[inquiry]

I am watching (as much as I can) the vugraph from the olymiad... I was away for a while and missed all of the first five days of play. The vugraph archives is nice to catch up.

For most part the commentators comments are very helpful and enlightening, but all too often have little if nothing to do with the hand in question. Today for instance, there is constant discussion of raly caps, red soxs, and the new york yankees... of course, what has to happen in vugraph archives you have to push your way (one push at a time) though all this drivel not only to get to the good comments, but also to see the next bid or play... push, push, push, push, card played, push, push, push, push, push, push, next card play. IT would help if the pushes gave more enlightenment and less mind numbing dullness.

Here is a hand from the match today where there was a chance for some enlightenment to the audience that never came from any of the six commentators working this single match.

Scoring: IMP

West North East South

 2♦    Pass  2♥    Pass
 2♠    2NT   Pass  3♦
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

---

T1. C4 C6 CA CT
T2. C7 C2 CK C8
T3. C5 C9 C3 S2
T4. DK DA D8 D3
T5. SQ S8 SA S6
T6. SJ SK S4 H2

No one mentioned that 2♦ was a multi-2♦ bid, the only comment about the was one commentator volunteered that "we'll have a quiet 2♠ here". What we got instead was several long lines on what is a rally cap and is it the same thing as a red sox.

What the commentors missed too, was the significance of the 2♥ pass/correct bid (they didn't explain what 2♥ was either. With four/five hearts and a doubleton spade, south would likely have bid 2♠ as pass correct. This becomes an important issue in the play, again missed by the commentators.

At least when north (hands rotated here for display purpposes) stuck in an unexpected, vulnerable 2NT, they had comments... and speculation over what 3♦ bid meant... (transfer? Thought 2NT was for minors?). I think players at this level at least know what their 2NT and 3♦ means.

West made the disaster lead of a low club at trick one, which will allow this contract to come home, no one discussed the choice of lead...

And during the play, particularily after the first three tricks, no one discussed that this should be (essentially double dummy). West, has 6♠ and showed up with 3♣. South, with 2♠ (known) and 4 or 5♥ would have bid 2♠ as pass correct, not 2♥. West had the club king and presumably the spade ACE (with ♠QJTxxx would have lead a spade, not a club from Kxx). So by default west is 6-3-1-3. If WEst was 6-4-0-3, East would not have been able to avoid the double of 3♦.

After trick six, the winning line is self evident... you have lost four tricks and must win the remainder, so you ahve to make the long trump disappear. The losing line, played at the table was...
T7. DQ D4 D9 S3 <<-- must be down now... play it out
T8, HK H4 H6 H9
T9. HT H5 HA H3
T10. H7 H8 D2 HQ
down one...

The winning line, clearly is to cash two rounds of hearts, ruff a heart low, and cross ruff for the rest the tricks, or if you jsut don't fully trust your card reading of the 5-1 turmp split, low diamond to your hand, when 5-1 is shown, fall back on the heart hook, and ruff the last heart, still scoring the remainder of the tricks. And if diamonds are 4-2 or 3-3, cross back to the diamond queen, enter hand with heart ace, pull trumps, and heart to king and dummies two good clubs. No one mentioned anuy of thiis and no one commented on the poor line of diamond Queen at trick seven even if not played double dummy.

Now, don't get me wrong, I appreciate the commentators, and I tried it once (commentator of one too, by the way).. the empty minutes go by as someone is thinking at the table, and you feel like you have to say something. But six commentators seems at least three too many, if not four too many. And it would be useful to limit the non-bridge stuff if for no other reason than all of it is going into the automatic archives. And of course, when something really interesting comes along (like the nuance of a 2♥ pass/correct versus the 2♠ pass correct bid and how that might affect the play, maybe one of six shold mention it... and for that mattter, the very first time (As this was) that something that is still fairly unknown in the us as multi-2D opening bid comes up, maybe someone should describe the bid.

Ben

[whereagles]

Well, why don't you apply for commentator? I'm sure they could use your help

[inquiry]

I am not a particularily good commentator, and most doing the job are good ones. It is not easy being a commentator... you might feel silly describing such a simple bid as multi 2D to an audience that is mostly experts or european. As they will all know it. Likewise, you might fell silly saying, in an ending where you can cross ruff for the remainder of the tricks, to cross ruff. You need to find the right balance between providing just the right amount of information for beginners without being bothersome to the advanced and experts in the audience. Just as I find discussion of boston red sox annoying while watching bridge, many will find an explaination of the plainly obvious bridge issues annoying.

