The vugraph commentators

[skorchev]

Hi all,

 

in the area I live (eastern europe) and because of some junior events I have the opportunity to play often at vugraph. A bad opportunity. The last time I played it was yesterday and when I came back home I downloaded the files from the broadcast just to see some boards and like every time I was amazed by the very poor comments from the commentators.

Let's see just one of the boards, where a star-player is showing a brain surgery.

 

I have the following hand:

AQ9

10xx

AKxxx

xx

 

The bidding starts from me - 1♦(precision), 1♥ by LHO, now my partner bids 2♣ which originally shows exactly 4 spades and 5+ cards in a minor or 4♠(441), RHO bids 2nt - fit and invitational or better hand, I'm double, showing better hand, LHO bids 3♥- fast arrival (min hand) and it finishes the bidding.

First of all the commentator says "the Precision problem - 1♦ does not show ♦", if he was a commentator who didn't log in bbo after the salad and before the dinner, he should enter the tournament web-site and download our convention card and to read that 1♦ is showing 2+ cards. at least if he is lazy to do that, he can ask the operator. However this is just notihng compared to the great "thoughts" which are coming. The vugraph operator normally alerts the 2♣ bid and now one of the other commentators says: "I think 2♣ shows ♦s". When the bidding finishes the mentioned above "star-player" comments: "this is ludicrous" ... "South [this is my partner] showed a ♦ raise. N knows S is short in ♥ and he cannot bridg himshelf to bid 4♦".

 

In one of the previous boards I hold:

Jx 109xx AKxxxx A

 

I open 1♦, my partner bids one 1♠, I'm 2♦, my partner bid 2nt=invitational and I consider myself to raise to 3nt because 2♦ shows 11-13 and 5+ ♦, I have 12 good points with 6 cards. The bid of 3nt should be just automatical. The commentator mentioned before comments "and I have no understanding as to why North [this is me] would raise to 3N".

 

There are many many boards that I can write from this or previous broadcasts where the commentators are commenting bullshits, but my point is that not everybody can be VG commentator, no matter how good player he is.

The biggest mistakes maden by the commentators are:

1. they are commenting on 52 cards, they use GIB and they know everything ... they don't take the point of the players who see just 13 cards on the bidding and just 26 on the play.

2. they are commenting the bidding like everybody is playing their systems and/or conventions and judge "this is good", "this is bad".

3. they don't assume that sometimes the operators are playing a wrong card and blame some player for doing some stupidity or blame the wrong person because his partner give the wrong signal in defence - once I had in one suit AJ10xx, my partner had xxxx, dummy had Qx and declarer - Kx. my partner leads the forth (we play second or forth leads, so from 4 cards the conventional card is the smallest, so his card is the right one), after that I finesse with the 10, declarer takes it with the king, make some elimination and put me in hand on my ace where I give the contract. Now some smart commentator says that probolaly the best is if my partner lead the 2nd from four smalls, because this might help me. If he play the second this will means that he has 3 cards so then he will really lie me. So I make the stupidity, the commentator credit it to my partner.

 

Personally myself I don't watch vugprahs because of 2 reasosn: bad commentators and bad operators. It will be good if not everybody titled hisself like world class or everyone who has a star is nominated for commentator. This is a very very difficult thing to do and I think there should be a huge restrictions about this who is commentating even more I think there should be an article "How to comment" with some useful tips for the new commentators.

 

And before you tell me "they are all volunteers, don't want from them too much", I will tell you that they are there to help the kibitzers to understand what is happening on table, not make their own systems, to say to the players how they should play the hand, seeing 52 cards. The job of commentator is not for everyone ...

[NickRW]

I think you should take a lesson from your own signature line, "Be Cool".

 

I will agree that, whether as a commentator or as a kib, if you see all 4 hands and switch GIB on, you will become omniscient without any effort on your part. Some would say, that from the kib's persepctive, this reduces the excitement and is not very educational either. But I can understand commentators doing it, not wanting to get "egg on their face".

