Abysmal Commentary.

[dburn]

"You would (maybe) change your mind on this matter if you would be confront with 68 private messages in 5 seconds about your comment during VU"

 

Well, more power to the commentators that can manage it!!  To me, that's 68 interested helpful involved engaged specs wanting to share with an available "privileged" speaker!!

 

(I'm sure thoughtful accurate insightful useful comments by the commentator don't "usually" get such an overload  B)  :P  )

Although the number of private messages one receives can at times seem overwhelming, and a small percentage of them are merely irritating, most are either from genuine seekers after knowledge or from helpful people who know the methods being played or have spotted an obvious mistake in one's analysis. I try to reply to all of them (even the irritating ones) but I am sure that I miss a few from time to time, and I apologise to anyone whose insights I have overlooked at critical moments.

 

As has been suggested, it is highly desirable to have a mixture of commentators who address the more abstruse features of a deal and those who are good at explaining the more basic points. I am hopeless at the latter, which is why it is always a pleasure to work with fellow commentators such as David Bird, Debbie Rosenberg or Sabine Auken, who are very good at it indeed (others also fall into this category). I will try to do better on occasions when such fine commentators are not sharing the "microphone".

 

It is, I suppose, inevitable that a group such as the BBO commentary team (which must be many hundred strong by now) will develop certain idiosyncrasies, "in-jokes" and the like, which may be off-putting to those who are unaware of them. I don't think it would help to get rid of these altogether, but I certainly think that they should not distract the commentators (and thereby the spectators) from following the play. Again, I will try to improve my own behaviour in this respect.

 

One tendency that I personally find vexing is when commentators interrupt a deal by informing everyone what is happening at the other table. If people want to go and watch the other table, they can go and watch it - without leaving the current table, thanks to BBO-TV. But suddenly having to analyse the play at two tables at once is a little trying.

 

Finally, as the originator of the by-now-infamous Burn's Law, I find myself in the position of the American humorist Gelett Burgess. A multi-talented Bostonian who made many contributions to American culture, Burgess achieved overnight fame for this piece of doggerel:

 

I never saw a Purple Cow.

I never hope to see one.

But I can tell you anyhow,

I'd rather see than be one.

 

Dismayed when everyone he met would gleefully recite this poem, Burgess wrote a recantation that I often feel like using when the topic of Burn's Law comes up in the course of commentary (which seems to happen with depressing regularity):

 

Ah yes, I wrote The Purple Cow.

I'm sorry now I wrote it.

But I can tell you anyhow,

I'll kill you if you quote it.

[HedyG]

ok David, no more purple cows from me (great shame though)

[Aberlour10]

Although the number of private messages one receives can at times seem overwhelming, and a small percentage of them are merely irritating, most are either from genuine seekers after knowledge or from helpful people who know the methods being played or have spotted an obvious mistake in one's analysis. I try to reply to all of them (even the irritating ones) but I am sure that I miss a few from time to time, and I apologise to anyone whose insights I have overlooked at critical moments.

 

As has been suggested, it is highly desirable to have a mixture of commentators who address the more abstruse features of a deal and those who are good at explaining the more basic points. I am hopeless at the latter, which is why it is always a pleasure to work with fellow commentators such as David Bird, Debbie Rosenberg or Sabine Auken, who are very good at it indeed (others also fall into this category). I will try to do better on occasions when such fine commentators are not sharing the "microphone".

 

It is, I suppose, inevitable that a group such as the BBO commentary team (which must be many hundred strong by now) will develop certain idiosyncrasies, "in-jokes" and the like, which may be off-putting to those who are unaware of them. I don't think it would help to get rid of these altogether, but I certainly think that they should not distract the commentators (and thereby the spectators) from following the play. Again, I will try to improve my own behaviour in this respect.

 

One tendency that I personally find vexing is when commentators interrupt a deal by informing everyone what is happening at the other table. If people want to go and watch the other table, they can go and watch it - without leaving the current table, thanks to BBO-TV. But suddenly having to analyse the play at two tables at once is a little trying.

