[jkdood]

Hi Hedy I think you do a fine job, you might like to know, thanks!

(You also prove the point that I am not sure Fred acknowledged that it is not (only?) volunteers but there are quite a few "invited" commentators. But I am sure you are "deserving" as proven.)

You also don't shut-off your chat receiving. As you know, specs are invaluable in pointing out technical insights and interesting aspects, that the commentator will share with everyone if they consider it appropriate.

Come to think of it, nothing maybe steams me as much as a commentator who turns off their chat with the stock "I am busy if it is important contact an admin" message, and refuses spec comments. They should maybe take your suggestion: learn how to improve from this thread topic, not take it personally, and in my personal opinion only, if they cannot commentate AND receive spec chat to consider, maybe they aren't up to the task!

[Aberlour10]

jkdood, on Aug 5 2008, 05:39 PM, said:

Come to think of it, nothing maybe steams me as much as a commentator who turns off their chat with the stock "I am busy if it is important contact an admin" message, and refuses spec comments. They should maybe take your suggestion: learn how to improve from this thread topic, not take it personally, and in my personal opinion only, if they cannot commentate AND receive spec chat to consider, maybe they aren't up to the task!

You would (maybe) change your mind on this matter if you would be confront with 68 private messages in 5 seconds about your comment during VU.

[jkdood]

"You would (maybe) change your mind on this matter if you would be confront with 68 private messages in 5 seconds about your comment during VU"

Well, more power to the commentators that can manage it!! To me, that's 68 interested helpful involved engaged specs wanting to share with an available "privileged" speaker!!

(I'm sure thoughtful accurate insightful useful comments by the commentator don't "usually" get such an overload )

[NickRW]

jkdood, on Aug 5 2008, 11:23 PM, said:

"You would (maybe) change your mind on this matter if you would be confront with 68 private messages in 5 seconds about your comment during VU"

Well, more power to the commentators that can manage it!! To me, that's 68 interested helpful involved engaged specs wanting to share with an available "privileged" speaker!!

I actually doubt that they do manage to keep their attention on the play, keeping up with commentating and replying in any way intelligently to a deluge of messages - or sometimes, even reading them all.

A month or so back Andrew Robson + partner gave of their time to play a dozen or so boards online and, at the same time, commentate of what they were thinking as they were playing. From my point of view, unfortunately, kib comment was visible by all. Frankly there was WAY too much and it was difficult to even follow any coherent commentary, never mind what Andrew must have felt like trying to actually provide the commentary through that haze.

Nick

[jkdood]

Unless it's correcting an inaccurate analysis of fact, I believe the vast majority of spec comments (to commentators) are to suggest play or bidding highlights or insights...and don't require a reply...

...I have myself offered such observations dozens of times, even on target (LOL) and some commentators have no problem introducing the thought to general commentary, and then even adding a private thank you or agreement to the observation.

Of course, not all commentators do this or are willing to do this OR can do this well, as is more than obvious from this thread. Funny thing, the ones that can and do "do it" seem to me to be the most on the mark non-distracting guest speakers.

[Walddk]

jkdood, on Aug 5 2008, 11:53 PM, said:

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."

This is no contradiction, because Fred and I are both right. When potential commentators volunteer by sending me an e-mail with info about themselves, they get an invite to give it a try.

Only once or twice over the past six years have I rejected anyone.

Some also approach me online to ask if they could get an opportunity to commentate. Before I accept if I don't know them, I ask them to send me an e-mail with a little info, for instance about why they think they can contribute with constructive commentary.

Quite regularly, current commentators also recommend people they know. I have added several in that fashion.

As I said above, they will almost always get a chance. There are some strings attached, such as full name and flag in profiles, no controversial comments in the profiles, acceptable written English, etc., but that never causes problems.

Finally, I often send private messages to users I know and ask them if they would like to commentate. They may then be invited on the spot if they accept; in other instances when they are unavailable at the time, I will add them to my contact list, which means that they will get my e-mails with regular intervals. Then they can sign up in advance for certain sessions of upcoming broadcasts.

So, if any of you, or anyone else for that matter would like to try, you will most likely get the go ahead. Just a mild warning: it is not as easy as one may think. I don't want to intimidate anyone, but it's a fact that it's a demanding job to commentate for a couple of hours, not least if you are inexperienced and only have one or two others in that particular room.

Interested? Send me an e-mail at roland_wald(at)hotmail.com, and write a few lines about yourself. Everyone will get a reply, no matter what.

Roland

[brianshark]

From my experience watching vugraph commentary, and contrary to what some people have been saying in the thread:

I think fear of voicing a legitimate opinion for fear that it is not theoretically perfect or fully thought out is more of a problem then gross misanalysis, at least among some commentators.