And back to me as a commentor again.. i type too much, way too much to be a useful commentor, and that is without regards to whether what I type is accurate or not.

Ben

[whereagles]

Well, I still think you'd do fine. Shall I mail you an application?

[paulg]

Ben,

Interesting that you noticed this hand because I was discussing it with friends at the time.

I believe it shows that North-South are not particularly familiar with defending the multi-2♦. Although they are clearly experts, indeed title favourites, they were very lucky to escape in a sequence that most experienced club players in the UK would find trivial.

In order to prevent people stealing hands from you, or having to take dangerous actions like here, it is important to get in the auction with balanced 13-16 point hands with an immediate double of 2♦. This is a safe action as the chances of it being passed out are remote, but it starts to get your hand across. In this case you would double and opponents would play in 2♠ - the problem of showing values is solved and you have not risked a large penalty on a partscore hand.

At least one of the commentators knows this well, but perhaps it was too much to type at the table!

Paul

[inquiry]

cardsharp, on Oct 29 2004, 02:55 PM, said:

At least one of the commentators knows this well, but perhaps it was too much to type at the table!

Well, I know explaining all the theory of multi-2D and multi-2D defense is not feasible in an online vugraph. That is simple. But, and this is important, they could have said something like this...

>>2♦ is a convention known as multi 2♦ showing a weak two in either major, and in some partnerships some other strong hands as well.

>>2♥ is "pass or correct"...if opener has hearts 2♥s is to play or opener corrects to 2♠

>>There is an importnat issue here, with long ♥ and one or two spades, responder would have bid 2♠ instead of 2♥, This may have important implications on this hand...

Something like that.

Perhpas my way of defending multi-2♦ is different, I would have probably have passed over 2♦ and then bid 2NT over 2♠ just as occurred here. However, if I was going to bid, I would have bid 2♠ directly over 2♦ showing a natural ♣ overcall... And as south, I would have simply bid 3♣ ending the auction. 3♣ is a worse spot than 3♦ btw.

[flytoox]

Ben, I would nominate you as commentator if I could. When I was watching the match bet Hongkong and Italy, when the HK pair defended brilliantly by falsing card and calm ducking which finally lead Versace to down one in that otherwise cold 3N, no single commentator pointed it out that how good that def. I think they are not concentrating on the match sometimes, though I understand them.

[twcho]

Flytoox, I guess you are talking about the 3NT hand played by Fantoni (not Versace). When he played a C towards table AJ96, Wan followed with C8 (they play natural signal) after the J inducing Fantoni to play the CQ at the second to try to drop Wan's supposedly C108 doubleton. Also when Fantoni lead the singleton HJ from table and cover it with HQ in his hand, Zen just followed calmly with a small H.

[cnszsun]

I'm a big fan of BBO vugraph, so i've watched a lot. But, to be honest, only two commentators (Fred Gitelmen and Michael Rosenberg) make me feel really helpful, of course that doesn't means others are not good, on the contrary, it just proved commentating is a tough job.

[hrothgar]

cnszsun, on Oct 30 2004, 04:49 AM, said:

I'm a big fan of BBO vugraph, so i've watched a lot. But, to be honest, only two commentators (Fred Gitelmen and Michael Rosenberg) make me feel really helpful, of course that doesn't means others are not good, on the contrary, it just proved commentating is a tough job.

I'd add Sabine Auken and Walddk to the list of really top rate commentators...

[twcho]

I will rate Sabine as the no. 1 commentator in BBO followed by Fred, Bart Bramley, Michael and Debbie Rosenberg.

[pclayton]

I dont think there is a better analyst on VG these days than Tommy Sanders.

[flytoox]

twcho, on Oct 29 2004, 09:33 PM, said:

Flytoox, I guess you are talking about the 3NT hand played by Fantoni (not Versace). When he played a C towards table AJ96, Wan followed with C8 (they play natural signal) after the J inducing Fantoni to play the CQ at the second to try to drop Wan's supposedly C108 doubleton. Also when Fantoni lead the singleton HJ from table and cover it with HQ in his hand, Zen just followed calmly with a small H.

I think you r right.

