[jkdood]

"Why me?"

Your Good Idea!!!

[inquiry]

To get back on track about commentating, I don;t think it was necessarily abysmal. The commentators try to liven the game up, and fill the time between teh very slow play of the participants. Having said that, there are great commentators, good commentators, and not so good commentators. If anyone is wondering which is which, it is easy enough to open any of the vugraph files on the bridgebase webpage and click on different vugraph events and read the comments while looking at the hands to determine which commentators you prefer (david burns is a great one, as pointed out earlier).

Things to look for with good commentors.

• Do they talk about bidding issues on the hand during the auction?
  
• Do they give insight to the options (bid a versus bid during this time?
  
• Do they give more than the fleeting "3NT was off one at the other table when all the kibitzers can see the result in the little box right on their own screen
  
• Do they give useful carding/lead information early in the play.
  
• Do they analyze the hands as to the best line, regardless of where the cards are actually sitting.
  
• Do they assume a lowest common denominator so explain bids, rather than just say "michaels" or "too strong for 1NT" rather than elaborate on what those statements mean.

Things bad commentators do:

• Speak publically to every kibitzer they know (usually hello and goodbyes)
  
• Only make cursory remarks about the hand (if at all) ("4♠ made at the other table and will make here too" for instance as the only comment about a given hand
  
• Go on at legnth about issues unrelated to the bridge hand before us, and often not even making any comments at all on the given hand.
  
• When (rarely) making comments about play it seems comments are based upon GIB and not serious analysis. Reason being, comments are far from bridge related issue or simply not true.
  
• The bridge to non-bridge ratio of comments is less than 0.4 (often less than 0.1).

Of course on any given hand, a commentator might take the hand off, or not be their best. But if you look through the files (or a few of them), you will quickly determine which commentators meet your personal standards of commentating. Here is one hand where I think the commenting could have gone better.

1h 2d
2h 3d
3h 4h
all pass

---

The comments started with "other room 3NT was down one" (3N -1 was on screen for all to read. No one talked about 3NT being a better contract (in theory) than 4♥, winning 6♥, 2♠ and a ♣ against normal heart splits, while 4♥ might lose 3♦ and a club against normal distributions.

After a spade opening lead, won by declarer.... the commentors missed the entire point of the hand, and made several errors in analysis. In fact, thier entire analysis ... every point seemed to miss the mark on this hand.

The play was spade to the king, heart ace and king. The key to the play of the hands is interesting, and not all that difficult. Declarer, running into the 5-1 trump split, has to elope with his two small trumps (6♥, 1♦, 1♣, 2♠.) For this he needs to ruff two spades == or at least threaten to ruff two spades ==, so he needs entries to dummy, which he has. On the queen of hearts, however, he chose kept all those long, and useless diamonds, and threw away on of his incredibly valuable small spades. Here is how the play should go....

Win the queen of hearts and lead a diamond immediately. Can not afford fourth heart, or East returns a heart killing one of declarers small trumps. East wins the diamond ACE, no return matters, lets assume a club. Win ACE, cash spade ace, ruff a spade... Play the heart jack to pull EAST down to one trump (declarer too).. then lead a diamond in this position...

1h 2d
2h 3d
3h 4h
all pass

---

Perhaps the elopement is hard to see, and neat hands are often missed, but still the discussion on this hand surely missed the mark, talking about setting up diamonds for a club pitch, and a great teaching hand was missed for the kibitzers. (Even the theortical comparision of 3NT versus 4♥ was missed... ) All the necessary components were there for finding the elopment play, even to the third best spade opening lead giving count. With no chance for a diamond establishment, no reasonable chance for a squeeze, and four certain losers, elopement seems the only straw to grasp too to boot. One wonders how many of the kibitzers noticed the trump elopment play, the situation was textbook for this standard play so i am sure several must have saw it. It is a shame others did not get to see it and learn from this neat ending. Clearly the great commentators would not have missed this elopement play, this is why as kibitizers, it might be more useful to pick who is commenting rather than who is playing....

[Walddk]

I agree with most of what Ben writes, but there are a few issues one must take into consideration:

- 1. It is an unpaid job to be a vugraph commentator.
- 2. You can't get the best every time.
- 3. Number of tables being broadcast.
- 4. Written commentary compared to voice commentary.
- 5. The majority of spectators are not experts.

Regarding ...

1) You get what you pay for (no offence intended, Fred & Uday).

2) It is obviously impossible to get the star commentators when they must give (time) rather than receive (money). Time difference is also an issue.

3) We often have many simultaneous broadcasts, or/and several tables from one event. Just go back to the European Championships 6-7 weeks ago where we had 12-16 tables three times a day for two weeks. Money or no money, how can one expect to get around 70-80 top class commentators every day for so long? It is not going to happen.

4) It is much more difficult to work with written commentary. Using voice you can express your views more or less instantly, whereas one has to think, analyse and type at the same time when using written commentary. Some are slow typists.

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.

By and large it's my impression that we have got a little of everything among the 287 potential commentators on my contact list. It is far from perfect, but given the circumstances I think it's good value for (no) money.

Roland

[matmat]

Walddk, on Aug 5 2008, 11:16 AM, said:

I agree with most of what Ben writes, but there are a few issues one must take into consideration:

- 1. It is an unpaid job to be a vugraph commentator.
- 2. You can't get the best every time.
- 3. Number of tables being broadcast.
- 4. Written commentary compared to voice commentary.
- 5. The majority of spectators are not experts.

