An incident with a commentator.

[MrAce]

It is 2016 Spingold semi finals match between Zimmerman and Lavazza teams.

 

So Helgemo and Helness comes to a 4♠ contract, which is cold on any lead. Not cold in GIB view but cold for any decent player.

 

Bocchi leads ♦K

 

After couple of tricks a commentator says "♦ lead was needed"

 

I am asking genuinely to ALL of you. What does that mean? What would you think is going on in mind of commentator?

 

I thought genuinely that she missed the lead and/or she is trying to say a ♦ lead would defeat it. Is it so absurd to think that a commentator has seen something that we did not? That's what I thought.

 

So here is the conversation in private;

 

Me to her - "♦ was led"

 

She to me - "I never said it was not led"

 

Me to her - Then what was ♦ lead needed for?

 

She to the table - Stop jumping on me for every word I say or I will jump out! ♦ lead was needed for getting a ♦ trick! Some kibs are persistent !

 

I just want to make sure if what I asked was so odd/absurd/rookie or anything close to jumping on her? What do you all think? Anyway, seeing her frustration, conversation went on like this;

 

Me to her - "I was not jumping on you, I genuinely thought you either missed the lead or you saw something that we did not and this is why I asked you the questions that I did"

 

She to me - " I explained 1 trick later. You jumped. ENOUGH!"

 

After that I decided there is no need for any further conversation. Now, I commentate too now and then. I know sometimes questions can make you overwhelmed. And you are doing a job on volunteer basis and not being paid for it. However, this does not mean you have a free pass to be in this mood. After all, paid or not, you are representing BBO to the audience/kibitzers who are all members of BBO and most of us are beyond just members but also clients of BBO. And one of your duties, as commentator, is to help the people. When you write something, say something, people have ALL THE RIGHT to think that you saw something. After all you are not some other kibitzer in the gallery. You have been OK ed to make commendation there, by someone from BBO. And if you are so intolerable to the even this kind of questions, which I think was very legit, how are you planning to handle the questions from other lower levels of players? If you are not in the mood of handling this and having a bad day, why did you volunteer at the first place? And even if you did, why did you just simply not delete your +++ signs in your card, which basically means "I am commentator and I am willing to answer the questions" (if you take +++ signs out, kibitzers are muted to you)

 

By writing to table "Stop jumping on me for my every words...bla bla" You are getting into an argument that other side can not respond! You are basically trying to give an impression that you have been asked some weird questions and the person is trying to be persistent and way over the line. What I asked was 2 simple questions and my 3rd message was intending to cool her, basically telling her that my questions were genuinely asked. But BBO staff has my permission to release the entire chat log if they want to, this way we can see who was actually jumping on other!

[helene_t]

Her comment to the table might have meant to be private.

 

Commentating is stressful. Mistakes are inevitable. You could ask "why was a d lead needed?" and leave it at that but I think it is better not to distract the commentator unless they solicit your advice.

[gordontd]

After couple of tricks a commentator says "♦ lead was needed"

 

I am asking genuinely to ALL of you. What does that mean? What would you think is going on in mind of commentator?

It means to me that she thought that the diamond lead had been necessary. You disagree.

[MrAce]

Her comment to the table might have meant to be private.

 

Commentating is stressful. Mistakes are inevitable. You could ask "why was a d lead needed?" and leave it at that but I think it is better not to distract the commentator unless they solicit your advice.

 

That is exactly where i left it at, after asking "Why ♦ lead was needed?"

 

My only comment to her after that was something apologetic, and that my intention was genuine when I asked what I asked, did not mean to jump on her. ( I will be more than happy to show anyone the chatlogs who may doubt my words)

[MrAce]

It means to me that she thought that the diamond lead had been necessary. You disagree.

 

 

English is your native language, so I will not argue with you. To me "♦ lead was needed" comment, when that lead was already made, and does not change the outcome of final contract in a team match other than maybe an overtrick, sounded like more of something else.

 

Maybe I am thinking in my own language and having a mistake.

 

Against a 4M contract when someone says "Dia lead was needed" in my language, this means either of 3 things (not in specific order)

 

1-Dia lead was needed, but wasn't made.

 

2-Dia lead was needed for bla bla bla reasons.

 

3-Dia lead was mandatory.

 

What I am asking you is, is it too unusual to understand this comment, in bridge context, as 1 and/or 2 ? Even if you think it is very unusual, would you consider it as jumping on you if someone asked for clarification?

[Phil]

Lol. Many commentators can barely follow suit.

[gordontd]

English is your native language, so I will not argue with you. To me "♦ lead was needed" comment, when that lead was already made, and does not change the outcome of final contract in a team match other than maybe an overtrick, sounded like more of something else.

 

Maybe I am thinking in my own language and having a mistake.

 

Against a 4M contract when someone says "Dia lead was needed" in my language, this means either of 3 things (not in specific order)

 

1-Dia lead was needed, but wasn't made.