 

Finally, as the originator of the by-now-infamous Burn's Law, I find myself in the position of the American humorist Gelett Burgess. A multi-talented Bostonian who made many contributions to American culture, Burgess achieved overnight fame for this piece of doggerel:

 

I never saw a Purple Cow.

I never hope to see one.

But I can tell you anyhow,

I'd rather see than be one.

 

Dismayed when everyone he met would gleefully recite this poem, Burgess wrote a recantation that I often feel like using when the topic of Burn's Law comes up in the course of commentary (which seems to happen with depressing regularity):

 

Ah yes, I wrote The Purple Cow.

I'm sorry now I wrote it.

But I can tell you anyhow,

I'll kill you if you quote it.

 

Thanks for your very informative posting :)

 

One personally notice from spec view. I appreciate when commentators give some short informations from the other table like " ♥ lead on #14 or "reached slam on....etc", only on "key hands" of course. It's important for specs who prefer to concentrate their attention to one table, and want to be up to date for recent developments in whole match.

 

Robert

[PeterGill]

This has to be the best thread ever on BBO Forums.

Full of fascinating opinions, with Roland's comments all being spot on.

 

Do you think it is easier to commentate on BBO or to play bridge in a World Championship?

 

For me, commentating on BBO is definitely harder. I try to put myself in the seats of all four players, with the information available only to that player, i.e. effectively I play four different bridge hands at once (no wonder my comments sometimes are delayed until after the hand). I then have to consider what the actual player is thinking and what I would think. Sort of like playing 8 hands of bridge on one hand. I try to type fast and accurately (my weakness), read all the comments both private from specs and from commentators, try not to insult other commentators too much when I disagree, try not to offend the players too much, look up and provide info about systems and provide references to websites. Sometimes I am doing this at 2am or 5am, e.g. in the 2008 US Trials when there was a severe shortage of commentators. Add that phone calls interrupt me, well not so much

at 2am or 5am, and it is pretty busy.

 

I am so busy that at the end of the session, I sometimes have to scroll though the chat to see which interesting private messages I missed. I have no doubt that when I commentate, I do far more thinking and have a far more challenging couple of hours than when I play.

 

Every commentator has a different style, and few are like me. That is good.

 

As a face-to-face result, my bridge improves after I commentate on BBO.

It's not just me. When Jack Zhao used to commentate a lot of BBO, he followed

up by winning the World Pairs and the Vanderbilt. He hasn't done quite so spectacularly well now that he commentates less. In Australia, my observations suggest that Bruce Neill, David Stern and Bill Jacobs have all had much better results when they commentate on BBO a lot. Similarly Wayne Burrows from New Zealand became a regular member of their National team for the first time after doing quite a lot of commentary.

 

Returning to the original topic of the thread the Spingold, Frances Hinden (a BBO commentator who recently won a big event in England) pointed out that Americans and Europeans had limited availability during the Spingold. Most of us Aussies were unavailable too, due to our Winter Nationals. BBO Commentator Bruce Neill bgn won the first week's main weeklong event, and BBO Commentator Michael Wilkinson mwigor and me petergill won the second week's main event. Before

we commentated on BBO, we did not win as much.

 

I have it relatively easy compared to what some commentators do - when I was playing on BBO Vugraph in our Grand Final a week ago, the first time operator at our table Jenny told me after the first segment that private chat from Hedy Grey was so helpful when Jenny was struggling to figure out what to do.

 

I am convinced that if you commentate on BBO without using GIB, and put yourself in the seats of the players, the commentary process improves your game. You also get to see what other top players do, which helps. And the challenge of doing so many things at once, multi-tasking, is good for one's bridge game.

 

Oh, and if any average club player out there is still reading such a long post, please feel free to send private chat to me with basic questions whenever I am

commentating, and I will do my best to reply, either to all the specs (usually) or privately (less often).

 

As a professional bridge player, I am booked out and want no new clients.

I have no books or cruises to sell, but I love commentating because it is fun

and it is good for my bridge game, possibly the best way to improve my bridge.

Te time spent commentating reduces my earning capacity, but it is time well spent because it is fun and good for my bridge. Pity that I hate computers and dislike typing, but life is not all a bed of roses.