 

But, if you don't want to get "egg on your face", as a commentator, I would want to download the convention cards. I am not sure if the commentators all know where to download them from for every event - as a spectator I don't always have this information - and am not sure that there are downloadable cards for all events anyway.

 

Anyway, "be cool". Despite your obvious annoyance, they are volunteers.

 

Nick

[Phil]

Don't be so damn vain. You should be honored to be playing on vugraph, and not complain about the commentators.

 

You bring up several bidding situations where the comms didn't understand and you would have a legitimate gripe, but I doubt that's why you are angry.

 

And then you talk about them seeing all 52 cards. Perhaps they were less than complimentary toward your play? While comms should be tactful, and nearly all are, things like "wow, that ♠2 wouldn't have been my choice for a lead" can come off as critical.

 

Maybe the comms can see all the cards and their comments are double dummy. Maybe they have GIB running constantly to appear smart. There's a few regulars that do these things and I think it detracts from the show.

 

Or maybe the comm was right. A lot of commentators are absolutely world class players. Considering you can have your bidding, defense and play critiqued by someone like Kit Woolsey and you get to have your family watch you on world-wide "TV", thats pretty cool, dont you think?

[jdonn]

Seriously...

[cherdanno]

I think you are a little over-sensitive. If I understand correctly that you didn't find your 5-5 diamond fit after opening 1♦, then I think it is fair to say that you ran into a precision problem (and sorry, 1D=2+ does not show diamonds).

So then the commentator makes an ignorant comment, because he misguessed the meaning of 2♣. Life goes on.

[Walddk]

Personally myself I don't watch vugprahs because of 2 reasosn: bad commentators and bad operators. It will be good if not everybody titled hisself like world class or everyone who has a star is nominated for commentator. This is a very very difficult thing to do and I think there should be a huge restrictions about this who is commentating even more I think there should be an article "How to comment" with some useful tips for the new commentators.

Is that so? Funnily enough I have seen you several times in the VG theatre. For example, you were there most of the day Sunday. I even asked you to join as a commentator, but you declined. Later you joined anyway.

 

Was that because you wanted to teach people how to comment? You try to get commentators for 10 tables four days in a row, which was the case Thursday through Sunday.

 

All commentators make errors, as do the players. We are only human. Stop acting like a baby and get on with life.

 

Roland

[skorchev]

Just what I expected. The examples I gave are aiming to show the general point, not the particular case. I told you, this happens everytime.

 

And to answer to Roland:

 

The tourney I watched all the Sunday was the final of the qualification for national team, where I played the previous day on the semifinals, so I had a personnel reasons to watch.

 

I know that you wanted to provoke me, when you asked me to comment ... this I find like act of 14-years old boy. Very weird. I'm getting on with the life very much. My post is inspired by 2 years watching at dumb comments. The thing I wanted to tell is just some advice to improve. Not to feel that it is the perfect world. The truth is just that 75% of the comms are far away from doing a decent job. Is it so difficult to make some giude on 2 or 3 pages?

 

To the one who mentioned Kit Woolsey: we all know he is a great comm, there are 10-15 more like him, but the others doesn't cost.

 

However I have written 2-3 times some ideas, all the time you are all jumping against them. I had in mind to right some things about the operators, but why to do it, you will jump again ...

[Walddk]

And to answer to Roland:

 

The tourney I watched all the Sunday was the final of the qualification for national team, where I played the previous day on the semifinals, so I had a personnel reasons to watch.

 

I know that you wanted to provoke me, when you asked me to comment ... this I find like act of 14-years old boy.

You are completely out of line. We had two commentators at the table, Radoslav Radev and Geoffrey Wolfarth, and I wanted a third. I thought a Bulgarian top player would be great since we had a broadcast from Bulgaria. So I asked you to join.

 

Provoked you? Do you really think I have time for such nonsense? You declined, fine, and later you joined anyway, also fine. People are entitled to change their minds.

