[mr1303]

Hi all.

I've just spent the weekend commentating on the Junior Camrose. Shortly after the tournament finished, I received a message from someone playing in the event (I won't say who, since he doesn't read these forums) saying that I'd offended a lot of people by my comments.

I'm not sure what it is that I'd said that was so offensive. However, I have the following to say.

1) When I commentate, I try to commentate subjectively. In other words, if someone does something good, I say that the player did something good. On the other hand, if someone makes a "dubious" action, I also point that out. In the course of an event, I try to be fair and even with my commentary, without bias.

2) My comments are designed for the vugraph audience. They are not designed as feedback for the players for after they finish the event.

3) When I teach young inexperienced players, I try my hardest not to give them any undue criticism. However, when they reach the standard for playing on vugraph, I feel that they should be able to take a certain amount.

4) Vugraph commentators, operators, and co-ordinators give up a lot of their free time in order to make these broadcasts possible. We get little thanks for this.

Comments from readers on this issue would be very helpful, particularly those who frequently commentate on vugraph.

Mark

[uday]

Things we've had to apologize for in the past (more or less)

- references to "the jewish pair"
- references to supposed gender-bound inability to play bridge well
- nasty cracks about a playing sponsor
- commentators fighting with each other


I don't think you need put up with complaints from the end-users if you don't feel like doing so. Just refer them to us and we'll do what we need to do after investigating. I've heard nothing negative about this weekend's broadcasts.

Objective commentary is important to all of us.

The vugraph operators and commentators and organizers get, as you say, very little thanks for the wonderful service they provide to all of us.

In passing, Roland pointed out that the vugraph team churned out 43 (!) sessions over this weekend. Amazing.

[hrothgar]

Since you're asking:

A number of your comments are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Case in point: One of the Camerose players stated a lot of players found your comments offensive. You responded

"4) Vugraph commentators, operators, and co-ordinators give up a lot of their free time in order to make these broadcasts possible. We get little thanks for this."

Does the lack of thanks given to Vugraph operators give you a right to make offensive comments? This line of argument seems to be - at best - a non sequitur. It could easily be dismissed as self-serving and petulant whining.

As to your other comments: Personally, I believe I think the we need to strike a delicate balancing act. On the one hand, I think that Internet Vugraphs provide an enormous benefit to the bridge playing public. Informed commentary is certainly a part of this, are are comments regarding the validity of certain bids or certain lines of play.

With this said and done, Internet Vugraph is far from being a fait accompli. As consumers of Vugraph, we may believe that we have a god given right to build Internet Vugraph into the conditions of contest and watch whats going on. However, at the end of the day, the players and the tournament organizers are the ones holding the cards. If they decide that Internet Vugraph is more trouble than its worth, we're the ones that are going to suffer. Pissing off the players doesn't do us any good.

For what its worth, I didn't see any of the Junior Vugraph. I have no first hand knowledge regarding the comments that you were/were not making. For all I know, you were a model of decorum and the player who lodge the complaint is just being an overly sensitive little twit. Regardless, I'm somewhat worried about the fact that you seem to be trying to justify your actions rather than avoiding a repeat incident.

If you were a particular valuable commentator (say David Burn or some such), I'd be much more inclined to cut you some slack. As is, I think that the simpliest thing is to drop you from the list of commentators. I doubt that the coverage would suffer and their would be less risk of this cropping up again.

I recognize that this posting could be judged somewhat harshly. However, when one reaches the standard for commenting in a Vugraph, they should be able to take a certain amount.

[Walddk]

I know about the incident you are referring to Mark, and if I were you, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Sometimes we give the players some stick, but it's usually done with a twinkle in one's eye, which sometimes, if you forget a smiley, may appear offensive. The printed word can be harsh.

We certainly do not allow commentators to be rude to the players, but we do grant them the liberty to be critical in a civilised manner. I am supportive of all our commentators, and only occasionally did I need to send a couple a private message, asking them to calm down.

We had 74 commentators in action over the weekend. I have absolutely nothing to complain about. I honestly think that all of them did a fine job, and I was there for the duration: 31 hours!

Time to get some sleep

Roland

[Walddk]

hrothgar, on Feb 19 2006, 09:43 PM, said:

For what its worth, I didn't see any of the Junior Vugraph. I have no first hand knowledge regarding the comments that you were/were not making. For all I know, you were a model of decorum and the player who lodge the complaint is just being overly sensitive little twit. Regardless, I'm somewhat worried about the fact that you seem to be trying to justify your actions rather than avoiding a repeat incident.