Regarding ...

1) You get what you pay for (no offence intended, Fred & Uday).

2) It is obviously impossible to get the star commentators when they must give (time) rather than receive (money). Time difference is also an issue.

3) We often have many simultaneous broadcasts, or/and several tables from one event. Just go back to the European Championships 6-7 weeks ago where we had 12-16 tables three times a day for two weeks. Money or no money, how can one expect to get around 70-80 top class commentators every day for so long? It is not going to happen.

4) It is much more difficult to work with written commentary. Using voice you can express your views more or less instantly, whereas one has to think, analyse and type at the same time when using written commentary. Some are slow typists.

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.

By and large it's my impression that we have got a little of everything among the 287 potential commentators on my contact list. It is far from perfect, but given the circumstances I think it's good value for (no) money.

Roland

1. agree. i also understand that it can be a thankless job.

2. true. but perhaps in certain cases it would be better not have anyone at all?

3. there is nothing wrong with leaving some fraction of the tables without commentary. Or, perhaps, there is no need to have so much vugraph (yes, I am going to get whacked for this comment, aren't I?)

4. again, you're right. _However_ for the commentators i had in mind with the OP, typing speed was not an issue at all. lines flew by the screen at the speed of light. problem was, thinking wasn't an issue for them either...

5. yes. but a good commentator will appreciate that and be able to touch all levels of spectators. sort of like a good teacher will help the slow kids along as well as interest the brighter ones.

[Walddk]

matmat, on Aug 5 2008, 06:24 PM, said:

Or, perhaps, there is no need to have so much vugraph (yes, I am going to get whacked for this comment, aren't I?)

You won't be whacked by me. 14-16 tables from France was a bit over the top if you ask me. On the other hand, I am in two minds, because with all those tables we also give our viewers from say Belgium the chance to watch their heroes.

We don't get more spectators though. The number will just be spread over the 16 tables rather than if we only had 4.

Regarding the number of broadcasts, there is one issue I do not want to touch. I am not going to tell any organiser that "your tournament is not worthy of a broadcast."

I agree that some broadcasts are more interesting than others and that sometimes it is difficult to get enough commentators for lesser events. However, in our guidelines, we have the following paragraphs:

"Please be aware that occasionally several tournaments broadcast on the same day. In this event, it may be difficult for us to provide you with a full commentary staff. I will let you know if I think this may be an issue.

Tournament organisers also have the option of contacting local experts and asking if they would be willing to provide online commentary for some number of sessions. This may be a particularly attractive option for smaller tournaments, even if BBO commentators are available.

Local experts have the advantage of being familiar with the players and the events, and the first-hand information and anecdotes they are able to provide is always well received by the online audience."

Roland

[JoAnneM]

I have a definite opinion about the commentators and their "volunteer" status. These people are professional players and these commentating stints are nothing more than free advertising for them, and if they haven't realized that then they are not very smart.

If I like a commentator I might go buy his book.

If I like a commentator I might hire him.

If I like a commentator I might take his cruise.

Where else am I going to get a personal glimpse of these commentators? Certainly not at the bridge table where the ACBL has neatly shielded them from the run-of-the-mill members with their bracketed knockouts and special rooms for the NABC+ events.

And, the reverse is true. If one of these commentators turns me off, as one certainly did, then I am very disappointed and sorry I have two of his books in my house, and there won't be anymore coming in.

I would think that they should be paying for the privilege of commentating, and putting on a good display of their bridge expertise.

[Echognome]

I'm sure Roland can verify this, but I know several commentators that are not professional players. They commentate for love of the game. I highly suspect that the professional players that commentate do not need the clientele or do not view commentating as a money generating activity (although I concede that it may happen indirectly). I just don't believe they do it with that intent.

[cherdano]

I think most commentators commentate because they have fun commentating.

[Walddk]

Echognome, on Aug 5 2008, 06:51 PM, said:

I'm sure Roland can verify this, but I know several commentators that are not professional players. They commentate for love of the game. I highly suspect that the professional players that commentate do not need the clientele or do not view commentating as a money generating activity (although I concede that it may happen indirectly). I just don't believe they do it with that intent.

You are absolutely right. Only a tiny percentage is professional players and/or bridge authors. Sure, some of them are (also) there to nurse their egos, but I don't think it's the main objective.

Therefore, I strongly disagree with JoAnne's last paragraph. One thing is that you don't get paid for working, another thing is that you must pay to be of service for thousands of other people.

That would be the certain way of getting rid of all commentators once and for all. I don't think this is what JoAnne wants.

Roland

[Walddk]

cherdano, on Aug 5 2008, 06:56 PM, said:

I think most commentators commentate because they have fun commentating.

Spot on! It is also a privilege and honour to be invited to commentate. At least that is how I see it, and I have a feeling that almost every commentator agrees with me.

Roland

[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]

JoAnneM, on Aug 5 2008, 08:11 PM, said:

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 or a or a

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]

Walddk, on Aug 5 2008, 11:16 AM, said:

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]

Aberlour10, on Aug 5 2008, 02:26 PM, said:

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]

jkdood, on Aug 5 2008, 09:26 PM, said:

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

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