I also think lack of interest in commentating on the mundane intermediate/advanced details of a bridge deal is more of a problem than not enough high level analysis of complex squeezes and end-plays.

I appreciate that commentating is voluntary, resources can be limited, etc. And because of that, we can't filter the quality by being too selective of who we choose to commentate. Unless Roland has already done something like this, perhaps an idea worth considering is to draw up a "guide to commentating" or even just a do and don't list?

For example:

Do analyse some basic/intermediate aspects of a deal as well as advanced stuff.
Do have open a copy of the system notes of both pairs playing, where possible.
Do consider the problems of the declarer and defenders from a single dummy perspective.

Don't say "next" or "oops".
Don't talk about non-bridge related stuff (too much).
Don't state which card is correct to play without theorising on the clues to guide the defeder/declarer to finding it.

[HedyG]

Brian you left out the most important point i think:
always stay polite in your comments no matter how much you dislike or disagree with the bidding and/or play ,whether we are watching a high level championship or junior events or even a casual tourney with players of all levels.

[brianshark]

HedyG, on Aug 6 2008, 10:51 AM, said:

Brian you left out the most important point i think:
always stay polite in your comments no matter how much you dislike or disagree with the bidding and/or play ,whether we are watching a high level championship or junior events or even a casual tourney with players of all levels.

I'm sure there are loads I left out. But yes, that one is quite important I imagine.

[Trinidad]

My own little opinion on commentating:

Commentating should be light hearted. After all, it is entertainment. I think that David Burn is an excellent commentator when it comes to the analysis of the hand. Keep him, no matter how many bottles of coke it will cost.

But I personnally prefer David Bird. He rarely comes up with a hexagonal squeeze, but I find him, by far, the most entertaining commentator. His comments are fast, clear and at (the right number of) times witty. On top of that he has the ability to explain the essence of the situation in a way that a lesser player can understand. Keep him and offer him bottles of whiskey if needed.

Rik

[Walddk]

Trinidad, on Aug 6 2008, 01:06 PM, said:

My own little opinion on commentating:

Commentating should be light hearted. After all, it is entertainment. I think that David Burn is an excellent commentator when it comes to the analysis of the hand. Keep him, no matter how many bottles of coke it will cost.

But I personnally prefer David Bird. He rarely comes up with a hexagonal squeeze, but I find him, by far, the most entertaining commentator. His comments are fast, clear and at (the right number of) times witty. On top of that he has the ability to explain the essence of the situation in a way that a lesser player can understand. Keep him and offer him bottles of whiskey if needed.

Rik

We have no intention of dumping any of them. For the record, David Burn does NOT drink cokes!

I do not have the habit of giving our commentators marks, but both Davids are ranked high on my list of excellent commentators. Burn's dry sense of humour is second to none, and Bird is a splendid writer, not least because he is extremely articulate with the use of the English language I find very commendable.

It's a joy to watch both of them for another reason. You hardly ever see a typo although they (especially Bird) write quite long sentences. Let me add Frances Hinden to the very articulate commentators. They are all quick typists, which makes this even more impressive.

All three are from England where they speak English better and grammatically more correctly than anywhere else in the world.

Roland

[matmat]

brianshark, on Aug 6 2008, 04:41 AM, said:

Don't talk about non-bridge related stuff (too much).

i agree that non-bridge stuff is fine... but it should be about the players, not about the commentator's mother-in-law.

[NickRW]

Walddk, on Aug 6 2008, 11:38 AM, said:

All three are from England where they speak English better and grammatically more correctly than anywhere else in the world.

Roland

You don't seem to do too badly yourself

[peachy]

HedyG, on Aug 5 2008, 04:56 PM, said:

i wasn't going to write on this thread. what do i know? maybe the complaints were about me.

As far as I am concerned, it was NOT YOU folks are talking about.
Your comments are moderate, non-argumentative, non-abrasive, TO THE POINT bridgewise, knowledgeable [and when you don't know you solicit help from those who do], and never just thoughtlessly opening your [eh..keep typing on keyboard] as if to hog the screen...

[onoway]

As an intermediate, I feel highly privileged to have commentators at all to make the play more comprehensible and just generally more entertaining. I do look to see who is commentating where and generally decide which table I am going to watch on that basis, and have rarely been disappointed (and if so, I go to the other table or back to play, no big deal.)

I must admit sympathy for commentators trying to fill a long gap of dead airspace while the players are thinking sometimes. It is a very uneasy and difficult thing to do, and not all the commentators are perhaps privy to juicy tidbits about the players. In those cases I think it ungenerous not to cut them a little slack, I personally have no problem if they stray from the bridge a little at such times.

