[skorchev]

Hi again!

Let's take first the operators "problem". I haven't wrote anything about it and you jumped against me. :) The problems are not the ones you mention Jan and Adam. I opened this thread to "comment" the commentators and when we "finish" with it I think to open another one for the operators. Both threads have many differences, so I didn't want to combine them in one. In the meantime if someone wants - he/she can start it.

As Peter said probably I'm some kind of idealist, but I can't find anything wrong in discussing the problems and trying to find solutions to make the things work better.

I have wrote my opinion, so in this post I'm just going to defend myself. :)

First of all I want to apologize for my tone in the first post, obviously I was affected.

On the question whether I have tried to help on the last day of the trials:
the organizers paid to the vugraph operators and to the directing team, so the only thing I could do there is to obstruct.

"Have I ever been commentator or/and operator?":
commentator, yes. The others can evaluate me, it's stupid to say: "I'm good", "I'm decent" or I'm bad".
Operator, no. But just to mention that one of the two operators on our national team trials was a junior who do this work just for second time and I can say that he did it great, so I don't think the experience is so important when it comes to the operators. But please let's not discuss the operator's work here. The matter is different.

About Peter's suggestion for creating a database with convention cards:
in the first moment the idea is good, but I was thinking how to realize it?
The pairs in Bulgaria who play serious bridge and play together constantly are no more than 20-25. On the page you have visited there are posted 15 of them. Another thing is that the pairs change some of their bids so it will be very difficult to have the systems up-to-date.

I see some of you write about the boards I have mentioned. I have to say many things about them, but this is not the purpose of this thread.

If I missed some question - it is not intentionally. You can ask again, I will answer.

The funny thing and it is not intended like a compliment is that one of the best commentators (Peter Gill) and one the best operators (Jan Martel) are writing here and not these who do the things "bad".

Regards,
Stefan

[Walddk]

skorchev, on May 25 2009, 03:01 AM, said:

And to answer to Roland:
<snip>
I know that you wanted to provoke me, when you asked me to comment ... this I find like act of 14-years old boy. Very weird.

Regarding questions you have not answered. Pray tell how I provoked you when I asked you to join as a commentator. Do you have any reason not to believe my motive, i.e. that I wanted a top player from Bulgaria to comment on a tournament from his native country?

If the answer is 'yes', I would like to know what I did wrong by asking you. If the answer is 'no', I think you should add 'apology' to your vocabulary.

It is a privelege to be invited and to commentate, not a right. I do not invite people I don't think would add to the quality of the presentation. If you don't want to be invited for future broadcasts, please let me know, and I promise not to bother you with a private chat message.

Roland

[HedyG]

Stefan, nice to see that you apologized about the tone of your first post. i am sure i was not the only commentator who took it badly.
you say you have commentated.........a lot? for a long time? for broadcasts nobody else wants to commentate and Roland is desperate to find commentators for??
do you know what it's like to commentate for 8-10 hours?sometimes for 2 weeks running?
to commentate play in systems we have no explanations or CCs for?
to commentate for hours for 25-50 viewers because the broadcast is from a small country not many are interested in?
personally i try hard to find CCs for the players(ecatsbridge document store is often a good source) and send them to the table so my fellow commentators and the specs can get them too; however that is not always possible!
or when the posted CC is in some strange language........
we try hard. sure most of us are not "the best" like Peter Gill and some others come to mind. but we try hard to do our bit because we realise that somebody has to do it and it is a way to pay back to bridge all the joy it gives us. we certainly do not do it for the pay we get!
btw i think we "minor" commentators have our place too with maybe a vast majority of the spectators who often understand our simple way of thinking better. at least that is what the messages i get let me suppose.
i am afraid that your post will put other potential commentators off joining us and that would be a great shame.
i sincerely think you are too critical of people who do their best and deserve better then you give.
how about thanking the commentators at your broadcast who gave hours of their time and energy ? it would make a nice change since that hardly ever happens....

[Elianna]

qwery_hi, on May 31 2009, 01:48 PM, said:

When commentators are critical of players, some players get angry. When players are critical of commentators, some commentators get angry. What a surprise!

WORD!

[awm]

We all know that the commentators are volunteers, and that it is an unpaid and often thankless job. There are many commentators who do a good job, and it is worthwhile to thank all of them for volunteering their time.