If you were a particular valuable commentator (say David Burn or some such), I'd be much more inclined to cut you some slack. As is, I think that the simpliest thing is to drop you from the list of commentators. I doubt that the coverage would suffer and their would be less risk of this cropping up again.

I disagree, and I know that Fred and Uday trust me if we are in a situation where we should drop one or two from the list. It has happened in the past, twice actually, in the 3 years I have been coordinating this.

We simply don't invite them any more if they overstep the line repeatedly. It's as simple as that.

Mark Reeve is one of the 181 I will keep inviting, also after this weekend. It would be pretty chaotic if the spectators were to decide which commentators to keep and which to throw out. I am responsible, and I will take the full blame if my judgement is poor.

Roland

[mrdct]

uday, on Feb 19 2006, 03:35 PM, said:

Things we've had to apologize for in the past (more or less)

- nasty cracks about a playing sponsor

The playing sponsor scenario is an interesting one. When I recently played on BBO vugraph my screenmate was a playing sponsor (and really nice guy). I narcissistically read through the commentary after the event and thought the commentators handled it quite well. So that the audience would know what was going on, it was absolutely necessary to explain why the sponsor's pro was winding up as declarer on just about every hand, together with the sponsor's rather unique competitive bidding style. Some of the comments could have been construed as "nasty cracks" but they provided the proper context to the audience as to what was going on.

Bridge is a game of errors. On vugraph the majority of exciting moments and imps changing hands are when errors are made. Accordingly, commentators are often required to analyse the thought processes that led to a particular error, many of which are quite inexplicable. Every effort is made to present such analysis tactfully, but similar to a dropped catch in cricket, a fumble in baseball or a missed header in front of an empty goal in football, major blunders will and should attract some degree of critisism from the commentators.

When players reach the stage where they are playing on BBO vugraph, they ought to be thick-skinned enough to deal with critisism, or at least understand the context in which the critism is levied.

[fred]

I have no idea what Mark said that offended the players, but from reading his post it seems clear to me that he did not mean to offend anyone and that he is genuinely concerned about what happened.

The following is not directed at Mark specifically - it is just a collection of my views on the proper attitude the a vugraph commentator should have.

In my opinion it is important that a vugraph commentator tries his best to be delicate and tactful either when a player makes an obvious error or when he takes an unclear action that the commentator disagrees with.

About obvious errors, anyone who watches BBO vugraph on a regular basis will know by now that even the world's best players occasionally make ridiculous mistakes. No doubt there are plenty of people in the audience who find it refreshing to see that all great players are really human and of course the commentators should try to be objective and point out mistakes.

However, they should be careful about their choice of words. There is no reason to humiliate the players. I have seen a few commentators do this in the past. These people tend to be frustrated players with poor social skills who have not won anything in a long time.

These are the same sort of people (if that is what they are) who get so much pleasure out of humiliating and torturing GerardC (the only difference being that the vugraph commentators who take pleasure from making others suffer actually know something about bridge).

Bridge has not done a very good job of promoting its stars over the years and, in my opinion, the game has suffered as a result. Roland understands this and has made it clear that commentators who try to make the players look foolish are not welcome. Much to Roland's credit, at least one of the ex-commentators in this class was a "famous player" - it took a lot of courage for Roland to tell him "thanks, but we won't be requiring your services in the future".

My other pet peeve about some (fortunately only a few) commentators has to do with the way they treat very grey areas of bridge as if they were really black and white. Regular vugraph watchers will know there are widely divergent opinions in the expert community about things like sound vs. light opening bids and preempts, opening 1NT with a 5-card major, which suit to open with 4-4 in the minors, etc.

Anyone who knows the game well enough to be asked by Roland to be a commentator should also be humble enough to know that nobody really knows the answers to these questions. If, for example, a player makes a lightish overcall and ends up with a poor result, it is inappropriate for a vugraph commentator to say something like "it is wrong to overcall on that hand - he got what he deserved". A better comment would be "My style is to pass with a hand like that, but this is really a matter of judgment and partnership".

Many players (reasonably) find the experience of being under a microscope in front of 1000s of viewers while playing in an important tournament to be somewhat disconcerting. I agree with Richard that it is important for the future of online vugraph that the players are as comfortable as possible during our broadcasts.

To this end, vugraph commentators can help by being sensitive to the pressure that the players are under. Good commentators should point out errors and inform the audience when they disagree with a player's judgment, but there are right and wrong ways to do this. Being mean about mistakes and/or being dogmatic about judgment calls is the wrong way.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

PS Congrats to Roland and his team on a remarkable weekend!

[the saint]

I co-commentated the entire event with Mark (my first commentary) and now appreciate what a tricky task it is.