 

Also, I wonder about one thing. Football and cricket commentators are critical of players who err. I suppose that the people who are being commentated on in those cases are professionals who are fair game, but I am not convinced that being so gentle on errors is a good thing for bridge specs whom it may confuse.

 

One final question - should those of us commentators who never look at GIB when we commentate, write in our Profile "I do not use GIB when commentating"?

 

Peter Gill

Australia

[Echognome]

Agree with Peter that there have been some great posts on this thread (including his own post).

 

Perhaps my suggestion here should be in suggestions for software, but I wondered if it was possible to have simulcasted vugraph rooms. One reason might be for different languages (rather than having open room language X and closed room language Y), couldn't we have have open room repeated several times? I have no idea the adaptations necessary to the software, but my idea is to still use one vugraph operator, just have that vugraph operators input sent out to multiple rooms. The other idea in relation to that would be to have North only, South only, East only, and West only rooms, where when you entered that room to view, you settings would automatically be set to view only that chair and kib partner when dummy. In that case, the commentators could really take you through the decision processes of the hand at least how they see it. I think that would be extremely valuable for kibitzers. Yes I know that you can already have the option of kibitzing one seat, but it is not really set up for the commentators to do the same. Of course, this would mean having a need for more commentators, but we wouldn't necessarily need to have commentating for all seats. It might also resolve the problem of having 6 to 8 commentators for the big events. The commentators can be spread out throughout the seats.

 

Just my thoughts on it.

[hrothgar]

Perhaps my suggestion here should be in suggestions for software, but I wondered if it was possible to have simulcasted vugraph rooms.

Said it before, I'll say it again...

 

BBO's chat system is very rudimentary compared to most online gaming systems. If I compare the chat systems that I had available in World of Warcraft with what is supported in BBO the difference is night and day.

 

Massively Multiplayer Online Game systems have already solved most every problem that we're encountering. Admittedly, this sites

 

1. Have a bit larger budget than BBO

2. Have a somewhat younger and more tech savey user base

 

Even so, I think that it would be valuable if Fred, Uday, and the like spent a couple weeks playing WoW seriously and seeing how they handle things like

 

Voice communication

Add on

Scripting

Chat

 

and the like

 

At the end of two weeks we could drag Fred and Uday out of the Wailing Caverns. With luck, they'd have some new sources of inspriation.

 

BTW, I strongly recommend that folks check out "The Guild"

 

http://www.watchtheguild.com/episode-one-no-not-star-wars/

[Echognome]

Just to make it clear, although I understand Richard's point about it being nice to have a complete overhaul on chatting, my suggestions were meant to be tweaks within the existing infrastructure.

[NickRW]

Perhaps my suggestion here should be in suggestions for software, but I wondered if it was possible to have simulcasted vugraph rooms.

It is certainly possible in principle and probably not too difficult to implement in practice I guess - but it is like a lot of other things - how much time and money do Fred and company have available - especially for things that, as far as I can see, make no direct money in return.

 

Nick

[PeterGill]

I like Echognome's suggestions. For example, if in Beijing a big match between Italy and Norway is being broadcast in Italian or Norwegian, having a second copy of that table with a couple of English commentators could be worthwhile.

 

Beijing will have about 69 countries in the Open, 49 Women, 35 Seniors,

71 Under 28 countries' teams, 18 Under 26 and 16 Under 21 teams. A total

of over 250 teams, over 250 tables, not all on BBO Vugraph at once of course,

but this will mean that a lot of BBO commentators will not be available.

Roland will have to pull off his usual magic tricks to get sufficient commentators.

 

Peter Gill.

[peachy]

I like Echognome's suggestions. For example, if in Beijing a big match between Italy and Norway is being broadcast in Italian or Norwegian, having a second copy of that table with a couple of English commentators could be worthwhile.

 

Beijing will have about 69 countries in the Open, 49 Women, 35 Seniors,

71 Under 28 countries' teams, 18 Under 26 and 16 Under 21 teams. A total

of over 250 teams, over 250 tables, not all on BBO Vugraph at once of course,

but this will mean that a lot of BBO commentators will not be available.