[flytoox]

I am a huge fan of Fred's commentating. His analysis is very illuminating. His logic is simple, straightforward.

Rosenberg is very deep analyst, sometimes hard to follow, perhaps simply becase he is thinking too fast.

[luke warm]

the ones who've helped me the most are roland, fred, larry c (when he commentates he has good insights), and debrose... i haven't had the pleasure of 'listening' to sabine

[Chamaco]

inquiry, on Oct 29 2004, 04:51 PM, said:

For most part the commentators comments are very helpful and enlightening, but all too often have little if nothing to do with the hand in question. Today for instance, there is constant discussion of raly caps, red soxs, and the new york yankees... of course, what has to happen in vugraph archives you have to push your way (one push at a time) though all this drivel not only to get to the good comments, but also to see the next bid or play... push, push, push, push, card played, push, push, push, push, push, push, next card play. IT would help if the pushes gave more enlightenment and less mind numbing dullness.

Ben,I totally agree with your comment, which basically repeats many of the concepts I tried to explain in a long post some time ago:

Unfortunately, the tendency of some operators is to lose interest in hands which do not feature a triple squeeze, or anything really fancy.

I will not repeat my thoughts in detail about it, anyone who is interest can just reread the thread:

http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...?showtopic=3490

I will only repeat that, while I enjoy a lot funny and witty commentaries, I miss some more emphasis on the technical aspects of the deals.

[inquiry]

Having complained about the "silly chatter" during hands, they allowed (forced?) me to be a commentator in todays russia-hungary match (fourth stanza).

During hand 11 or 12, I got disconnect and so far can not get back in, but anyone suffering through my comments can see that what I already knew, it is difficult to be a commentator... but at least I tried to comment on the bridge. Constructive critiques ok, but I doubt they will let me back on as a commentator, as I seemed to crash the entire BBO... :-)

Ben

[Chamaco]

inquiry, on Nov 1 2004, 05:21 PM, said:

Having complained about the "silly chatter" during hands, they allowed (forced?) me to be a commentator in todays russia-hungary match (fourth stanza).

During hand 11 or 12, I got disconnect and so far can not get back in, but anyone suffering through my comments can see that what I already knew, it is difficult to be a commentator... but at least I tried to comment on the bridge. Constructive critiques ok, but I doubt they will let me back on as a commentator, as I seemed to crash the entire BBO... :-)

Ben

Ben, I watched a part of the comments by you and Luis (Irargerich) and, in my opion, they deserve to be mentioned as a "model" for comments:

As the new deal appears, the commentators start to identify:

1) potential bidding battle
2) different outcomes based on the different bidding systems
3) given the likely contract, the alternative for plays in a critical suit, and possibly unusual plays
4) various other things

I have noticed that often the scheme of commenting the deals was very similar to the one used by Fred (by far the best commentator I had the chance to watch!).

I understand trying to stick to the technical analysis of the deals gives a chance for many more blunders, in so little time.

But yet again, I much prefer a good player who TRIES to analyze the hand, even with occasional blunders, rather than a world class who does not pay attention to the deals and prefers to chat and joke between friends on frivolous side issues.

[inquiry]

Chamaco, on Nov 1 2004, 02:48 PM, said:

Ben, I watched a part of the comments by you and Luis (Irargerich) and, in my opion, they deserve to be mentioned as a "model" for comments:

Well, thanks mauro, I think most of the credit should go to Luis, who is an experienced and polished commentor. But I will say that both of us appeared to try very hard to stick with comments on the hands before us... your model is great and all commentor should give it a quick read and try to pay attention to it.

Ben

[spwdo]

I wonder why commentators have not opend a link to the CC cards from players so they woudnt have to guess all the time what can be this /that bid, seems it woud be somuch easier if they did that so they woudnt have to do small talk or bet for cola`s.

When i watch european football commentated by profesionals they also say a goal has been made, but they take give us background, know what they are talking about.
i have seen many good commentators(vugraph) but sometimes i wish i coud turn it off.



Maybe , i dont know if its possible, but is so we might think of giving some revenue(money) for the best commentators out there and take things towards an expert level.

Again, many are already very good and they comment for all, its a gift or u have to do efforts to become good at that to be sure u are not commenting only for the happy few that only find hands interested when there is something "special" going on.

Yes , most know about multi 2!D, but seeing someone explain that perfectly is imo better then talking about red sox,isnt a good colour for sox anyways