The only comment I would make about commentary as such is that some commentators should be more aware of who they are commentating about. In the case of this particular event, even though there were only Under 25 players on screen at any time, because of the lack of strength in depth of some of the participating nations, some were very inexperienced, and the commentators comments should reflect that - especially since a very large portion of the audience for that event were the direct peers of the players themselves. 99.99% of the comments were fine, but there were one or two (as in any commentary I suppose) that could have been a little more carefully considered.

I had an enormous amount of requests to ask for an Under 20 match to be shown, but the feeling in Scotland was that they didn't want the youngsters (some as young as 12) to potentially be humiliated by the vugraph commentary. Now while I know none of the commentators would dream of doing such a thing, I feel it is important that all commentators strive to maintain a friendly approach (which they all do IMO) whilst being 100% objective at all times. Hopefully next time, the Under 20s will regard it as a thrill to play on vugraph and rise to the occasion, rather than feel as if the world is looking to tear them apart.

Thanks for inviting me to commentate on this event. As someone who knew most of the players involved and who has taught and coached, and played with and against many of them at one time or another, it was a pleasure.

Alan

[Walddk]

the saint, on Feb 20 2006, 08:13 PM, said:

Thanks for inviting me to commentate on this event. As someone who knew most of the players involved and who has taught and coached, and played with and against many of them at one time or another, it was a pleasure.

Alan

This is one way of getting new talented commentators. Before the Junior Camrose broadcast started, Alan messaged me and told me about himself. I invited him to join, and he was there constantly: 10 sessions of 12 boards!

Nice young man, excellent analysing skills; just the person you would like to be on your team.

Roland

[Walddk]

Last spring I was on BBO vugraph from Scotland (on a team with Mike Lawrence among others). I did a couple of good things, but I also butchered a 4♠ contract because I lost count of the trump suit!

I deserved all the stick I got, and never in my wildest dreams would I complain about the fact that the commentators were less than supportive (to put it diplomatically). If you appear on vugraph, take the bad with the good and get on with things.

Most players are not sensitive, but some are, and then I think they have a problem. If you can't face the music, if presented in a civilised tone needless to say, you should refrain from taking part in an event where you "risk" being exposed to the world when asked to play on vugraph.

Roland

[roghog]

I didn't see any of the Junior Camrose broadcast, but I had some misgivings when I saw it on the schedule.

I organised the last Lady Milne broadcast (that's the women's equivalent of the Camrose.) In Britain and Ireland, there aren't many women's pairs who have the time and will to develop an international class partnership. In the Lady Milne, play starts on Friday evening. Some of those who took part had worked on the Friday morning and travelled in the afternoon. Some of the national organisations have limited income, so their teams have to pay all their own expenses.

I was quite keen for the event to be broadcast. When I commentate on BBO, many spectators tell me how bored they are with long, artificial auctions; and nearly all the queries I get are about the basics of the game. The ladies' style tends to be direct and natural. I thought commentators would find lots of interesting and instructive things to say that would strike a chord with the less experienced players in the BBO audience.

Some commentary was excellent, with good, constructive criticism. Some, I'm afraid, though perhaps meant to be jocular, was demeaning. ("Doesn't she realise she's representing her country?" " Oh dear, she's dozed off again") We had set up a BBO screen in the "sitting out" room, and it was sometimes unpleasant viewing for those watching.

I'm glad (and not surprised!) to hear that Justin and the "big beasts" take it in their stride...

[CopeyJ]

Ok - I am going to risk putting my head into the firing line here. I played in the Junior Camrose last weekend - and was indeed on VG quite a bit of it. Whilst I understand, as a part time commentator myself, that commentators give up a great deal of free time to help out Roland and his team, I can also understand the feelings that have come from this thread.

I made several clear mistakes, and for example my 3S contract where we should obviously be in game. These mistakes happen at the highest levels and we comment on them when they happen to some of the game's true greats. So the comments made about bidding and play are understandable and totally acceptable.

The problem stems from some of the comments about the event generally. Some of the local viewers in Edinburgh felt that some of the comments were a little demeaning to the event, perhaps inferring that England needed to do little more than turn up to the event to win it. The locals felt that this was disrespectful to the other teams involved, and based on what i was told by the on site VG audience I would have to agree.

The players involved had absolutely no problem with our mistakes being criticised - it is good for our game to hear what experienced players have to say about them. However, given the sensitivity involved in this particular event, mostly caused by England's tendency to dominate over recent years, it was difficult for the players to hear the on site audience being upset by some of the remarks, whilst we were doing our best to build up relations between the nations.