However, with that said, should the volunteer nature of commentating completely immunize the commentators from any and all forms of criticism? I don't believe so. It is worthwhile to encourage the better commentators to continue, and discourage the bad commentators (or at least get them to become better informed). In some cases really bad commentating can be worse than no commentating at all!

Suppose that you finally get the opportunity to represent your country in an international event on vugraph... and the commentators spend the entire time making fun of you and your partner, making incorrect comments about your methods, and inaccurately analyzing your play and defense. I can understand being a little peeved about this, can't you? Really poor commentating can be offensive to the players especially when it's their first time on the big stage.

Of course, I make no claims to have any information about the particular incident under discussion. But there are a few commentators who basically spam the vugraph table with incorrect analysis and off-topic discussion, and there should be a way to give some negative feedback. People are awfully quick to jump down the throat of anyone with a complaint "because commentators are volunteers."

[HedyG]

i agree with you that incorrect analysis needs to be corrected(we all make mistakes) and believe me the specs don't let us get away with it :)nothing wrong with admitting you made a mistake.
as for making fun of the players, that is certainly against the guidelines for commentators and a number of them have not been asked back by Roland because of their comments.however he cannot be everywhere and see everything and i suggest that you inform him , preferably via email, when you think there is reason to complain.
spam on the other hand is sometimes practically a necessity when there are long periods of waiting. you try commentating a pairs event where every 2 or 3 boards there is a long pause while the others tables finish play and we wait for new players!
anyhow the point i am really trying to make is that criticism is fine and welcome IMO as long as it is positive.

[skorchev]

To Roland:

since I don't use the 'log chat' option, I can't paste the conversation here, but it was like this:

Roland: Hi, do you want to commentate?
Stefan: No, thanks, Rado [he was commenting on that moment, and one more too, I don't remembered who] is doing pretty well ...
Roland: OK
Stefan: did you read my thread about the VG commentators? I'm interested to see your answer ...

and you didn't respond. That makes me feel that you had read the thread already. Further more I don't know how you chosed exactly me, since there were several other bulgarian stars around. The most sensible is that you read the article, found my name in the kibitzers list and so on. One more thing is that this is the very first time you invite me to comment, in the past I always asked someone to join, nobody has invited me. Of course, it could be just a fortuity, but who knows ...

To Hedy:

I'm thinking the same way like Adam Meyerson.
From what I have seen, at the end of every vugraph broadcast there is exchange of compliments between commentators, operators and kibitzers and this is the first time I see any kind of criticism and I'm sure that every commentator who already wrote this thread will become at least 1% better in doing this.

Regards,
Stefan

[Walddk]

skorchev, on Jun 2 2009, 01:58 PM, said:

To Roland:

since I don't use the 'log chat' option, I can't paste the conversation here, but it was like this:

Roland: Hi, do you want to commentate?
Stefan: No, thanks, Rado [he was commenting on that moment, and one more too, I don't remembered who] is doing pretty well ...
Roland: OK
Stefan: did you read my thread about the VG commentators? I'm interested to see your answer ...

and you didn't respond. That makes me feel that you had read the thread already.

In an earlier thread I mentioned that we had 10 tables up simultaneously. I also wrote that the other commentator was Geoffrey Wolfarth. As soon as you said you did not want to join (to which I replied "ok np"), I had other things to do and did not see your question about this thread.

And no, I did not have time to read it until that evening after play had finished at all tables. If you want to get in touch with me online, you must message Walddk2, the only visible account. You can't be sure that I see messages to any of the other 13. So your "that makes me feel that you had read the thread already" is pure speculation and not true.

In one of your early threads you more than implied that 75% of the commentators are clueless. Then why don't you add to the pool of 25% when you get an invite? The same applies to Adam who, in the past, got several invites (e-mails and private chat messages). After a while when he did not reply I took him off my contact list.

I am not going to beg. It's your choice. Take it or leave it; no hard feelings on my part, but rest assured that I do not provoke anyone when I ask them to join for commentary. I am sincere.

