Abysmal Commentary.

[fred]

JoAnne, I think your post is both offensive and completely out of touch with reality.

 

Almost all of the professional players I know contribute their time to various bridge-related activities (including acting as vugraph commentators) for no other reason than "the good of the game". As a professional player who sometimes commentates, I find your theory on my motivations (and that of my friends) to be highly offensive.

 

For sure such activities can be good for their respective careers, but this is as it should be - it is only normal for people to appreciate it when experts are generous with their time. Buying the products and services of such experts is a nice way to say "thanks".

 

Besides that, a good pro can make upwards of $1000 per day by playing bridge and has little trouble finding plenty of opportunities to do just that. Do you really think there is $1000 worth of advertising value in a day of vugraph commentary? Do you really think a bridge pro cares if he sells a couple of extra $20 books (for which he receives far less than $20) as a result of his work as a vugraph commentator? If you answered "yes" to these questions, I think you grossly misunderstand the economics of professional bridge.

 

BBO's attitude is that we are massively grateful when top professional players volunteer to commentate. I believe that almost all of our members (you being the notable exception) feel the same way. To ask these commentators for money would be insane. If anything we (and/or the audience) should be paying them.

 

The theme of this thread is "we want better commentators". The concept of charging the best ones a fee is unlikely to be of much help in this regard.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[JoAnneM]

I certainly didn't mean to be offensive to anyone, and my remark about paying to commentate was certainly "tongue in cheek".

 

I guess the point I was trying to get across, and perhaps I made it too strongly, is that most of the 2,000 or so kibbitzers you have at these big vugraph events are not personal friends, or even on speaking terms with these commentators. This is where those commentators put on a human face to the rest of us. And for those commentators who ARE professionals it should at least be a gracious appearance.

 

My background is not professional bridge, my background is the business world, and bridge administration. I apologize if I offended anyone, I have only the best interests for bridge, bbo, vugraph, etc., at heart.

[Walddk]

I certainly didn't mean to be offensive to anyone, and my remark about paying to commentate was certainly "tongue in cheek".

Those comments are usually followed by a :D or a ;) or a :P

 

How else are we supposed to know that we should not take you seriously? Like Fred, I also thought you were dead serious. First of all because it matched your comments in the previous paragraphs.

 

Roland

[NickRW]

FWIW, I 99% endorse Roland's and Fred's comments. Joanne does have a point in one sense though - established bridge pros probably do not need advertising it is true - but for someone breaking into that world commentating is probably a great source of free advertising. Not sure why they should pay for it though, given that they are providing a service for nothing

 

Nick

[Aberlour10]

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.

 

From the view of avarage spectators maybe the most important point. A good mix makes it interesting for all

 

...and not only in bridge. Years ago I passionate watched TV-broadcast of the Chess WC. The TV-channel invited several Grand Masters for commenting this match, surely their discussion was on the highest level, but they talked about a complicate structures of the situation on the chessboard 10 moves ahead, this commentary was from real experts to real experts. They forgot to invite an experienced club instructor who would explain why the next (obvious for a common player) move will not happen.

 

Robert

[HeavyDluxe]

They forgot to invite an experienced club instructor who would explain why the next (obvious for a common player) move will not happen.

I have to admit wishing there was an intermediate/advancing commentator in several of the Vugraphs I've watched. It'd be great to have someone who could prod the rest of the commentators with the questions the "average club player" might have.

 

Also, someone like that might have the effect of continuing to steer the conversation back to the game. If someone is prodding with questions (or even the occasional misguided comment) it would be harder and harder to get distracted by pets and other stuff.

[jkdood]

I suppose this thread is as close to being on topic for this comment as any, you see - Joanne's thoughtful comment touched a nerve.

 

(Yes - I have been accused of havig too many "touchable nerves" LOL yes I guess I am touchy from time to time on certain issues.)

 

I personally have obtained a fair amount of success and reputation for some skill, and have also been active in administration at unit level, and as a writer and a teacher... but I haven't come close to being accused of being a top expert or top player.

 

However, I think I cold claim to hold my own with many players that have:

...been part of the national appeals committees

...been on certain local and regional bidding panels

...been given a star next to their name on BBO or elsewhere

...been asked to give a lecture or presentation

...been asked to bid hands in the ACBL Bulletin's "The Bidding Box" series

...been given a spot in the Bulletin for a monthly or regular column

...been "invited" to commentate

..etc.