 

2-Dia lead was needed for bla bla bla reasons.

 

3-Dia lead was mandatory.

 

What I am asking you is, is it too unusual to understand this comment, in bridge context, as 1 and/or 2 ? Even if you think it is very unusual, would you consider it as jumping on you if someone asked for clarification?

My point was simply that her words could be understood a bit differently, but I agree that the reaction to your comment, as reported by you above, seems inappropriate.

[The_Badger]

hi Timo (MrAce)

 

I was watching the Spingold yesterday, and a very-experienced commentator made an error and I thought "That's rubbish, xxxxxxxx" His fellow commentators then suggested the best line of play, and he graciously admitted his error.

 

As experienced players ourselves I think we should let the odd erroneous or ridiculous comment fly over our heads. Nobody as a commentator is going to be 100% perfect. Sometimes the wrong keystroke is entered, etc., etc....

 

On the flipside, I would like to say a big thank you to Al Hollander as a commentator: the Auken/Welland system is a finely-tuned enigma that Al has deciphered (with his notes) and fascinated me no end.

 

As for the commentator saying "♦ lead was needed" a couple of tricks in, I agree it might be a bit of a superfluous comment, and seems to appear in the wrong tense - and that's the confusing bit - as in English it looks like she was questioning why a ♦ wasn't led (when it was), but it can also be interpreted as she's agreeing it was the best lead, for whatever reason. In effect "A ♦ lead was required (needed) and was led".

[wank]

thank goodness england is represented by experienced commentators like [name removed] so we don't have such issues. Edited July 31, 2016 by diana_eva

[MrAce]

thank goodness england is represented by experienced commentators like [...] so we don't have such issues.

 

Heh, I think you implied something that Brits would know, can you explain?

Edited July 31, 2016 by diana_eva

[diana_eva]

Heh, I think you implied something that Brits would know, can you explain?

 

He's referring to a controversial commentator :)

 

FWIW a number of people commenting are there at the request of tourney organizers. It's not just BBO vetting commentators, often orgs arrange their own commentary and in that case we simply make sure the people they need are ungagged and able to join when scheduled.

[barmar]

One of the things that good commentators try to do is explain what's going on for the benefit of less advanced players. A comment like "♦ lead was needed" was probably meant for them, to point out that the lead that was actually made was correct and necessary. If they wanted to point out a better defense, they would usually say something like "♦ lead would have been better".

 

But remember, these people are writing extemporaneously, not carefully crafting bridge columns. It's stream of consciousness, so you'll occasionally get unclear statements like this. Don't get so worked up about it.

[jallerton]

thank goodness england is represented by experienced commentators like [name removed] so we don't have such issues.

 

I'm just reading this thread for the first time, but I reckon I can still guess the identity of "[name removed]".

[jallerton]

After couple of tricks a commentator says "♦ lead was needed"

 

I am asking genuinely to ALL of you. What does that mean? What would you think is going on in mind of commentator?

 

One of the challenges for written commentators, especially for those of us who are not fast at typing, is to express oneself clearly but succinctly; if you pause to think about how to compose the perfect sentence, you may find that by the time your comments have been made, they have been overtaken by events.

 

Voice commentary can often be easier in this respect. Unless of course [name of different commentator] has hogged the airwaves to moan about too many "boring" hands, tell the audience about the huge number of kibitzers in the room, or even about his planned television viewing.

[wank]

One of the challenges for written commentators, especially for those of us who are not fast at typing, is to express oneself clearly but succinctly; if you pause to think about how to compose the perfect sentence, you may find that by the time your comments have been made, they have been overtaken by events.

 

Voice commentary can often be easier in this respect. Unless of course [name of different commentator] has hogged the airwaves to moan about too many "boring" hands, tell the audience about the huge number of kibitzers in the room, or even about his planned television viewing.

 

i've never listened to the voice commentary, largely because a person i don't like is one of the regulars. it doesn't sound like i'm missing a great deal.

[MrAce]

From Barmar's comment I feel like I could not explain myself.

 

I was not worked out by the comment "♦ lead was needed" There is nothing wrong with this comment. I was merely trying to figure whether my questions to the commentator are jumping on her or not.

 

First I thought she did not see the lead, and when she said she did then I thought she saw something we did not that would affect the outcome of the game. I admit I failed to see that it was needed to avoid an over trick and/or did not think that was important at the moment.

[jallerton]

i've never listened to the voice commentary, largely because a person i don't like is one of the regulars. it doesn't sound like i'm missing a great deal.

 

As with written commentary, the quality of voice commentary depends on who is commentating. However, it tends to be more structured in the sense that there is usually more of a conversation. Also there it usually a sensible number of commentators (two or three) involved.

[ArtK78]

I was listening to a national sports radio show this afternoon and one of the hosts made an obvious error. About 10 minutes later he noted that someone had pointed out to him his error and he acknowledged it.

 

Things happen.