Roland

[Phil]

awm, on Jun 2 2009, 12:16 AM, said:

Suppose that you finally get the opportunity to represent your country in an international event on vugraph... and the commentators spend the entire time making fun of you and your partner, making incorrect comments about your methods, and inaccurately analyzing your play and defense. I can understand being a little peeved about this, can't you? Really poor commentating can be offensive to the players especially when it's their first time on the big stage.

Of course, I make no claims to have any information about the particular incident under discussion. (snip).

Yeah I'm going to call bullshit on this one.

I've been a commentator for many years now. As a matter of fact I was an announcer at one of the very first vugraphs shown on BBO. I have never seen any incident like you suggest while I've commentated nor while I've watched. Some commentators can be harsh, but there is always someone else in the booth that can draw them back and stop things from getting out of line.

All commentators are players, and their skill level varies from average to great. Comms like players misanalyze things sometimes, but there is never a shortage of other comms (or specs in private) that will step in and correct them.

I have never seen unfettered criticism of a player or a team. Its always done in good taste and above board. Their decorum is commendable.

The fact that you bring this up as a 'hypothetical' simply means that your discussion is either pointless or offensive or both.

Can you think of a single instance in sport where the announcers show this much class? I guarantee you that if a new player who is leading the US Open golf tournament started choking like a dog and making all kinds of strange plays, the telecasters would be making an absolute spectacle out of it. Google Jean Van De Velde's meltdown at the 2001 (I think) Open (British Open if you are from the States).

[Codo]

Phil that is simply not true.

I like to follow the matches of my local heroes, so I quite often watch the Germans play.
While I watched about 6 to 8 matches of the open team, there had been two times comments so biased and way off that there had been an official note from the DBV to BBO- or at least to the commentator.
And besides, there had been at least 3 hands I remember, where commetators ridiculed about the bidding of the German team.

This is by no means the normal standard and by far the most of all comments are not insulting at all.

But to state that it had never happen is a gross overbid too.

[qwery_hi]

Phil, on Jun 2 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

awm, on Jun 2 2009, 12:16 AM, said:

Suppose that you finally get the opportunity to represent your country in an international event on vugraph... and the commentators spend the entire time making fun of you and your partner, making incorrect comments about your methods, and inaccurately analyzing your play and defense. I can understand being a little peeved about this, can't you? Really poor commentating can be offensive to the players especially when it's their first time on the big stage.

Of course, I make no claims to have any information about the particular incident under discussion. (snip).

Yeah I'm going to call bullshit on this one.

I have never seen any incident like you suggest while I've commentated nor while I've watched. Some commentators can be harsh, but there is always someone else in the booth that can draw them back and stop things from getting out of line.

I have never seen unfettered criticism of a player or a team. Its always done in good taste and above board. Their decorum is commendable.

The fact that you bring this up as a 'hypothetical' simply means that your discussion is either pointless or offensive or both.

Can you think of a single instance in sport where the announcers show this much class? I guarantee you that if a new player who is leading the US Open golf tournament started choking like a dog and making all kinds of strange plays, the telecasters would be making an absolute spectacle out of it. Google Jean Van De Velde's meltdown at the 2001 (I think) Open (British Open if you are from the States).

Oh yeah? I'm going to call bullshit on this one, and back it up with evidence -

http://stacyjacobs.c...bbo-commentary/ - Stacy Jacobs has said it better than I could have.

"Pointless or offensive or both?" - Good Job with the personal attack there - Did the dog eat your homework?

[qwery_hi]

Phil, on Jun 2 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

awm, on Jun 2 2009, 12:16 AM, said:

Suppose that you finally get the opportunity to represent your country in an international event on vugraph... and the commentators spend the entire time making fun of you and your partner, making incorrect comments about your methods, and inaccurately analyzing your play and defense. I can understand being a little peeved about this, can't you? Really poor commentating can be offensive to the players especially when it's their first time on the big stage.

Of course, I make no claims to have any information about the particular incident under discussion. (snip).

Yeah I'm going to call bullshit on this one.

I've been a commentator for many years now. As a matter of fact I was an announcer at one of the very first vugraphs shown on BBO. I have never seen any incident like you suggest while I've commentated nor while I've watched. Some commentators can be harsh, but there is always someone else in the booth that can draw them back and stop things from getting out of line.

All commentators are players, and their skill level varies from average to great. Comms like players misanalyze things sometimes, but there is never a shortage of other comms (or specs in private) that will step in and correct them.