 

Roland

[Tola18]

I think there should be an article "How to comment" with some useful tips for the new commentators.

All that said and done, but such a article should be useful. Can´t hurt but may do a lot of good.

 

I do second this proposal.

[Gerben42]

Some years ago I have written a little site with useful VG resources.

 

Vugraph help

[Rain]

I think Fred mentioned before, quite a few times, that it is really hard to analyse + think of interesting things to say on the spot.

 

Tastes do differ. Although you may prefer top-notch analyses, there are also watchers who prefer just joking around kind of comments so it's not boring, laced with occasional insights. If popularity is the sole gauge, it's hard to say which commentator type is better received.

[qwery_hi]

Although you may prefer top-notch analyses, there are also watchers who prefer just joking around kind of comments so it's not boring, laced with occasional insights. If popularity is the sole gauge, it's hard to say which commentator type is better received.

Glad to know I can be a commentator. I've been working on my jokes a lot lately; and occasionally can perform a squeeze.

[andy_h]

Hi Stefan Skorchev, Warning: very long post

 

Stefan wrote:

"the opportunity to play often at vugraph. A bad opportunity."

 

Stefan, you are a young bridge player in your early 20's who has represented

Bulgaria successfully at bridge, almost winning a Medal in Beijing last year.

 

Imagine that you were instead a young football star, making your debut for

Inter Milan. Then you watch a match video in which a commentator says that you deliberately fell in the penalty area, trying to get a free kick for a foul which didn't happen. It would be an over-reaction for you to take this too seriously.

Many football players have been accused like that, but the best ones don't worry about it, they simply return to play the game that they love to play. Such is life.

Commentators and the media make mistakes. Those in the public eye do best to ignore it.

 

If you think that such an experience would make it "a bad opportunity" for you as a young Bulgarian football star to play for Inter Milan, you are mad. Being in the public spotlight comes with the need to ignore what is said about you by commentators. Some celebrities worry about the press picking on them and commenting on their private lives - it is all part of being in the public eye. If bridge is to become a serious sport, we need a free press, allowed to make mistakes. Perhaps you would prefer for bridge commentary to be like the Bulgaria that existed just before you were born?

 

Another factor is relevant here. At football, there are ex-players (those aged about 35+) who become commentators. At bridge there's no such thing as an ex-player. Thus the expertise of the commentators at bridge can be expected to be lower than the expertise of the players. Hence it is not surprising that the commentators frequently try to understand the bids but end up with no understanding.

 

The same applies to BBO Commentary. Roland gives us commentators guidelines, we try to follow them, but sometimes it is 2am where we live, or for some other reason, we make mistakes. Bridge players make mistakes too. In my opinion, having done a lot of both playing on BBO Vugraph and commentating, it is much easier to play championship bridge than to commentate well on BBO.

 

Roland frequently asks top players (including me, often) who are watching BBO Vugraph to join in the commentary when there's a shortage of commentators. Your suggestion of some unusual motive for Roland asking you to commentate is

a problem in your own mind - Roland's motives are pure, his only wish being that the standard of the commentary is improved by adding you as a commentator.

 

Stefan Skorchev wrote:

"commentator ... should enter the tournament web-site and download our convention card"

 

Peter Gill writes:

i.e. go to http://www.bridge.bg/en_UK/tournament81.html

then click on Popov - Skorchev Convention Card to look up the responses

to the Precision 1D .... what do I find? The responses and rebids after 1D section of that Convention Card, despite vast amounts of blank space being available,

is blank. This is not a criticism of you - this sort of thing is fairly normal - it is just the way the world is.

 

Stefan wrote:

"I hold: Jx 109xx AKxxxx A

I open 1♦, my partner bids one 1♠, I'm 2♦, my partner bid 2nt=invitational and I consider myself to raise to 3nt because 2♦ shows 11-13 and 5+ ♦, I have 12 good points with 6 cards. The bid of 3nt should be just automatical. The commentator mentioned before comments "and I have no understanding as to why North [this is me] would raise to 3N"."

