[pclayton]

Quote

I give an exemple: the table where Kit Woolsey was commenting all the others (except the ones above and Roland Wald)commentators do not try to "combat" (not sure this is the right word) Kit Woolsey opinions about play or biding. same thing was happend at Lary Coehen table. I woould like to see some pro and contra arguments between for exemple Lary and Kit however they wasn't at same table. I remember a long time ago world class players from England and Kit had though discussion about play and biding.

It takes stones as a commentator to stand up to this. I commentated a match earlier with Kit and the PIQ held a 5332 with AKQxx of spades, with an outside King white on red with a 1N opening on his right, and pard was a passed hand.

I think bidding with these hands is rather silly, but Kit was convinced bidding was correct. We had an exchange of ideas, and I hope the audience gleaned something out of the discussion.

I would hope all commentators would realize that one person's opinion is not dogma, and they shouldn't fear expressing their own opinion.

[FrancesHinden]

Walddk, on Oct 12 2007, 09:30 PM, said:

- 1. How was the internet connectivity from Shanghai?
- 2. How was the quality of the operators?
- 3. How was the presentation from the venue regarding internet broadcast?
- 4. How was the co-ordination away from the venue?
- 5. 6 tables per session we had. Was that satisfactory?
- 6. How did you like the commentary?
- 7. Should we continue with multiple languages?

1. Excellent

2. Excellent

3. Don't know, I wasn't there.

4. Not sure what this question means.

5. It was satisfactory, but personally I'm not really bothered how many tables there are as long as there is at least one good one. I can only watch one match at a time, so I'm not interested in whether there are 0, 3, or 10 that I am not watching. My preference is always to watch the highest standard bridge available, I don't care what country is playing or what the event is.

6. The biggest problem with the commentary is when there were too many people commentating (for me, too many = more than 4, though 5 can be just about OK). I guess that the problem is that
- once a commentator is ungagged, they stay ungagged until the next server reboot
- commentators generally like to 'hear' themselves speak (that's why they commentate, for the majority it's at least partly an ego thing)
- so whether scheduled or not, far too many will just go to the room they like and start talking. And I imagine that it's difficult to shut them up politely.

(this doesn't apply to everyone, but to too many)

I also think there are a few commentators who shouldn't have been commentating on the BB & VC KO stages as their bridge standard is just too poor. Being a good player does not necessarily make a good commentator, but there's a correlation. However, again it's a bit difficult to say to someone 'thanks for offering, but can you stick to lower standard events please'.

Like everyone else, I have commentators I like and those I don't (e.g. one of the people sometimes mentioned as a very good commentator I find exceptionally irritating and try to avoid) but this is a personal thing; the quality-of-analysis point is more objective.

7. Yes, I think multiple languages are a good idea, but perhaps my vote shouldn't count as English is my first language.

[y66]

I’m an intermediate level player. Prolly kibbed Shanghai matches for 20 hours or so. Internet communications, vugraph operation, match coverage and commentary were all first rate, imo.

I really appreciate commentators who try to help specs understand problems from the players’ point of view, and why a player might make one decision instead of another. See lots of commentary along these lines. More of this please!

Would appreciate more commentary on carding decisions.

Thank you and your colleagues for providing many enjoyable hours of vugraph coverage.

p.s. Would enjoy audio commentary. Hope this becomes possible soon.

[Rossoneri]

1. Excellent. Didn't remember any outages.
2. Excellent. They rose to the occasion.
3,4. Average. I think more could be done regarding line-ups, match-ups etc.
5. Excellent. Would appreciate more choice, but there's only so much one can see...
6. Mostly Excellent. There were some times when the commentary reached really low points but most commentators did their job well. I agree that Kit Woolsey deserves special commendation.
7. I would prefer no given the current UI, but it would have to stay. Perhaps something could be done to have different language "channels".

Note: I watched mainly on weekends as I could only reach home around 6 pm everyday. (I live in the same timezone as Shanghai.)

[andych]

- 1. How was the internet connectivity from Shanghai? Excellent
- 2. How was the quality of the operators? Excellent
- 3. How was the presentation from the venue regarding internet broadcast? ???
- 4. How was the co-ordination away from the venue? ???
- 5. 6 tables per session we had. Was that satisfactory? Excellent
- 6. How did you like the commentary? Disappointing
- 7. Should we continue with multiple languages? No

[zman102]

- 1. How was the internet connectivity from Shanghai?

Good

- 2. How was the quality of the operators?

Excellent

- 3. How was the presentation from the venue regarding internet broadcast?

(I don't know what this means).

- 4. How was the co-ordination away from the venue?

(maybe I am not meant to understand questions 3 and 4).

- 5. 6 tables per session we had. Was that satisfactory?

OK

- 6. How did you like the commentary?

Some excellent and some so-so. I would have liked the commentators to have been more familiar with the systems being played and I would have liked to have seen the player's convention cards. The convention cards may have been available, but I did not find them.

- 7. Should we continue with multiple languages?

I sometimes watched a match, with commentary in a language I didn't understand, simply because I wanted to watch the players at that table. I really don't have a strong opinion about this.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I once drove approximately 120 miles to watch the Aces play on vu-graph in Los Angeles (they were on some kind of tour). I even paid an admission charge to get into the event (if I recall correctly). So for me it was sheer enjoyment to sit in my pajamas and watch the Bermuda Bowl. FOR FREE! I watched at 8PM, 11PM and 2AM (Pacific time) almost all days of the tournament. I want to thank everyone involved for adding this pleasure to my life.

[A2003]

Full disclosure type convention card may be prepared for each team in advance.
This may be a slow process till each team prepares one.
By whom: I have no answer.
This can be loaded by the operators.
This will explain the meaning of each bids.
This will also help commentators the meaning of the bids instead of speculating.
Also, this will give much better presentation and save commentators time.

[skjaeran]

A2003, on Oct 27 2007, 08:57 PM, said:

Full disclosure type convention card may be prepared for each team in advance.

By whom?

[JanM]

I read all of the Bermuda Bowl convention cards and prepared summaries of them. I didn't keep track of the time I spent, but I would guess it took me something like 30 hours. The convention cards are available online at Ecats.com. Some are complete, some aren't. Some include anywhere from 20-60 pages of system notes that I suppose would provide the information needed to complete a FD convention card, but I would guess that would take something in the neighborhood of an hour per pair. With 60+ pairs in each of three events, that's a staggering amount of time. And for many of the pairs there wouldn't be adequate information anyway.

Of course it would be nice if at least one commentator would familiarize himself or herself with the systems, but several times when questions were asked about methods during the broadcasts, I checked the convention cards and the answers were not available, so without an expert on the pair's system, you just aren't going to get full information.

[jikl]

To complete a FD card for a pair that have 20+ pages would take well over an hour and would still be incomplete. Asking for an FD card is impractical. A complete FD card is a 10+ hour work, per pair.

Sean

[Mbodell]

jikl, on Oct 27 2007, 10:10 PM, said:

To complete a FD card for a pair that have 20+ pages would take well over an hour and would still be incomplete. Asking for an FD card is impractical. A complete FD card is a 10+ hour work, per pair.

Sean

Well, impractical unless it was part of the conditions of contest that the pair themselves needed to provide the complete FD card. Which I would say would be reasonable if the competition were trying to raise the profile of the bridge match as a spectator sport/shop for TV coverage. I agree it is impractical given the type of setup this year.