authors. Sure, some of them are (also) there to nurse their egos, but I don't think it's the main objective.

 

Therefore, I strongly disagree with JoAnne's last paragraph. One thing is that you don't get paid for working, another thing is that you must pay to be of service for thousands of other people.

 

That would be the certain way of getting rid of all commentators once and for all. I don't think this is what JoAnne wants.

 

Roland

[Walddk]

I think most commentators commentate because they have fun commentating.

Spot on! It is also a privilege and honour to be invited to commentate. At least that is how I see it, and I have a feeling that almost every commentator agrees with me.

 

Roland