 

Peter Gill writes:

"You should not interpret the commentator's comment as a criticism. All the commentator wrote was that he did not understand why you bid as you did.

As previous posters to this thread have written, you are being over-sensitive.

Get used to it. Be realistic. Don't be so idealistic. Do not expect commentators to be super-human. Even if the commentator looked at your Convention Card with its blank 1D section, he still would have no understanding of your 2D bid unless he had played a lot of Precision.

 

Commentators have to be scheduled in advance, so it is impossible for Precision-playing commetnators to be scheduled when a Precision pair happens to appear at a table. We commentators often don't know which players are at our table until the first hand starts, making it an extremely demanding task for us to analyse the hand fast from four different players' points of view, write fast, answer queries from specs, receive advice from specs, track down Convention Cards from websites that often are not in English and which frequently lack the Convention Cards for which we search, give background info about the event and the players, read the other commentators' comments and re-analyse the play as it unfolds.

 

Stefan, rather than complain, how about doing something more constructive?

You could use your spare time to create a Database of Convention Cards for

BBO Commentators to use. Start with Bulgaria, and go from there. Or you could post your guidelines for commentators in more detail. Roland already advises new commentators with some general guidelines, including that less experienced players on Vugraph should not be criticised too much, but in the National Open Playoff semis of one of the world's top bridge 15 countries (Bulgaria), surely it is reasonable for the commentator to try to figure out what's going on, even

if the lack of response/rebid section of a Convention Card makes that difficult? Remember, what is obvious to you about Precision is not necessarily obvious to other people, such as commentators. We can only try, and sometimes we fail.

 

The operators in many countries are youth internationals such as yourself, giving back to the game they love by being BBO operators. Did you make an offer to the administrators in Bulgaria that once you lost your semi-final you were available as a relieving BBO operator for the Final if any of the operators wants a break?

 

Stefan wrote:

"I think there should be a huge restrictions about this who is commentating."

 

There is an increasing number of BBO vugraphs to cover, with less commentators available. This supply and demand problem is escalating, and is made worse when people such as you and me turn down offers from Roland for us to commentate.

 

Stefan wrote:

Now some smart commentator says that probolaly the best is if my partner lead the 2nd from four smalls ....

 

At least the commentator is trying to get at the solution to the cardplay problem, i.e. doing his job. You cannot expect every commentator to get to the right conclusion every time, because then the commentators would be the world champions at bridge, if they were that good.

 

My summary:

If you as a player or spectator on BBO start off with the perception that the commentators are bad, then you will obtain plenty of evidence to back up your contention. If you treat commentators as fallible human beings who make mistakes just like everyone else, then you will enjoy the commentary much more.

 

And finally, well done, making the semis of such a tough event at such a young age is a good effort.

 

Peter Gill

Sydney Australia

[andy_h]

The previous post was written by Peter Gill. I have no idea why my laptop credited (debited??) it to Andy Hung.

[glen]

The laptop must be hungover from a bridge party. Thanks for an excellent post covering everything that needed to be said, although long quite succinct imo, and also giving constructive next steps.

[andy_h]

Ray Lee's insightful comments on what it's like to be a BBO commentator,

at http://ray.bridgeblogging.com/?p=159 are well worth reading.

http://www.bridgeblogging.com/ is the main website of his blog.

 

Peter Gill, still accidentally in disguise whenever I use this forum.

[uday]

>Peter Gill, still accidentally in disguise whenever I use this forum.

 

Click the LOGOUT button on the upper left , and login again as your true self ....

[JanM]

I'm coming to this thread a little late, and there have been many excellent posts, but I want to add just a little bit. Skorchev criticizes both commentators & operators. As someone who has been both, and who has also recruited both, my initial reaction was anger. And even after thinking about it some more, I don't have much sympathy for Skorchev's position.