Roland will have to pull off his usual magic tricks to get sufficient commentators.

 

Peter Gill.

I do wish the commentators were more to the point when there is a clear error. Good or brilliant action gets comments and bravos, bad or inferior goes without any comment or at most with a euphemism like "another choice might have been better". For the benefit of those who might think this error was normal play when there is no comment on it, "Call a spade a spade"!!

 

IMO it is not a disgrace for anyone to make an error, even at high levels of the game. It happens, and that is what often is key factor in who wins. IMO it should not be off-limits for commentators to comment on an error and the commentators IMO should not be gagged, to limit their comments only to great plays. This gagging is unheard of in any other competitive event where there are spectators. Just my two cents...

[pclayton]

I do wish the commentators were more to the point when there is a clear error. Good or brilliant action gets comments and bravos, bad or inferior goes without any comment or at most with a euphemism like "another choice might have been better". For the benefit of those who might think this error was normal play when there is no comment on it, "Call a spade a spade"!!

 

IMO it is not a disgrace for anyone to make an error, even at high levels of the game. It happens, and that is what often is key factor in who wins. IMO it should not be off-limits for commentators to comment on an error and the commentators IMO should not be gagged, to limit their comments only to great plays. This gagging is unheard of in any other competitive event where there are spectators. Just my two cents...

If you watch enough vugraphs, you'll recognize when commentators are critical of bids. Most of the regular commentators won't blatantly criticize a bid or play, but will rather say something like what you said, or, "I might have preferred 'x'", or "that bid would not have occurred to me".

 

The reasons for this are several. Good commentators want to appear tactful. There's no benefit to openly criticizing the players. Also, we can't see the problem through the players eyes, unless we are kibbing one hand alone (which I will sometimes do when I commentate, especially declarer), so its hard to gain proper perspective. Last, if you do choose to criticize a play, you better be 150% sure that you aren't getting it wrong. There's nothing worse than making a criticism only to find you've misanalyzed the play yourself.

 

If you understand this 'code' from commentators, you will understand what is being subtly criticized. Besides, what difference does it make?

 

In contrast, there's nothing I love more than watching an amazing play made, and I will make glowing compliments. I find nothing inconsistent with this approach.

 

Also, I will never come down too hard on a team sponsor, or a junior, since I expect frequent errors to be made and see no point in pointing out every little flaw in their game.

[TimG]

Also, I will never come down too hard on a team sponsor, or a junior, since I expect frequent errors to be made and see no point in pointing out every little flaw in their game.

You must be some player to recognize every little flaw in a player's game, even that of a mere junior or sponsor.

 

I like to think that those commentators who use phrases like "something else would have worked better" or "I might have preferred..." aren't being euphemistic but rather recognize that not every decision is black and white. Also, commentators are very often offering their opinions on the bids, plays, and judgments of superior players. Sometimes there isn't a right or wrong and it makes no sense for a commentator to act like there is.

[peachy]

If you understand this 'code' from commentators, you will understand what is being subtly criticized. Besides, what difference does it make?

Thoughtful post.

 

It makes really no difference, of course. Those who don't see there was an error, are none the wiser. Those who do see it, will see it whether commentators ignore it or gently use the "code". What interests me are perhaps speculations as to possible explanations why such a thing happened. Just like the kudos explain the route that possibly led the player to make the brilliant play.

[cicus]

Vugraph operators have GIB disabled.  Perhaps it would be a good idea to disable it for commentators also.

It is practically impossible to do it. Who will switch GIB on and off for them?

[rigour6]

One suggestion I have is to do what some are doing with bidding recounts, which is use chess notation.

 

1C - 1H

2C? - 2H

3H - 3NT!

 

This sort of thing helps the less expert player direct his attention to the parts of the auction which are particularly "interesting", for whatever reason.

 

Likewise in play. I know we don't want to rip into people but a questionable play is a questionable play, and there's no insult in a question mark, heck for some plays you can even use both Q and exclamation mark.