Thank you to ALL who commentated over the weekend - I know what hard work it can be. It was a thoroughly enjoyable event to be a part of - a good time was had by all. I hope the sentiments of my thread will not be taken as a direct criticism, but merely trying to explain what was going on at the event itself.

Finally, big thanks to Fred, Uday & Roland for their hard work and committment to BBO.

[ewj]

Walddk, on Feb 21 2006, 12:36 PM, said:

Most players are not sensitive, but some are, and then I think they have a problem. If you can't face the music, if presented in a civilised tone needless to say, you should refrain from taking part in an event where you "risk" being exposed to the world when asked to play on vugraph.

I played in the U20s event and would have loved to have played on vugraph but at the end of the day, the other U20 teams did not want to have to take the criticism (even if they did deserve it) as they were inexperienced and young (as one has already mentioned, some were as young as 12). At the end of the day, the U20 competition standard was pretty poor so it was probably wise not to broadcast.
It's not a case of being sensitive...it's about encouraging young players who are just learning, to improve and to enjoy the game. Why would a captain want to allow their team to go on vugraph if there were going to be commentators to make fun at their standard.
I wouldnt care if someone like Mark criticised me on vugraph...I know when I have done something stupid and it wont make me give up bridge but at the end of the day, the home nations of the UK are often struggling to put a side out, so they need to avoid all the discouragement they can.

[ewj]

Incidently, where can we see either the commentary/archives of the Junior Camrose?

[Limey_p]

First, Bravo! to all the participants. second, thanks to all the operators and commentators.

I get to the archive via the link: http://bridgebase04....81/vug/?C=M;O=D

*however* there's a sofware bug: the commentaries are frequently mixed up with the other tournaments taking place on the same day. Somewhat annoying but previously reported in these forums. The hand records themselves are almost always accurate, at least to the limits of the possible - the operators are not superhuman.

and last, thanks to Fred and Roland who make it all possible.

AP

[Walddk]

I agree with both Simon and Ed. If you want to encourage young people to stay in the game, it is certainly not right to tell the world how bad they bid, declare and defend. This will only harm the case. It's much better to say something like:

"The line was not the best available, but XXX is a very young player, and he will learn quickly".

I think it was a good idea not to expose the U-20s to a vugraph audience, but I don't think it's a good idea to tell everyone that this will just be a walkover for England, and that the rest of the teams are just there to serve as cannon fodder.

The youngsters need protection, and all commentators should be aware of that. It's an entirely different ball game when for instance Fred appears on vugraph. He has been there, done that and is prepared to accept constructive criticism.

Public criticism doesn't do a 13 or 14-year old any good.

Roland

[CopeyJ]

Exactly, Roland. And there within lies the crux of the problem. That is what the on site audience took real exception to, was the implication that proud nations such as Scotland, Wales, Eire and Northern Ireland were there as cannon fodder. It is also what we, the players, took exception to hearing, as we love this competition, and the more we can forge a strong partnership with the "home nations", the more chance there is of getting youngsters from all parts involved in our wonderful game.
I think some of the comments just came out badly in type - I do not for one moment think that they were intended to be hurtful/disrespectful to the other nations and the other players at the JC & PB.

It was a wonderful weekend, wonderfully covered by BBO. Let's just draw a line at that, shall we, and hope that it continues both as a fabulous tournament in its own right, and as a partnership with BBO for many years to come.

Simon

[fred]

Walddk, on Feb 21 2006, 09:42 PM, said:

The youngsters need protection, and all commentators should be aware of that. It's an entirely different ball game when for instance Fred appears on vugraph. He has been there, done that and is prepared to accept constructive criticism.

I am actually like Justin in that I really don't care what the commentators say about me (except that I care that they are polite and respectful regardless of who they are talking about). Furthermore, when I play on vugraph I am not even consiously aware of being "on camera" - when I make a stupid bid or play it does not make me feel any more embarassed than usual to know that 1000s of people (instead of just 4) might have noticed.

However, as far as I can tell there are a lot of really good players who do not feel this secure about playing on vugraph. I get a lot of e-mails from players asking for records of the commentary that was made about them and I have heard even World Champions tell me that they find the whole online vugraph experience to be disconcerting. While I do not feel this way myself and while it is easy to tell such people to "get over it", the fact remains that playing on vugraph causes anxiety for a lot of bridge players. Apparently this is human nature for a significant % of people.

Vugraph commentators should be sensitive to this, especially when relatively inexperienced players are involved.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[CopeyJ]

Hi Fred

When I was playing at the weekend - I thoroughly enjoyed playing on VG as did my partner Stuart Haring. We played all our stanzas bar one on VG, and felt it helped us to concentrate even more than we might have done otherwise.

It was a thoroughly enjoyable experience - thanks!