 

Of course commentators are not all World Class (as commentators, that is - whether a person is a World Class player has nothing to do with it). But all of them are giving their time to make the broadcasts more interesting for the thousands of spectators at home. Some of them (I certainly fall into this class) aren't great at fast analysis and make mistakes - but sometimes their mistakes are instructive to me as a spectator. Some of them use GIB so they don't make mistakes of analysis, but then don't "see" the hand through the players' eyes - for some spectators that's helpful, for others it isn't. Overall, the mix of commentators provides a lot of insight into what is going on and makes the broadcasts interesting for spectators.

 

As for the implied suggestion that Roland should somehow make sure that every commentator is exactly what every spectator wants and that they always understand the players' bidding & play, that is so laughable that I don't know what to say. I am constantly amazed that Roland manages to find enough commentators for all of the Vugraph we give him to cover, and that most of the time the commentators do a great job. Having once made the mistake of trying to recruit my own commentators, I can tell you that Roland's job is more work than you think it is. And he's somehow there for 24 hours a day making sure there are enough commentators at each table. To suggest that he might have time to consider "provoking" someone who had complained about the quality of commentary by asking him to comment is truly absurd.

 

Operators also make mistakes. If you've never been a Vugraph operator, please don't throw the first stone. I consider myself World Class as an operator (not player or commentator :)), but Wednesday afternoon, when declarer was running a suit in which she had 5 cards and dummy 4, I managed to block the suit, locking her in dummy. When she played the fifth card from her hand, I couldn't show the play any more. That was a clear error (after all, she was calling dummy's cards and they were easy to see). I have many, many times played the wrong card for declarer or a defender because the player played the card in such a way that I couldn't see it. I try very hard to find out why a bid was alerted and enter the meaning in the bidding diagram, but I can't always do so - did your partner or you make an effort to show the note about what 2!c meant to the operator? If you didn't, don't blame the operator or commentator for not explaining properly.

 

We now pay operators (not much, but a little) and still it is incredibly difficult to recruit enough to cover a major event. As a result, some of us work all 4 sessions every day - and it is work (enjoyable, interesting work, but work). It's exhausting; it's always tough to see all the cards that are played; by the end, it becomes almost impossible. To repeat what someone (Peter?) said above - did you volunteer to help on the final day? If you didn't, don't complain.

 

Is Vugraph perfect? Of course not. Is it amazingly good, informative & entertaining for the thousands who watch? Yes it is. Do those of us involved get a little upset when someone who obviously hasn't tried to help complains? Yes, we do.

[qwery_hi]

I'm coming to this thread a little late, and there have been many excellent posts, but I want to add just a little bit. Skorchev criticizes both commentators & operators. As someone who has been both, and who has also recruited both, my initial reaction was anger. And even after thinking about it some more, I don't have much sympathy for Skorchev's position.

 

Of course commentators are not all World Class (as commentators, that is - whether a person is a World Class player has nothing to do with it). But all of them are giving their time to make the broadcasts more interesting for the thousands of spectators at home. Some of them (I certainly fall into this class) aren't great at fast analysis and make mistakes - but sometimes their mistakes are instructive to me as a spectator. Some of them use GIB so they don't make mistakes of analysis, but then don't "see" the hand through the players' eyes - for some spectators that's helpful, for others it isn't. Overall, the mix of commentators provides a lot of insight into what is going on and makes the broadcasts interesting for spectators.

 

As for the implied suggestion that Roland should somehow make sure that every commentator is exactly what every spectator wants and that they always understand the players' bidding & play, that is so laughable that I don't know what to say. I am constantly amazed that Roland manages to find enough commentators for all of the Vugraph we give him to cover, and that most of the time the commentators do a great job. Having once made the mistake of trying to recruit my own commentators, I can tell you that Roland's job is more work than you think it is. And he's somehow there for 24 hours a day making sure there are enough commentators at each table. To suggest that he might have time to consider "provoking" someone who had complained about the quality of commentary by asking him to comment is truly absurd.

