[rbn]

Hey folks,

Just a thought I got, while watching a Vuegraph broadcast with a really good commentator: How about an election among the members for the "Vuegraph Commentator of the Year"?

/René

[Aberlour10]

Surely, we have all our favorites among them. There are about 200 active commenators...if we vote here, I suppose, we will get at most 50-60 responses. The validity of such a poll is so less relating to several ten thousands spectators at the BBO/year.

Robert

[Phil]

My favorite is LC (Larry Cohen). He's funny, knows the players usually and his analysis is always dead on.

If he makes a mistake he immediately owns up to it.

[JoAnneM]

Just shows how irrelevant such a contest would be.

[jillybean]

JoAnneM, on Jul 31 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

Just shows how irrelevant such a contest would be.

ouch!

[cherdanno]

I don't like an election, different spectators like different commentators, and that can't fairly be translated into a beauty contest.
My personal favorites are Michael Rosenberg, Debbie Rosenberg, Larry Cohen and Kit Woolsey.

[gwnn]

fred, kit and scotty are the best. I agree with the others that it would be difficult to choose the Commentator of the Year.

[kfay]

Kinda with the others though I'm all for recognizing excellence.
Personally I like LC the best followed closely by Kit and Gavin.

[Trinidad]

Brother Lucius (David Bird) is my favorite.

Rik

[Phil]

kfay, on Jul 31 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

Kinda with the others though I'm all for recognizing excellence.
Personally I like LC the best followed closely by Kit and Gavin.

Yeah Gavin might be better than LC. Never stops typing, has a 'stream of consciousness" approach.

[the hog]

I know who the worst one is, but I better not say. This guy has delusions of grandeur.

[matmat]

The_Hog, on Jul 31 2009, 08:22 PM, said:

I know who the worst one is, but I better not say. This guy has delusions of grandeur.

must... not... comment...


on a separate note, what's the point of such a poll/vote/whatever? next thing you know we'll be voting for player of the week, or some such...

[zheddh]

LC and David Bird

[peachy]

I don't think it is a good idea to vote. There different commentators with different backgrounds that serve different kibitzers. What I like in a commentator is that he: (substitute he for she etc)
- introduces himself and maybe other commentators working with him
- knows what the event is that he is commentating on
- knows the basic system of both pairs at the table. Or at least of one pair...
- will not make guesses on a bid which he doesn't know what it means
- makes only neutral and FUNNY jokes. No feministas who ridicule males and no blonde-jokes
- knows a little background info on the players on vugraph and shares this
- is not biased in rooting for one or the other side
- has enough knowledge to analyse the plays and bids - there are several who are sooo bad at this - they could be better off silent or asking some trusted kibitzer to help
- able to fill the time with relevant info (or even irrelevant trivia) when action at table is slow or on break
- has the courtesy to close the table with appropriate appreciation to those who set it up, organizers etc, and the kibitzers
- provide links to tournament information

Considering that the comentators are volunteers, this is a big and demanding list of "duties" and requires a little homework to do before the event, but there are a lot of good ones who have all of the above and then some. Amazingly enough, a junior, Adam Kaplan, is one of them. And there are many others.

However, not every commentator needs to be a top expert, the job can be done with bridge skill less than that of the players!!

Just my two cents.

[Tomi2]

cherdanno, on Jul 31 2009, 04:31 PM, said:

I don't like an election, different spectators like different commentators, and that can't fairly be translated into a beauty contest.
My personal favorites are Michael Rosenberg, Debbie Rosenberg, Larry Cohen and Kit Woolsey.

the problem with this elections is that the "star" commentators only comment in big events with great players and great bridge. They are commentating BermudaBowl Finals with stars they know for many years. But there are also Turkish Club Championships running and Mongolian Junior Trhophies and Zimbabwes Seniors Cup where other commentators do lots of work with unfamilar players, systems and frequent changing level of bridge.

I love to watch a vug with LC commentating thats true - but thats only one or two times a year when the bridge is also world class (I think he does most commentating in Cavendish)

But I would not like to give him any award for this, while people like HedyG etc. have more deserved it (IMO)

[kenberg]

I have little enthusiasm for this sort of contest.