It is a special treat when the commentators remember that a lot of us have no clue that there is such a thing as "eloping" in bridge terms and explain it, or how polish club works or whatever. It would be unfortunate though if people geared everything down for the less advanced player, genereally there seems to be a good mix, and I have had no problems when something seems weird, asking one of the commentators about it, they have always been very accommodating.

When you have a lot of people doing anything, some are bound to be more adept and comfortable. By and large I think BBO has a wonderful group and I for one am very appreciative they will share their time and expertise.

So from one, at least, kudos to Fred and Roland and the commentators and thanks !!

[dburn]

jkdood, on Aug 5 2008, 06:23 PM, said:

"You would (maybe) change your mind on this matter if you would be confront with 68 private messages in 5 seconds about your comment during VU"

Well, more power to the commentators that can manage it!!  To me, that's 68 interested helpful involved engaged specs wanting to share with an available "privileged" speaker!!

(I'm sure thoughtful accurate insightful useful comments by the commentator don't "usually" get such an overload      )

Although the number of private messages one receives can at times seem overwhelming, and a small percentage of them are merely irritating, most are either from genuine seekers after knowledge or from helpful people who know the methods being played or have spotted an obvious mistake in one's analysis. I try to reply to all of them (even the irritating ones) but I am sure that I miss a few from time to time, and I apologise to anyone whose insights I have overlooked at critical moments.

As has been suggested, it is highly desirable to have a mixture of commentators who address the more abstruse features of a deal and those who are good at explaining the more basic points. I am hopeless at the latter, which is why it is always a pleasure to work with fellow commentators such as David Bird, Debbie Rosenberg or Sabine Auken, who are very good at it indeed (others also fall into this category). I will try to do better on occasions when such fine commentators are not sharing the "microphone".

It is, I suppose, inevitable that a group such as the BBO commentary team (which must be many hundred strong by now) will develop certain idiosyncrasies, "in-jokes" and the like, which may be off-putting to those who are unaware of them. I don't think it would help to get rid of these altogether, but I certainly think that they should not distract the commentators (and thereby the spectators) from following the play. Again, I will try to improve my own behaviour in this respect.

One tendency that I personally find vexing is when commentators interrupt a deal by informing everyone what is happening at the other table. If people want to go and watch the other table, they can go and watch it - without leaving the current table, thanks to BBO-TV. But suddenly having to analyse the play at two tables at once is a little trying.

Finally, as the originator of the by-now-infamous Burn's Law, I find myself in the position of the American humorist Gelett Burgess. A multi-talented Bostonian who made many contributions to American culture, Burgess achieved overnight fame for this piece of doggerel:

I never saw a Purple Cow.
I never hope to see one.
But I can tell you anyhow,
I'd rather see than be one.

Dismayed when everyone he met would gleefully recite this poem, Burgess wrote a recantation that I often feel like using when the topic of Burn's Law comes up in the course of commentary (which seems to happen with depressing regularity):

Ah yes, I wrote The Purple Cow.
I'm sorry now I wrote it.
But I can tell you anyhow,
I'll kill you if you quote it.

[HedyG]

ok David, no more purple cows from me (great shame though)

[Aberlour10]

dburn, on Aug 8 2008, 05:17 PM, said:

Although the number of private messages one receives can at times seem overwhelming, and a small percentage of them are merely irritating, most are either from genuine seekers after knowledge or from helpful people who know the methods being played or have spotted an obvious mistake in one's analysis. I try to reply to all of them (even the irritating ones) but I am sure that I miss a few from time to time, and I apologise to anyone whose insights I have overlooked at critical moments.

As has been suggested, it is highly desirable to have a mixture of commentators who address the more abstruse features of a deal and those who are good at explaining the more basic points. I am hopeless at the latter, which is why it is always a pleasure to work with fellow commentators such as David Bird, Debbie Rosenberg or Sabine Auken, who are very good at it indeed (others also fall into this category). I will try to do better on occasions when such fine commentators are not sharing the "microphone".

It is, I suppose, inevitable that a group such as the BBO commentary team (which must be many hundred strong by now) will develop certain idiosyncrasies, "in-jokes" and the like, which may be off-putting to those who are unaware of them. I don't think it would help to get rid of these altogether, but I certainly think that they should not distract the commentators (and thereby the spectators) from following the play. Again, I will try to improve my own behaviour in this respect.

One tendency that I personally find vexing is when commentators interrupt a deal by informing everyone what is happening at the other table. If people want to go and watch the other table, they can go and watch it - without leaving the current table, thanks to BBO-TV. But suddenly having to analyse the play at two tables at once is a little trying.

Finally, as the originator of the by-now-infamous Burn's Law, I find myself in the position of the American humorist Gelett Burgess. A multi-talented Bostonian who made many contributions to American culture, Burgess achieved overnight fame for this piece of doggerel:

I never saw a Purple Cow.
I never hope to see one.
But I can tell you anyhow,
I'd rather see than be one.