I have never seen unfettered criticism of a player or a team. Its always done in good taste and above board. Their decorum is commendable.

The fact that you bring this up as a 'hypothetical' simply means that your discussion is either pointless or offensive or both.

Can you think of a single instance in sport where the announcers show this much class? I guarantee you that if a new player who is leading the US Open golf tournament started choking like a dog and making all kinds of strange plays, the telecasters would be making an absolute spectacle out of it. Google Jean Van De Velde's meltdown at the 2001 (I think) Open (British Open if you are from the States).

And Phil, you should watch chess commentators if you want true class.

[Walddk]

qwery_hi, on Jun 2 2009, 11:22 PM, said:

Phil, on Jun 2 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

awm, on Jun 2 2009, 12:16 AM, said:

Suppose that you finally get the opportunity to represent your country in an international event on vugraph... and the commentators spend the entire time making fun of you and your partner, making incorrect comments about your methods, and inaccurately analyzing your play and defense. I can understand being a little peeved about this, can't you? Really poor commentating can be offensive to the players especially when it's their first time on the big stage.

Of course, I make no claims to have any information about the particular incident under discussion. (snip).

Yeah I'm going to call bullshit on this one.

I have never seen any incident like you suggest while I've commentated nor while I've watched. Some commentators can be harsh, but there is always someone else in the booth that can draw them back and stop things from getting out of line.

I have never seen unfettered criticism of a player or a team. Its always done in good taste and above board. Their decorum is commendable.

The fact that you bring this up as a 'hypothetical' simply means that your discussion is either pointless or offensive or both.

Can you think of a single instance in sport where the announcers show this much class? I guarantee you that if a new player who is leading the US Open golf tournament started choking like a dog and making all kinds of strange plays, the telecasters would be making an absolute spectacle out of it. Google Jean Van De Velde's meltdown at the 2001 (I think) Open (British Open if you are from the States).

Oh yeah? I'm going to call bullshit on this one, and back it up with evidence -

http://stacyjacobs.c...bbo-commentary/ - Stacy Jacobs has said it better than I could have.

Not that again.

- 1. Was private chat, so Phil is correct. He is referring to public non-constructive criticism. He has no way of knowing what happens through private chat.

- 2. No player was criticised.

- 3. It happened 18 months ago, and the issue was resolved shortly afterwards.

We have indeed had incidents where commentators have been rude to players, sponsors and organisers. Those people have not been invited again and probably never will be.

Roland

[awm]

Walddk, on Jun 2 2009, 08:38 AM, said:

In one of your early threads you more than implied that 75% of the commentators are clueless. Then why don't you add to the pool of 25% when you get an invite? The same applies to Adam who, in the past, got several invites (e-mails and private chat messages). After a while when he did not reply I took him off my contact list.

To reply to this...

I'm not actually a huge fan of vugraph. I find playing bridge more interesting than watching, and most of the times that I kibitz, I prefer friends or partners playing in the main club.

When I watch vugraph, I pay little attention to the commentating. I'm often busy getting work done and have my browser kibitzing BBO while I'm reading or writing something else. What I see of commentating is often off-topic chatter, or analysis that I can do on my own (or using GIB). In fact, the commentating often causes me to miss chat messages from friends so I have a lot of commentators "enemy-listed" (nothing against them personally, it's the only way to block their messages from using up my limited chat-window space).

As someone trying to hold down a full time job and also play enough bridge to have a shot in national tournaments, I don't really have a huge amount of time to donate to vugraph. The only time I commentated was during one of the youth team championships, where I was following the results closely because two of my friends (and former partners) were representing the United States. During this vugraph another friend of theirs had been recruited to commentate, but he didn't actually know their methods very well (nor was he a very good analyst) and he was giving a lot of wrong information to the spectators. Since I did know their methods (in fact I designed some of their methods) I volunteered to commentate in the rest of this pair's matches.

After this point I was added to the "commentator list" and invited several more times, but as I previously mentioned I'm not a huge vugraph fan nor do I have a huge amount of time, and I was not particularly interested in commentating when I don't know any of the players involved (nor do I necessarily have much useful information to add).