 

Operators also make mistakes. If you've never been a Vugraph operator, please don't throw the first stone. I consider myself World Class as an operator (not player or commentator B)), but Wednesday afternoon, when declarer was running a suit in which she had 5 cards and dummy 4, I managed to block the suit, locking her in dummy. When she played the fifth card from her hand, I couldn't show the play any more. That was a clear error (after all, she was calling dummy's cards and they were easy to see). I have many, many times played the wrong card for declarer or a defender because the player played the card in such a way that I couldn't see it. I try very hard to find out why a bid was alerted and enter the meaning in the bidding diagram, but I can't always do so - did your partner or you make an effort to show the note about what 2!c meant to the operator? If you didn't, don't blame the operator or commentator for not explaining properly.

 

We now pay operators (not much, but a little) and still it is incredibly difficult to recruit enough to cover a major event. As a result, some of us work all 4 sessions every day - and it is work (enjoyable, interesting work, but work). It's exhausting; it's always tough to see all the cards that are played; by the end, it becomes almost impossible. To repeat what someone (Peter?) said above - did you volunteer to help on the final day? If you didn't, don't complain.

 

Is Vugraph perfect? Of course not. Is it amazingly good, informative & entertaining for the thousands who watch? Yes it is. Do those of us involved get a little upset when someone who obviously hasn't tried to help complains? Yes, we do.

When commentators are critical of players, some players get angry. When players are critical of commentators, some commentators get angry. What a surprise!

[mtvesuvius]

I have always wanted to operate vugraph, and I finally got the opportunity to do so for the 3rd and 4th quarters of the Vanderbilt KO in Houston. I have found out first hand how hard it is to follow the play accurately. I only made 1 major error, and some more minor spot card errors, however I tried my best to follow the play accurately when I could. To enter in every spot card exactly is extremely tough, if you doubt this, you should try it yourself. Overall I felt quite comfortable operating, but sometimes I lost track of play, and simply had to claim at the end... I remember a 1NT contract where they played so incredibly fast, that I couldn't keep up. I finally claimed at the end, however it can often be tough to follow along. You really need to symathize with the operators, who really are trying their best... Honestly, would you rather have a decent operator and be on vugraph or would you just rather not to be on vugraph?

 

I also commentate regularly when I am home, and I usually try to set aside a block of time, and also attempt to find convention cards for the pairs playing, the problem is that often there is no good resource with everyone's convention cards. Some sort of convention card database would be extremely useful, and I'm not sure where the best place to start would be, however I think this should be a project that BBO and the vugraph commentators should work toward. When I commentate, I generally try to analyze the hand without GIB first, then check my conclusions against GIB. I also try to discuss other things other than the hand currently going on, such as general theory ideas etc... I try to assess the hand as best as i can, but we are all human, and can and do make mistakes, so once again, before you accuse others, why don't you try to commentate or operate yourself first?

[skorchev]

Hi again!

 

Let's take first the operators "problem". I haven't wrote anything about it and you jumped against me. :) The problems are not the ones you mention Jan and Adam. I opened this thread to "comment" the commentators and when we "finish" with it I think to open another one for the operators. Both threads have many differences, so I didn't want to combine them in one. In the meantime if someone wants - he/she can start it.

 

As Peter said probably I'm some kind of idealist, but I can't find anything wrong in discussing the problems and trying to find solutions to make the things work better.

 

I have wrote my opinion, so in this post I'm just going to defend myself. :)

 

First of all I want to apologize for my tone in the first post, obviously I was affected.

 

On the question whether I have tried to help on the last day of the trials:

the organizers paid to the vugraph operators and to the directing team, so the only thing I could do there is to obstruct.

 

"Have I ever been commentator or/and operator?":

commentator, yes. The others can evaluate me, it's stupid to say: "I'm good", "I'm decent" or I'm bad".

Operator, no. But just to mention that one of the two operators on our national team trials was a junior who do this work just for second time and I can say that he did it great, so I don't think the experience is so important when it comes to the operators. But please let's not discuss the operator's work here. The matter is different.

