[matmat]

I understand that there might be a shortage of commentators, but the vast majority of the current ones in the spingold are abysmal. We don't need to hear how their kids are doing and how they need to be checked up on, we don't need them to serenade us with songs by the Eagles or whatever. We don't need them to guess at the systemic meanings of bids that the players are making.

Having 4, or even 5 people comment at once is confusing and when they are constantly correcting one another or constantly competing (or so it seems) to get an analysis in first (often wrong) it can get very annoying.

Yes, I know I can black out the more annoying ones, but then often I'll have the other ones out of context.

I also suspect, that some of the better commentators don't want to do vugraph as they don't want to interact with some of the nonsense that is currently being spewed.

:/


edit -- if i really wanted to listen to a standup routine i'd have gone to a comedy club, or trekked over to vegas or something

[jkdood]

Your comments are RIGHT ON the money!

[pclayton]

FWIW I asked if I could do the 2nd quarter and was told that they had four, with four more returning from the 1st quarter. The person I spoke to seemed to be 'running' the commentary and apparently was content with the quality and number of those speaking.

I think the analysis leaves a lot to be desired.

[pigpenz]

after reading these comments i went and watched boards 10-32 of the finals(segment 1 and 2)......commentary is pointless. whole heartedly agree with the previous posts. It like the commentators are on the comedy channel each one trying to out do the other with their snide comments about the bidding or play.

[NickRW]

I don't want to be critical - I guess these guys are doing it for nowt - and I haven't watched that much of the Spingold - never the less it was quite noticeable that the commentary on the recent European champs was generally of a higher quality - and this despite the fact that there were several tables running.

[NickRW]

But, credit where credit is due. Was better tonight.

[andy_h]

i agree that sometimes the commentary can be really bad, but i just tend to ignore it.

[brianshark]

There have been times I've chosen my match to watch not by who is playing but by who is commentating.

[TimG]

brianshark, on Jul 28 2008, 03:54 AM, said:

There have been times I've chosen my match to watch not by who is playing but by who is commentating.

I would not have thought this unusual; there are a couple of commentators that I especially enjoy.

[brianshark]

What really bugs me about a lot of commentary is the fact that they completely fail to appreciate the single dummy problem. The only words in their vocabularies are 'oops' and 'next'. They slate the "boring" partscore hands and usually start chatting about the weather, their kids, food, whatever else while the players are wrecking their brains playing those demanding contracts. They are quick to point out what can make double dummy, and what cards need to be played to make/knock a contract, but never analyse a bridge problem from a single-dummy perspective explaining the clues that can guide declarer to the winning line, or praise the defender for finding the clever defence because they don't know that a defender found a clever defence, they only saw the defender playing the 'correct' card because GIB put a red number beside it.

There are plenty of interesting problems players face on each bridge hand. There is plenty to analyse if the commentators are interested in doing it. But they tend to sweep over the analysis, focus on the big swingy double game swing hands whch are less about skill and more about a lucky guess anyway, and ignore the "boring" hands by, apparently, talking about their kids and serenading us with songs by the eagles.

[mrdct]

I think GIB is part of the problem, with a lot of commentator appearing to be basing their assessment of what can, could or should make based on GIB without really analysing the single-dummy situation themselves. I know I've been guilty of that myself a few times when commentating.

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

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if there is a commentator that you don't like it's pretty easy to silence them by simply adding them to your enemies and then select "ignore chat from enemies". Conversely, if there is a commentator that you do like, give them some positive feedback - they will almost certainly appreciate it and feel more inclined to sign up for more sessions.

[david_c]

I haven't been watching this week but Brian's last post sounds about right on past experience. I do think that the word "oops" should be banned - that is always a sign of bad commentary.

matmat, on Jul 27 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

I also suspect, that some of the better commentators don't want to do vugraph as they don't want to interact with some of the nonsense that is currently being spewed.

I know two very good players who have told me they don't commentate for precisely that reason.

We do have some very good commentators as well, but unfortunately when there are four people commentating it is often the case that the commentary would be enhanced if one or two of them were removed.

[NickRW]

david_c, on Jul 28 2008, 12:02 PM, said:

We do have some very good commentators as well, but unfortunately when there are four people commentating it is often the case that the commentary would be enhanced if one or two of them were removed.

I'd second that. 4 can be too many. 1 is probably difficult for the commentator with nobody else to interact with. 2, maybe 3 is ideal.

Nick

[FrancesHinden]

I didn't watch any of the Spingold so I have no idea how good the commentary actually was, but it might be worth pointing out that

- many of the US commentator pool were unavailable as they were participating
- many of the Eureopan pool were unavailable because the matches were 32 boards starting at 9pm UK time / 10 pm CET


edited for brain fart

[Aberlour10]

There are surely several thousends tables that are broadcasted every year, I think it's simply impossible to keep the good level of commentary on every of them, if all it happens for free. Under these circumstances the (in my opinion)"very good avarage" of the quality is more than we can & should expect.

Robert

[pclayton]

NickRW, on Jul 28 2008, 04:46 AM, said:

david_c, on Jul 28 2008, 12:02 PM, said:

We do have some very good commentators as well, but unfortunately when there are four people commentating it is often the case that the commentary would be enhanced if one or two of them were removed.

I'd second that. 4 can be too many. 1 is probably difficult for the commentator with nobody else to interact with. 2, maybe 3 is ideal.

Nick

4 and even up to 6 is a fine number if the commentary is focused on the play, and not on food, or someone's cat.

If the commentary is about non-bridge, 'zero' is the proper number of commentators. If I want to listen to this kind of drivel, I'll watch a Cayne match and unmute the many I already have clubbed.

[jkdood]

Re: "There are surely several thousends tables that are broadcasted every year, "

I guess this comment suggests there is often some sort of shortage of good commentators. Perhaps. It is however not a question of do we appreciate their time and efforts, or the "free" aspects.

It is that some of them are really really REALLY abysmal and knowing that there is no shortage of able volunteers (to commentate for the Spingold), perhaps untested/untried, but whomever is "minding the store" should note some of the foolishness and at least try these others for the next day or session.

There is one in particular I am sure all who have watched know, that (he/she/their) lack of proper insight, blatant inaccuracies, and much "nonsense" justified a replacement ASAP. (Even other commentators expressed annoyance in subtle but unmistakable ways.)

We want to improve this, not just complain, and only those in the power to make changes can do it of course. Is anyone listening?

[DenisO]

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

[MickyB]

DenisO, on Jul 28 2008, 05:37 PM, said:

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

Ahh, that explains it - I was feeling a little insulted that I hadn't been contacted about commentating on the Spingold, thought it meant I wasn't considered as good as those who were asked to, lol.

But yeah, some of it was dire. Guess the motto of the tale is to have Roland organising, in which case there's not that much more to be said.

[pigpenz]

mrdct, on Jul 28 2008, 06:38 AM, said:

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

I dont know there was a 4♥ contract
where it was
qxx
op
a9xxxx
you need 5 winners
on this particular hand it was stiff jack off side
one commentator said contract could be made but other said but no one in their right mind would play it that way...since it was very low % play