[Walddk]

About five years ago Fred and I established guidelines with respect to which subjects should be considered "off limits" by BBO vugraph commentators. Basically, we have always given and will always give commentators leeway, and only rarely did we interfere with what commentators type.

 

These guidelines have evolved over time, but one thing that has not changed is that we ask all commentators to refrain from intentionally embarrassing players, tournament organizers, sponsors, and national bridge federations. Commentators who publicly try to make these groups look foolish hurt everyone.

 

This policy may not be totally appealing to everyone from a purely philosophical point of view, but it is the only possible policy from a practical point of view. The crux of the matter is that, if we make enemies of the "powers that be", there won't be any more BBO vugraph, and everyone will suffer as a result.

 

While it is true that sometimes all these groups make poor decisions, we recognise that the only sensible approach is to treat those groups with respect. By all means, criticize a player if you think s/he made a poor call or play, but criticism must never be embarrassing, insulting or condenscending.

 

No-one makes an error intentionally.

 

Roland

[JanM]

As a face-to-face result, my bridge improves after I commentate on BBO.

It's not just me. When Jack Zhao used to commentate a lot of BBO, he followed up by winning the World Pairs and the Vanderbilt. He hasn't done quite so spectacularly well now that he commentates less. In Australia, my observations  suggest that Bruce Neill, David Stern and Bill Jacobs have all had much better results when they commentate on BBO a lot. Similarly Wayne Burrows from New Zealand became a regular member of their National team for the first time after doing quite a lot of commentary.

Great post, Peter! I particularly enjoyed the paragraph I've quoted because of something that happened to me a few months ago. I hadn't played much bridge at the end of last year (I'm sure you can all guess why), but I did manage to find time to watch and commentate on BBO. Early this year Chip and I played in a local Regional tournament and he commented that he'd been thinking I was wasting too much time watching BBO Vugraph, but he had changed his mind, because it had clearly improved my game B).

[doofik]

A fascinating thread, filled with comments that an average viewer doesn't consider.

Thank you.

[JoAnneM]

As a Vugraph viewer, and one who had been critical (but to only one person) I also have really appreciated this thread. It has given me a good picture and a great appreciation of what actually goes on behind the computer screen. I especially like the posts that described all the activities (mental and physical) that a commentator has to handle at one time.

 

To all the commentators who are still reading this thread - thanks for all you do.

[Finch]

Heard three times today from the commentators on the Olympics

 

"And we've really got a competition now"

 

What did they think they had before?

[matmat]

Heard three times today from the commentators on the Olympics

 

"And we've really got a competition now"

 

What did they think they had before?

lollygagging?

[pclayton]

Heard three times today from the commentators on the Olympics

 

"And we've really got a competition now"

 

What did they think they had before?

lollygagging?

No, sportsmanlike dumping.

[DrTodd13]

Perhaps something like this could be done. When you join a vugraph session, by default what you get is either no commentary or the commentary of the people Roland chooses. You would also have the ability to see a list of other commentary sessions established for this vugraph and you could join them. Each session would list who was authorized to comment, the language of the comments, whether voice commentary is enabled, etc. You could allow anybody to establish their own commentary sessions so that they and their friends could meet there and discuss amongst themselves. In short, I suggest that you disassociate the delivery of the hand, bids, cards, etc. from the textual commentary.

[jkdood]

Yeah yeah Thanks for all you do, it's free, it's volunteers unpaid, etc... and despite MatMat's ON TARGET comment that started the thread, there are surely many enjoyable astute wonderful (and appreciated!) commentators.

 

That being said, a Pet Peeve Post: Those of you commentators (maybe a quarter, or less) that simply turn off your chat with the stock "I am busy now if it's urgent contact an admin" or such message infuriate me :P

[TylerE]

That being said, a Pet Peeve Post: Those of you commentators (maybe a quarter, or less) that simply turn off your chat with the stock "I am busy now if it's urgent contact an admin" or such message infuriate me :lol:

While I usually leave mine on, I don't blame or at all hold it against those that turn it off. When trying to mentally analyze a deep posistion, the constant "buzzing" can be very distracting.