For whatever reason, and I have some biased opinions of course, I have been routinely excluded from such activities like the above sample list. In my opinion, it is significantly a result of being "whom you know" rather than "what you know".

 

Sure there are many exceptions, and I have a great deal of respect and admiration (as well as appreciation) for many of the experts/stars that are asked to be "in".

 

And I really don't ususually have a problem with being "routinely excluded". I don't particularly seek such appointments and certainly don't market myself.

 

But when we encounter the occasional sub-par performances such as the subject of this thread is about, and address it with accolades about great volunteer service and sacrifices being a major ingredient, it really irks me. Just as it irks me when (what I consider to be PRIVILEGED) commentators bore us and annoy us with comments about the "late hour", "the slow play", or anything suggesting they are not having a good time, rather than staying on track in the manner I expect.

 

It makes me ask what (secret?) standards and strategies are in place to select or "invite" these PRIVILEGED people? I know I am not alone in this musing.

 

I don't really care, USUALLY, but when there seems to be an arrogant-or-condescending flavored "defense" of sub-par performance seemingly directed towards many people that would be more than willing to take on the "volunteer effort", and are more than capable, (IMHO of course), then I DO CARE.

[fred]

It makes me ask what (secret?) standards and strategies are in place to select or "invite" these PRIVILEGED people? I know I am not alone in this musing.

The volunteers volunteer by sending Roland an e-mail (to his non-secret e-mail address).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jkdood]

Re: "The volunteers volunteer by sending Roland an e-mail (to his non-secret e-mail address)."

 

Thanks for this info. It clarifies somehwat (and also muddies) why in the above thread Roland himself posted:

 

"It is also a privilege and honour to be INVITED to commentate."

 

Those in power would do well to take Fred's example and freely offer such info as he just did.

 

Of course Fred is a special treasure to bridge, his skill and volunteering and sacrifice and dedication credentials are above reproach, and well-recognized by all. I am sure he is not thanked nearly enough, and I duly add my thanks here.

 

I wish all in any positions of privilege would follow his fine example :D

[HedyG]

i wasn't going to write on this thread. what do i know? maybe the complaints were about me.

but maybe i should add some words from a commentators point of view...

when Roland asked me if i would like to commentate i was totally bowed over.what a privilege! i was also scared stiff!

and then found out that i loved doing it. i had a chance to pay back a bit of all the joy bridge has given me over the years.

sure i also enjoy the contact with the other commentators and especially with the specs.

i am in no way what you might call one of the top commentators. i am nowhere near as good as they are. but i am learning a lot by commentating and have made more progress than in the rest of my bridge-life.

i try hard to do the job as well as i can. as well as making myself available when there are a lot of simultaneous broadcasts i also readily sign up for the broadcasts of "small" countries or events that nobody else seems to want to do.

surely no top expert or professional is interested in commentating to 50 specs for 3, 6 or 8 hours.

and most expert players aren't interested in watching those broadcasts either.

but the majority of our specs are not expert players! they rank from beginners to intermediate to advanced players who seem to feel more comfortable sending their questions or comments to me than to the big shots.

IMHO i and others like me are not at all useless.

however i think maybe all commentators should read this thread. there is something to be learned here (apart from the fact that Roland should not go on vacation :D.

i for one have read the posts carefully and think they might change a few things for me.

[jkdood]

Hi Hedy I think you do a fine job, you might like to know, thanks!

 

(You also prove the point that I am not sure Fred acknowledged that it is not (only?) volunteers but there are quite a few "invited" commentators. But I am sure you are "deserving" as proven.)

 

You also don't shut-off your chat receiving. As you know, specs are invaluable in pointing out technical insights and interesting aspects, that the commentator will share with everyone if they consider it appropriate.

 

Come to think of it, nothing maybe steams me as much as a commentator who turns off their chat with the stock "I am busy if it is important contact an admin" message, and refuses spec comments. They should maybe take your suggestion: learn how to improve from this thread topic, not take it personally, and in my personal opinion only, if they cannot commentate AND receive spec chat to consider, maybe they aren't up to the task!