I enjoy the vugraph greatly. I would like to see more in-depth reporting on some of the bidding agreements and methods of coping with them. For example, I watched a couple of multi auctions where apparently (2D)-2H actually shows hearts! Maybe this should not surprise me but it did. Also there were some auctions that began 1H-pass-1NT with the NT bid showing spades. I have always thought this Kaplan-Inversion strategy to be one of those things that owes any success it has to the fact that many people are not prepared for it. Clearly the players in the Spingold, and I hope the commentators, are prepared for it and I would like to hear a bit about how they handle it.


At the risk of sounding bland, I'm content to leave each person to his own style and I appreciate all their efforts.

[TimG]

peachy, on Jul 31 2009, 10:31 PM, said:

- has the courtesy to close the table with appropriate appreciation to those who set it up, organizers etc, and the kibitzers

Seriously? I've always thought the thank yous at the end of a session were a waste of time.

I have a few pet peeves with regards to commentators:

• I find it frustrating when commentators don't know even the basics of the system that the players are using. During a recent broadcast, either Zmudzinski or Balicki opened 1♣ and a commentator said "I think that's a Polish Club". I don't expect all commentators to know the intricacies of a Polish Club, but I expect they'll know the basics and won't be guessing about the meaning of a 1♣ opening.
  
• Some commentators use GIB and then comment about the "missed opportunity" or "mistake" when a player does not play the double dummy card. I don't mind the use of GIB -- it should be a useful tool for commentators to help them quickly analyze a situation -- but there should be an understanding that what is correct double dummy is not always correct single dummy. It's also not real useful for the commentator to simply relay what GIB says because the spectators can use GIB too.
  
• I don't enjoy commentators who act like cheer leaders. It's OK to have a known preference for one side, but good (and bad) plays by both sides should be met with equal enthusiasm. Comments such as "YESSSSS!!!!!!" add nothing to the show.
  
• I don't like when commentators shown disdain for non-standard or unfamiliar methods. Especially when those methods may be popular in some parts of the world. Discussion of the merits is great, off hand dismissal is bad. Worst is an attitude of being too lazy to think about it.
  
• Commentators should be able to point out mistakes without sounding superior. Oddly, it seems to me that truly world class players, those that are often better players than those they are talking about, can point out errors without sounding superior, while commentators who are lesser players are often more harsh when pointing out errors.

[cherdanno]

TimG, on Aug 1 2009, 10:01 AM, said:

• Commentators should be able to point out mistakes without sounding superior. Oddly, it seems to me that truly world class players, those that are often better players than those they are talking about, can point out errors without sounding superior, while commentators who are lesser players are often more harsh when pointing out errors.

The few times I have been a commentator I have been wondering about that actually. When I point out that someone has clearly made a mistake, it might sound like I think I am a better player than who is sitting at the table. Of course, that's not true - everybody makes mistakes, and everybody who watches carefully can catch mistakes by players that are better players than himself. But does it sound like I think so? I don't know.

[peachy]

cherdanno, on Aug 1 2009, 10:17 AM, said:

TimG, on Aug 1 2009, 10:01 AM, said:

• Commentators should be able to point out mistakes without sounding superior.  Oddly, it seems to me that truly world class players, those that are often better players than those they are talking about, can point out errors without sounding superior, while commentators who are lesser players are often more harsh when pointing out errors.

The few times I have been a commentator I have been wondering about that actually. When I point out that someone has clearly made a mistake, it might sound like I think I am a better player than who is sitting at the table. Of course, that's not true - everybody makes mistakes, and everybody who watches carefully can catch mistakes by players that are better players than himself. But does it sound like I think so? I don't know.

Some mistakes are "mistakes". Some mistakes are the result of a long thought process that I do not have the privilege to follow (not being that person and/or not capable of same thought process). Something that I might consider a mistake, could actually be a superior line but I am too "dumb" to understand it at such short notice.

Some commentators whose name nobody has so far mentioned, actually are the object of common ridicule - they are just too dense and self-important to be aware of the possibility

[JoAnneM]

One of the commentators mentioned made extremely arrogant and distainful comments when an "unknown" team made it far up the ladder. I think this was just sour grapes. I have noticed other "condescending" comments from this person other people seem to like. I just move to the other room, thinking it must be me.