[qwery_hi]

Walddk, on Jun 2 2009, 02:09 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Jun 2 2009, 11:22 PM, said:

Phil, on Jun 2 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

awm, on Jun 2 2009, 12:16 AM, said:

Suppose that you finally get the opportunity to represent your country in an international event on vugraph... and the commentators spend the entire time making fun of you and your partner, making incorrect comments about your methods, and inaccurately analyzing your play and defense. I can understand being a little peeved about this, can't you? Really poor commentating can be offensive to the players especially when it's their first time on the big stage.

Of course, I make no claims to have any information about the particular incident under discussion. (snip).

Yeah I'm going to call bullshit on this one.

I have never seen any incident like you suggest while I've commentated nor while I've watched. Some commentators can be harsh, but there is always someone else in the booth that can draw them back and stop things from getting out of line.

I have never seen unfettered criticism of a player or a team. Its always done in good taste and above board. Their decorum is commendable.

The fact that you bring this up as a 'hypothetical' simply means that your discussion is either pointless or offensive or both.

Can you think of a single instance in sport where the announcers show this much class? I guarantee you that if a new player who is leading the US Open golf tournament started choking like a dog and making all kinds of strange plays, the telecasters would be making an absolute spectacle out of it. Google Jean Van De Velde's meltdown at the 2001 (I think) Open (British Open if you are from the States).

Oh yeah? I'm going to call bullshit on this one, and back it up with evidence -

http://stacyjacobs.c...bbo-commentary/ - Stacy Jacobs has said it better than I could have.

Not that again.

- 1. Was private chat, so Phil is correct. He is referring to public non-constructive criticism. He has no way of knowing what happens through private chat.

- 2. No player was criticised.

- 3. It happened 18 months ago, and the issue was resolved shortly afterwards.

We have indeed had incidents where commentators have been rude to players, sponsors and organisers. Those people have not been invited again and probably never will be.

Roland

" Can you think of a single instance in sport where the announcers show this much class? "

Class is not just what you do in public. And if Phil had done his homework, there is a way he could have known about it. After all, I didn't read Stacy Jacob's mind to find out about it.

Speculating about the quality of girlfriends is no better than saying "Homeland Security is Big Brother". If the latter can be disallowed to not cause offense to 1% of BBO, the former can be too.

Your point #3 is irrelevent to this discussion.

[Phil]

LOL @ doing my homework. Does this mean going through the vugraph archives and looking out for something inappropriate. I can only go by what I say and what I've seen. Roland is better to ask and I'm sure he has a very good handle on what is being said.

As far as Stacy's blog; whatever. It's a small incident in the bridge universe. I had not seen it but it would not have changed my opinion.

[qwery_hi]

Phil, on Jun 2 2009, 05:00 PM, said:

LOL @ doing my homework. Does this mean going through the vugraph archives and looking out for something inappropriate. I can only go by what I say and what I've seen. Roland is better to ask and I'm sure he has a very good handle on what is being said.

As far as Stacy's blog; whatever. It's a small incident in the bridge universe. I had not seen it but it would not have changed my opinion.

LOL at the blanket statements you make in any case.

[jmcw]

Vugraph broadcasts are great. It's a privilage and a delight to witness world class players compete from all over the globe. Commentators bring the show to life with their remarks, analysis, and witisisms. I never watch one in a foreign language and would probably not watch at all if there was no comments offered. IMO the critisism is nonsence and I sincerely hope the broadcasts will continue in an unabashed and unbiased manner. Call it the way you see it! and rest assured the vast majority of us appreciate your time an efforts. Thankyou all and keep up the great work.

[mike777]

Vugraph commentators are terrific. I just wanted to add a big thankyou to the Saturday night USBF crew for an outstanding job. I would pay them.

If BBO could please pass on my thanks to all of them, ty.

Also a huge ty to JanM for her operator comments, wonderful, wonderful, please let her know!

[matmat]

i much prefer the little nuggets that the operators send from the tables to most of the idle commentator chit-chat.

That said, there are a few excellent play analysts, and it is often useful to have someone who knows the systems talk about the various bidding options...
I was watching one of the tables earlier today and two or three commentators were guessing as to the meaning of a bid in an uncontested (iirc) auction on the second round of bidding. IMO, they should either know what the bid means and state it, or remain silent, not knowing (alternatively ask a kib who might know).