 

:D

[Aberlour10]

Come to think of it, nothing maybe steams me as much as a commentator who turns off their chat with the stock "I am busy if it is important contact an admin" message, and refuses spec comments. They should maybe take your suggestion: learn how to improve from this thread topic, not take it personally, and in my personal opinion only, if they cannot commentate AND receive spec chat to consider, maybe they aren't up to the task!

 

:)

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. :P

[jkdood]

"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 :P :) )

[NickRW]

"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 actually doubt that they do manage to keep their attention on the play, keeping up with commentating and replying in any way intelligently to a deluge of messages - or sometimes, even reading them all.

 

A month or so back Andrew Robson + partner gave of their time to play a dozen or so boards online and, at the same time, commentate of what they were thinking as they were playing. From my point of view, unfortunately, kib comment was visible by all. Frankly there was WAY too much and it was difficult to even follow any coherent commentary, never mind what Andrew must have felt like trying to actually provide the commentary through that haze.

 

Nick

[jkdood]

Unless it's correcting an inaccurate analysis of fact, I believe the vast majority of spec comments (to commentators) are to suggest play or bidding highlights or insights...and don't require a reply...

 

...I have myself offered such observations dozens of times, even on target (LOL) and some commentators have no problem introducing the thought to general commentary, and then even adding a private thank you or agreement to the observation.

 

Of course, not all commentators do this or are willing to do this OR can do this well, as is more than obvious from this thread. Funny thing, the ones that can and do "do it" seem to me to be the most on the mark non-distracting guest speakers.

[Walddk]

Re: "The volunteers volunteer by sending Roland an e-mail (to his non-secret e-mail address)."

 

Thanks for this info. It clarifies somehwat (and also muddies) why in the above thread Roland himself posted:

 

"It is also a privilege and honour to be INVITED to commentate."

This is no contradiction, because Fred and I are both right. When potential commentators volunteer by sending me an e-mail with info about themselves, they get an invite to give it a try.

 

Only once or twice over the past six years have I rejected anyone.

 

Some also approach me online to ask if they could get an opportunity to commentate. Before I accept if I don't know them, I ask them to send me an e-mail with a little info, for instance about why they think they can contribute with constructive commentary.

 

Quite regularly, current commentators also recommend people they know. I have added several in that fashion.

 

As I said above, they will almost always get a chance. There are some strings attached, such as full name and flag in profiles, no controversial comments in the profiles, acceptable written English, etc., but that never causes problems.

 

Finally, I often send private messages to users I know and ask them if they would like to commentate. They may then be invited on the spot if they accept; in other instances when they are unavailable at the time, I will add them to my contact list, which means that they will get my e-mails with regular intervals. Then they can sign up in advance for certain sessions of upcoming broadcasts.

 

So, if any of you, or anyone else for that matter would like to try, you will most likely get the go ahead. Just a mild warning: it is not as easy as one may think. I don't want to intimidate anyone, but it's a fact that it's a demanding job to commentate for a couple of hours, not least if you are inexperienced and only have one or two others in that particular room.

 

Interested? Send me an e-mail at roland_wald(at)hotmail.com, and write a few lines about yourself. Everyone will get a reply, no matter what.

 

Roland

[brianshark]

From my experience watching vugraph commentary, and contrary to what some people have been saying in the thread:

 

I think fear of voicing a legitimate opinion for fear that it is not theoretically perfect or fully thought out is more of a problem then gross misanalysis, at least among some commentators.

 

I also think lack of interest in commentating on the mundane intermediate/advanced details of a bridge deal is more of a problem than not enough high level analysis of complex squeezes and end-plays.

 

I appreciate that commentating is voluntary, resources can be limited, etc. And because of that, we can't filter the quality by being too selective of who we choose to commentate. Unless Roland has already done something like this, perhaps an idea worth considering is to draw up a "guide to commentating" or even just a do and don't list?

 

For example:

 

Do analyse some basic/intermediate aspects of a deal as well as advanced stuff.

Do have open a copy of the system notes of both pairs playing, where possible.

Do consider the problems of the declarer and defenders from a single dummy perspective.

 

Don't say "next" or "oops".

Don't talk about non-bridge related stuff (too much).