Dismayed when everyone he met would gleefully recite this poem, Burgess wrote a recantation that I often feel like using when the topic of Burn's Law comes up in the course of commentary (which seems to happen with depressing regularity):

Ah yes, I wrote The Purple Cow.
I'm sorry now I wrote it.
But I can tell you anyhow,
I'll kill you if you quote it.

Thanks for your very informative posting

One personally notice from spec view. I appreciate when commentators give some short informations from the other table like " ♥ lead on #14 or "reached slam on....etc", only on "key hands" of course. It's important for specs who prefer to concentrate their attention to one table, and want to be up to date for recent developments in whole match.

Robert

[PeterGill]

This has to be the best thread ever on BBO Forums.
Full of fascinating opinions, with Roland's comments all being spot on.

Do you think it is easier to commentate on BBO or to play bridge in a World Championship?

For me, commentating on BBO is definitely harder. I try to put myself in the seats of all four players, with the information available only to that player, i.e. effectively I play four different bridge hands at once (no wonder my comments sometimes are delayed until after the hand). I then have to consider what the actual player is thinking and what I would think. Sort of like playing 8 hands of bridge on one hand. I try to type fast and accurately (my weakness), read all the comments both private from specs and from commentators, try not to insult other commentators too much when I disagree, try not to offend the players too much, look up and provide info about systems and provide references to websites. Sometimes I am doing this at 2am or 5am, e.g. in the 2008 US Trials when there was a severe shortage of commentators. Add that phone calls interrupt me, well not so much
at 2am or 5am, and it is pretty busy.

I am so busy that at the end of the session, I sometimes have to scroll though the chat to see which interesting private messages I missed. I have no doubt that when I commentate, I do far more thinking and have a far more challenging couple of hours than when I play.

Every commentator has a different style, and few are like me. That is good.

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.

Returning to the original topic of the thread the Spingold, Frances Hinden (a BBO commentator who recently won a big event in England) pointed out that Americans and Europeans had limited availability during the Spingold. Most of us Aussies were unavailable too, due to our Winter Nationals. BBO Commentator Bruce Neill bgn won the first week's main weeklong event, and BBO Commentator Michael Wilkinson mwigor and me petergill won the second week's main event. Before
we commentated on BBO, we did not win as much.

I have it relatively easy compared to what some commentators do - when I was playing on BBO Vugraph in our Grand Final a week ago, the first time operator at our table Jenny told me after the first segment that private chat from Hedy Grey was so helpful when Jenny was struggling to figure out what to do.

I am convinced that if you commentate on BBO without using GIB, and put yourself in the seats of the players, the commentary process improves your game. You also get to see what other top players do, which helps. And the challenge of doing so many things at once, multi-tasking, is good for one's bridge game.

Oh, and if any average club player out there is still reading such a long post, please feel free to send private chat to me with basic questions whenever I am
commentating, and I will do my best to reply, either to all the specs (usually) or privately (less often).

As a professional bridge player, I am booked out and want no new clients.
I have no books or cruises to sell, but I love commentating because it is fun
and it is good for my bridge game, possibly the best way to improve my bridge.
Te time spent commentating reduces my earning capacity, but it is time well spent because it is fun and good for my bridge. Pity that I hate computers and dislike typing, but life is not all a bed of roses.

Also, I wonder about one thing. Football and cricket commentators are critical of players who err. I suppose that the people who are being commentated on in those cases are professionals who are fair game, but I am not convinced that being so gentle on errors is a good thing for bridge specs whom it may confuse.

One final question - should those of us commentators who never look at GIB when we commentate, write in our Profile "I do not use GIB when commentating"?

Peter Gill
Australia

[Echognome]

Agree with Peter that there have been some great posts on this thread (including his own post).

Perhaps my suggestion here should be in suggestions for software, but I wondered if it was possible to have simulcasted vugraph rooms. One reason might be for different languages (rather than having open room language X and closed room language Y), couldn't we have have open room repeated several times? I have no idea the adaptations necessary to the software, but my idea is to still use one vugraph operator, just have that vugraph operators input sent out to multiple rooms. The other idea in relation to that would be to have North only, South only, East only, and West only rooms, where when you entered that room to view, you settings would automatically be set to view only that chair and kib partner when dummy. In that case, the commentators could really take you through the decision processes of the hand at least how they see it. I think that would be extremely valuable for kibitzers. Yes I know that you can already have the option of kibitzing one seat, but it is not really set up for the commentators to do the same. Of course, this would mean having a need for more commentators, but we wouldn't necessarily need to have commentating for all seats. It might also resolve the problem of having 6 to 8 commentators for the big events. The commentators can be spread out throughout the seats.

Just my thoughts on it.