[hrothgar]

Echognome, on Aug 15 2008, 10:24 PM, said:

Perhaps my suggestion here should be in suggestions for software, but I wondered if it was possible to have simulcasted vugraph rooms.

Said it before, I'll say it again...

BBO's chat system is very rudimentary compared to most online gaming systems. If I compare the chat systems that I had available in World of Warcraft with what is supported in BBO the difference is night and day.

Massively Multiplayer Online Game systems have already solved most every problem that we're encountering. Admittedly, this sites

1. Have a bit larger budget than BBO
2. Have a somewhat younger and more tech savey user base

Even so, I think that it would be valuable if Fred, Uday, and the like spent a couple weeks playing WoW seriously and seeing how they handle things like

Voice communication
Add on
Scripting
Chat

and the like

At the end of two weeks we could drag Fred and Uday out of the Wailing Caverns. With luck, they'd have some new sources of inspriation.

BTW, I strongly recommend that folks check out "The Guild"

http://www.watchtheg...-not-star-wars/

[Echognome]

Just to make it clear, although I understand Richard's point about it being nice to have a complete overhaul on chatting, my suggestions were meant to be tweaks within the existing infrastructure.

[NickRW]

Echognome, on Aug 15 2008, 07:24 PM, said:

Perhaps my suggestion here should be in suggestions for software, but I wondered if it was possible to have simulcasted vugraph rooms.

It is certainly possible in principle and probably not too difficult to implement in practice I guess - but it is like a lot of other things - how much time and money do Fred and company have available - especially for things that, as far as I can see, make no direct money in return.

Nick

[PeterGill]

I like Echognome's suggestions. For example, if in Beijing a big match between Italy and Norway is being broadcast in Italian or Norwegian, having a second copy of that table with a couple of English commentators could be worthwhile.

Beijing will have about 69 countries in the Open, 49 Women, 35 Seniors,
71 Under 28 countries' teams, 18 Under 26 and 16 Under 21 teams. A total
of over 250 teams, over 250 tables, not all on BBO Vugraph at once of course,
but this will mean that a lot of BBO commentators will not be available.
Roland will have to pull off his usual magic tricks to get sufficient commentators.

Peter Gill.

[peachy]

PeterGill, on Aug 16 2008, 06:42 AM, said:

I like Echognome's suggestions. For example, if in Beijing a big match between Italy and Norway is being broadcast in Italian or Norwegian, having a second copy of that table with a couple of English commentators could be worthwhile.

Beijing will have about 69 countries in the Open, 49 Women, 35 Seniors,
71 Under 28 countries' teams, 18 Under 26 and 16 Under 21 teams. A total
of over 250 teams, over 250 tables, not all on BBO Vugraph at once of course,
but this will mean that a lot of BBO commentators will not be available.
Roland will have to pull off his usual magic tricks to get sufficient commentators.

Peter Gill.

I do wish the commentators were more to the point when there is a clear error. Good or brilliant action gets comments and bravos, bad or inferior goes without any comment or at most with a euphemism like "another choice might have been better". For the benefit of those who might think this error was normal play when there is no comment on it, "Call a spade a spade"!!

IMO it is not a disgrace for anyone to make an error, even at high levels of the game. It happens, and that is what often is key factor in who wins. IMO it should not be off-limits for commentators to comment on an error and the commentators IMO should not be gagged, to limit their comments only to great plays. This gagging is unheard of in any other competitive event where there are spectators. Just my two cents...

[pclayton]

peachy, on Aug 16 2008, 03:02 PM, said:

I do wish the commentators were more to the point when there is a clear error. Good or brilliant action gets comments and bravos, bad or inferior goes without any comment or at most with a euphemism like "another choice might have been better". For the benefit of those who might think this error was normal play when there is no comment on it, "Call a spade a spade"!!

IMO it is not a disgrace for anyone to make an error, even at high levels of the game. It happens, and that is what often is key factor in who wins. IMO it should not be off-limits for commentators to comment on an error and the commentators IMO should not be gagged, to limit their comments only to great plays. This gagging is unheard of in any other competitive event where there are spectators. Just my two cents...

If you watch enough vugraphs, you'll recognize when commentators are critical of bids. Most of the regular commentators won't blatantly criticize a bid or play, but will rather say something like what you said, or, "I might have preferred 'x'", or "that bid would not have occurred to me".

The reasons for this are several. Good commentators want to appear tactful. There's no benefit to openly criticizing the players. Also, we can't see the problem through the players eyes, unless we are kibbing one hand alone (which I will sometimes do when I commentate, especially declarer), so its hard to gain proper perspective. Last, if you do choose to criticize a play, you better be 150% sure that you aren't getting it wrong. There's nothing worse than making a criticism only to find you've misanalyzed the play yourself.

If you understand this 'code' from commentators, you will understand what is being subtly criticized. Besides, what difference does it make?

In contrast, there's nothing I love more than watching an amazing play made, and I will make glowing compliments. I find nothing inconsistent with this approach.

Also, I will never come down too hard on a team sponsor, or a junior, since I expect frequent errors to be made and see no point in pointing out every little flaw in their game.

[TimG]

pclayton, on Aug 16 2008, 06:28 PM, said:

Also, I will never come down too hard on a team sponsor, or a junior, since I expect frequent errors to be made and see no point in pointing out every little flaw in their game.

You must be some player to recognize every little flaw in a player's game, even that of a mere junior or sponsor.