 

About Peter's suggestion for creating a database with convention cards:

in the first moment the idea is good, but I was thinking how to realize it?

The pairs in Bulgaria who play serious bridge and play together constantly are no more than 20-25. On the page you have visited there are posted 15 of them. Another thing is that the pairs change some of their bids so it will be very difficult to have the systems up-to-date.

 

I see some of you write about the boards I have mentioned. I have to say many things about them, but this is not the purpose of this thread.

 

If I missed some question - it is not intentionally. You can ask again, I will answer.

 

The funny thing and it is not intended like a compliment is that one of the best commentators (Peter Gill) and one the best operators (Jan Martel) are writing here and not these who do the things "bad".

 

Regards,

Stefan

[Walddk]

And to answer to Roland:

<snip>

I know that you wanted to provoke me, when you asked me to comment ... this I find like act of 14-years old boy. Very weird.

Regarding questions you have not answered. Pray tell how I provoked you when I asked you to join as a commentator. Do you have any reason not to believe my motive, i.e. that I wanted a top player from Bulgaria to comment on a tournament from his native country?

 

If the answer is 'yes', I would like to know what I did wrong by asking you. If the answer is 'no', I think you should add 'apology' to your vocabulary.

 

It is a privelege to be invited and to commentate, not a right. I do not invite people I don't think would add to the quality of the presentation. If you don't want to be invited for future broadcasts, please let me know, and I promise not to bother you with a private chat message.

 

Roland

[HedyG]

Stefan, nice to see that you apologized about the tone of your first post. i am sure i was not the only commentator who took it badly.

you say you have commentated.........a lot? for a long time? for broadcasts nobody else wants to commentate and Roland is desperate to find commentators for??

do you know what it's like to commentate for 8-10 hours?sometimes for 2 weeks running?

to commentate play in systems we have no explanations or CCs for?

to commentate for hours for 25-50 viewers because the broadcast is from a small country not many are interested in?

personally i try hard to find CCs for the players(ecatsbridge document store is often a good source) and send them to the table so my fellow commentators and the specs can get them too; however that is not always possible!

or when the posted CC is in some strange language........

we try hard. sure most of us are not "the best" like Peter Gill and some others come to mind. but we try hard to do our bit because we realise that somebody has to do it and it is a way to pay back to bridge all the joy it gives us. we certainly do not do it for the pay we get!

btw i think we "minor" commentators have our place too with maybe a vast majority of the spectators who often understand our simple way of thinking better. at least that is what the messages i get let me suppose.

i am afraid that your post will put other potential commentators off joining us and that would be a great shame.

i sincerely think you are too critical of people who do their best and deserve better then you give.

how about thanking the commentators at your broadcast who gave hours of their time and energy ? it would make a nice change since that hardly ever happens....

[Elianna]

When commentators are critical of players, some players get angry. When players are critical of commentators, some commentators get angry. What a surprise!

WORD!

[awm]

We all know that the commentators are volunteers, and that it is an unpaid and often thankless job. There are many commentators who do a good job, and it is worthwhile to thank all of them for volunteering their time.

 

However, with that said, should the volunteer nature of commentating completely immunize the commentators from any and all forms of criticism? I don't believe so. It is worthwhile to encourage the better commentators to continue, and discourage the bad commentators (or at least get them to become better informed). In some cases really bad commentating can be worse than no commentating at all!

 

Suppose that you finally get the opportunity to represent your country in an international event on vugraph... and the commentators spend the entire time making fun of you and your partner, making incorrect comments about your methods, and inaccurately analyzing your play and defense. I can understand being a little peeved about this, can't you? Really poor commentating can be offensive to the players especially when it's their first time on the big stage.

 

Of course, I make no claims to have any information about the particular incident under discussion. But there are a few commentators who basically spam the vugraph table with incorrect analysis and off-topic discussion, and there should be a way to give some negative feedback. People are awfully quick to jump down the throat of anyone with a complaint "because commentators are volunteers."