Don't state which card is correct to play without theorising on the clues to guide the defeder/declarer to finding it.

[HedyG]

Brian you left out the most important point i think:

always stay polite in your comments no matter how much you dislike or disagree with the bidding and/or play ,whether we are watching a high level championship or junior events or even a casual tourney with players of all levels.

[brianshark]

Brian you left out the most important point i think:

always stay polite in your comments no matter how much you dislike or disagree with the bidding and/or play ,whether we are watching a high level championship or junior events or even a casual tourney with players of all levels.

I'm sure there are loads I left out. But yes, that one is quite important I imagine.

[Trinidad]

My own little opinion on commentating:

 

Commentating should be light hearted. After all, it is entertainment. I think that David Burn is an excellent commentator when it comes to the analysis of the hand. Keep him, no matter how many bottles of coke it will cost.

 

But I personnally prefer David Bird. He rarely comes up with a hexagonal squeeze, but I find him, by far, the most entertaining commentator. His comments are fast, clear and at (the right number of) times witty. On top of that he has the ability to explain the essence of the situation in a way that a lesser player can understand. Keep him and offer him bottles of whiskey if needed.

 

Rik

[Walddk]

My own little opinion on commentating:

 

Commentating should be light hearted. After all, it is entertainment. I think that David Burn is an excellent commentator when it comes to the analysis of the hand. Keep him, no matter how many bottles of coke it will cost.

 

But I personnally prefer David Bird. He rarely comes up with a hexagonal squeeze, but I find him, by far, the most entertaining commentator. His comments are fast, clear and at (the right number of) times witty. On top of that he has the ability to explain the essence of the situation in a way that a lesser player can understand. Keep him and offer him bottles of whiskey if needed.

 

Rik

We have no intention of dumping any of them. For the record, David Burn does NOT drink cokes!

 

I do not have the habit of giving our commentators marks, but both Davids are ranked high on my list of excellent commentators. Burn's dry sense of humour is second to none, and Bird is a splendid writer, not least because he is extremely articulate with the use of the English language I find very commendable.

 

It's a joy to watch both of them for another reason. You hardly ever see a typo although they (especially Bird) write quite long sentences. Let me add Frances Hinden to the very articulate commentators. They are all quick typists, which makes this even more impressive.

 

All three are from England where they speak English better and grammatically more correctly than anywhere else in the world.

 

Roland

[matmat]

Don't talk about non-bridge related stuff (too much).

i agree that non-bridge stuff is fine... but it should be about the players, not about the commentator's mother-in-law.

[NickRW]

All three are from England where they speak English better and grammatically more correctly than anywhere else in the world.

 

Roland

You don't seem to do too badly yourself :)

[peachy]

i wasn't going to write on this thread. what do i know? maybe the complaints were about me.

As far as I am concerned, it was NOT YOU folks are talking about.

Your comments are moderate, non-argumentative, non-abrasive, TO THE POINT bridgewise, knowledgeable [and when you don't know you solicit help from those who do], and never just thoughtlessly opening your [eh..keep typing on keyboard] as if to hog the screen...

[onoway]

As an intermediate, I feel highly privileged to have commentators at all to make the play more comprehensible and just generally more entertaining. I do look to see who is commentating where and generally decide which table I am going to watch on that basis, and have rarely been disappointed (and if so, I go to the other table or back to play, no big deal.)

 

I must admit sympathy for commentators trying to fill a long gap of dead airspace while the players are thinking sometimes. It is a very uneasy and difficult thing to do, and not all the commentators are perhaps privy to juicy tidbits about the players. In those cases I think it ungenerous not to cut them a little slack, I personally have no problem if they stray from the bridge a little at such times.

 

It is a special treat when the commentators remember that a lot of us have no clue that there is such a thing as "eloping" in bridge terms and explain it, or how polish club works or whatever. It would be unfortunate though if people geared everything down for the less advanced player, genereally there seems to be a good mix, and I have had no problems when something seems weird, asking one of the commentators about it, they have always been very accommodating.

 

When you have a lot of people doing anything, some are bound to be more adept and comfortable. By and large I think BBO has a wonderful group and I for one am very appreciative they will share their time and expertise.

 

So from one, at least, kudos to Fred and Roland and the commentators and thanks !! :)