I like to think that those commentators who use phrases like "something else would have worked better" or "I might have preferred..." aren't being euphemistic but rather recognize that not every decision is black and white. Also, commentators are very often offering their opinions on the bids, plays, and judgments of superior players. Sometimes there isn't a right or wrong and it makes no sense for a commentator to act like there is.

[peachy]

pclayton, on Aug 16 2008, 06:28 PM, said:

If you understand this 'code' from commentators, you will understand what is being subtly criticized. Besides, what difference does it make?

Thoughtful post.

It makes really no difference, of course. Those who don't see there was an error, are none the wiser. Those who do see it, will see it whether commentators ignore it or gently use the "code". What interests me are perhaps speculations as to possible explanations why such a thing happened. Just like the kudos explain the route that possibly led the player to make the brilliant play.

[cicus]

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.

It is practically impossible to do it. Who will switch GIB on and off for them?

[rigour6]

One suggestion I have is to do what some are doing with bidding recounts, which is use chess notation.

1C - 1H
2C? - 2H
3H - 3NT!

This sort of thing helps the less expert player direct his attention to the parts of the auction which are particularly "interesting", for whatever reason.

Likewise in play. I know we don't want to rip into people but a questionable play is a questionable play, and there's no insult in a question mark, heck for some plays you can even use both Q and exclamation mark.

[Walddk]

About five years ago Fred and I established guidelines with respect to which subjects should be considered "off limits" by BBO vugraph commentators. Basically, we have always given and will always give commentators leeway, and only rarely did we interfere with what commentators type.

These guidelines have evolved over time, but one thing that has not changed is that we ask all commentators to refrain from intentionally embarrassing players, tournament organizers, sponsors, and national bridge federations. Commentators who publicly try to make these groups look foolish hurt everyone.

This policy may not be totally appealing to everyone from a purely philosophical point of view, but it is the only possible policy from a practical point of view. The crux of the matter is that, if we make enemies of the "powers that be", there won't be any more BBO vugraph, and everyone will suffer as a result.

While it is true that sometimes all these groups make poor decisions, we recognise that the only sensible approach is to treat those groups with respect. By all means, criticize a player if you think s/he made a poor call or play, but criticism must never be embarrassing, insulting or condenscending.

No-one makes an error intentionally.

Roland

[JanM]

PeterGill, on Aug 15 2008, 01:49 PM, said:

As a face-to-face result, my bridge improves after I commentate on BBO.
It's not just me. When Jack Zhao used to commentate a lot of BBO, he followed up by winning the World Pairs and the Vanderbilt. He hasn't done quite so spectacularly well now that he commentates less. In Australia, my observations  suggest that Bruce Neill, David Stern and Bill Jacobs have all had much better results when they commentate on BBO a lot. Similarly Wayne Burrows from New Zealand became a regular member of their National team for the first time after doing quite a lot of commentary.

Great post, Peter! I particularly enjoyed the paragraph I've quoted because of something that happened to me a few months ago. I hadn't played much bridge at the end of last year (I'm sure you can all guess why), but I did manage to find time to watch and commentate on BBO. Early this year Chip and I played in a local Regional tournament and he commented that he'd been thinking I was wasting too much time watching BBO Vugraph, but he had changed his mind, because it had clearly improved my game .

[doofik]

A fascinating thread, filled with comments that an average viewer doesn't consider.
Thank you.

[JoAnneM]

As a Vugraph viewer, and one who had been critical (but to only one person) I also have really appreciated this thread. It has given me a good picture and a great appreciation of what actually goes on behind the computer screen. I especially like the posts that described all the activities (mental and physical) that a commentator has to handle at one time.

To all the commentators who are still reading this thread - thanks for all you do.

[FrancesHinden]

Heard three times today from the commentators on the Olympics

"And we've really got a competition now"

What did they think they had before?

[matmat]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 21 2008, 04:48 PM, said:

Heard three times today from the commentators on the Olympics

"And we've really got a competition now"

What did they think they had before?

lollygagging?

[pclayton]

matmat, on Aug 21 2008, 01:49 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Aug 21 2008, 04:48 PM, said:

Heard three times today from the commentators on the Olympics

"And we've really got a competition now"

What did they think they had before?

lollygagging?

No, sportsmanlike dumping.

[DrTodd13]

Perhaps something like this could be done. When you join a vugraph session, by default what you get is either no commentary or the commentary of the people Roland chooses. You would also have the ability to see a list of other commentary sessions established for this vugraph and you could join them. Each session would list who was authorized to comment, the language of the comments, whether voice commentary is enabled, etc. You could allow anybody to establish their own commentary sessions so that they and their friends could meet there and discuss amongst themselves. In short, I suggest that you disassociate the delivery of the hand, bids, cards, etc. from the textual commentary.

[jkdood]

Yeah yeah Thanks for all you do, it's free, it's volunteers unpaid, etc... and despite MatMat's ON TARGET comment that started the thread, there are surely many enjoyable astute wonderful (and appreciated!) commentators.

That being said, a Pet Peeve Post: Those of you commentators (maybe a quarter, or less) that simply turn off your chat with the stock "I am busy now if it's urgent contact an admin" or such message infuriate me

[TylerE]

jkdood, on Aug 21 2008, 08:42 PM, said:

That being said, a Pet Peeve Post: Those of you commentators (maybe a quarter, or less) that simply turn off your chat with the stock "I am busy now if it's urgent contact an admin" or such message infuriate me

While I usually leave mine on, I don't blame or at all hold it against those that turn it off. When trying to mentally analyze a deep posistion, the constant "buzzing" can be very distracting.