[gnasher]

 uday, on 2014-May-16, 07:09, said:

Hey, I just had a thought. What if the commentator was anonymous? Then perhaps he could speak out loud w/o fear I know I would be more likely to try do commentary under those circumstances.

I would be much less likely to read the commentary under those circumstances. And how would it fit with my "enemies" list, which is carefully tailored to maximise the quality of my vugraph experience?

[neilkaz]

Phil "3. Don't result in the bidding. If a slam requires three finesses and a 3-3 split don't rant on how 'biddable' it is and how you'd find it playing your favorite methods."

Agreed that there can be too much of this and especially in our forums here.

[GreenMan]

 broze, on 2014-May-16, 04:47, said:

My one peeve however is the commentators consistently moaning about how boring the hands are. This goes back to what I was saying about not wanting to be there.

I believe the commentators would rather the boards be entertaining for the spectators' sake, just as some occasionally seem to be hoping for a match score to tighten so subsequent boards will be more consequential. I don't have a problem with either of those.

[awm]

If you don't like the commentating, you can just enemy the commentators and turn the volume off on your machine, and you won't have to hear/see any of it. Personally I almost always do this!

Good or bad, the commentators are volunteers for a thankless job. When they're so easy to ignore, criticizing them seems out of line.

[jjbrr]

 awm, on 2014-May-16, 21:57, said:

Good or bad, the commentators are volunteers for a thankless job. When they're so easy to ignore, criticizing them seems out of line.

No one should ever be embarrassed for their genuine effort to contribute to the community, but some people pretty obviously need to be pulled aside and told they're doing more harm than good. It's out of line for some of them to volunteer in the first place.

(I have no one specific example in mind because, as Adam said, it's easy to ignore them. I'm just saying that simply ignoring the problem only makes it worse even if it doesn't really affect anyone in a significant way.)

[rogerclee]

Well, meh, maybe next year. The Nickell team played great and deserved it.

[PhilKing]

Leo Lasota's analysis was way better than the average commentator, and once he stops wasting his time thrashing GIB Bots, he should get a spot playing rather than commentating.

[diana_eva]

 rogerclee, on 2014-May-16, 23:14, said:

Well, meh, maybe next year. The Nickell team played great and deserved it.

Was fantastic watching you and Hamman - well done! And also very painful to see that final 21 IMP swing

[Zelandakh]

 rogerclee, on 2014-May-16, 23:14, said:

Well, meh, maybe next year. The Nickell team played great and deserved it.

They showed why they are so tough to beat over a long match, staying focused all the way through. That your team mates had a mix up on the third bid of an unopposed strong club auction suggests to me you ran out of gas at the end but perhaps that is reading too much into it. You played well and I am sure if you and Bob play together for an extended period the partnership will continue to improve. To that end, what is the situation with Bob just now? First he was with Justin, now you - is he still searching around for the right partner for the next push on a world title, trying to help the next American generation, something else? He has been such a top player over such a long period - we want to see him at the big international tournaments again!

[aguahombre]

 awm, on 2014-May-16, 21:57, said:

If you don't like the commentating, you can just enemy the commentators and turn the volume off on your machine, and you won't have to hear/see any of it. Personally I almost always do this!

Good or bad, the commentators are volunteers for a thankless job. When they're so easy to ignore, criticizing them seems out of line.

A commentator clearly has much to offer. Rather than have the temerity to point out where he could do better, we should just tune him out if we don't like part of what he does.

Circle the wagons. The great unwashed are attacking. I suspect the commentators themselves have more interest in how their efforts come across than the apologists do.

[diana_eva]

I'll be posting some voice commentary recordings on youtube as I get to process them (painfully slow process, so it might take a few days). Two videos up so far, Segments 3 and 8 from the Finals:

http://www.youtube.c...Z_Dwf2mNqsZH3cn

EDIT: All videos published now (segments 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the finals)

This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2014-May-20, 11:07

[nige1]

 rogerclee, on 2014-May-16, 00:26, said:

People who don't do vugraph commentary don't realize how hard it is, they think that just because you are a strong expert player, you will do fine. Here's what it's actually like being a vugraph commentator:
1) The players are taking forever, and you feel like passing the time by mentioning something small.
2) Some random kibitzer says something you know is wrong. You ignore it.
3) Some random kibitzer says something you think is wrong, but you don't know. You choose not to address it.
4) Some expert kibizer says something that you think might be right, but it's complicated and you don't know. You spend some time thinking about whether or not what they said is true.
5) While this is happening, the play continues and you want to comment on what the expert kibitzer says, but now it's too late and it doesn't matter anymore.
6) You're commentating for meckwell, so you sort of know their system, but not really. You spend some time finding an old convention card of theirs, but you don't know if it's up to date.
7) Oops, you missed the bidding while you were looking this up, and now you have to commentate on the play, and you try to do it single-dummy (like a good commentator would), but you are only human and there are now 1500+ kibitzers, so you don't want to say something stupidly and obviously wrong.
I mean, it's basically like this the whole time. I used to want to be critical of vugraph commentators who I think didn't contribute much, but honestly, it's a hard and thankless job, and most people should feel fortunate that anyone is willing to do it at all.

Vugraph daunting for the commentators but fascinating for kibitzers. Thank you RogerCLee. Roger's Point 6 annoys me.

• When experts engage in a long complex auction, the first few calls are usually annotated and explained; but later calls are often an enigma. This can be especially irritating with Meckstroth-Rodwell auctions because they so often appear on vugraph, they bid a lot, their system-card is hard to fathom, and commentators don't appear to understand their methods.
• Commentators can rarely adequately explain the subtler aspects of the carding of players. (Presumably, players sometimes suggest the dangerous-looking but devastating switches found by their partners).

[GreenMan]

 nige1, on 2014-May-19, 17:42, said:

[*]Commentators can rarely adequately explain the subtler aspects of the carding of players. (Presumably, players sometimes suggest the dangerous-looking but devastating switches found by their partners).

It can be dangerous to comment much on defensive carding, because operators sometimes get the spots wrong, especially if the play is fast.

[marcD]

 awm, on 2014-May-16, 21:57, said:

If you don't like the commentating, you can just enemy the commentators and turn the volume off on your machine, and you won't have to hear/see any of it. Personally I almost always do this!

Good or bad, the commentators are volunteers for a thankless job. When they're so easy to ignore, criticizing them seems out of line.

Agree . Actually, i usually close the chat window (never listen to voice commentary) and choose to kib one of the player . What is most important for me is to have a skillfull vugraph operator who is able to catch the alerts (bionic ear or eye since players are usually whispering or their writing is not legible). A few commentators stand out though : Kit obviously and too rarely Michael Rosenberg.

[diana_eva]

 marcD, on 2014-May-20, 02:30, said:

Agree . Actually, i usually close the chat window (never listen to voice commentary) and choose to kib one of the player . What is most important for me is to have a skillfull vugraph operator who is able to catch the alerts (bionic ear or eye since players are usually whispering or their writing is not legible). A few commentators stand out though : Kit obviously and too rarely Michael Rosenberg.

In that case you missed out on Kit's excellent analysis on voice commentary. Just sayin

[diana_eva]

 aguahombre, on 2014-May-17, 09:00, said:

A commentator clearly has much to offer. Rather than have the temerity to point out where he could do better, we should just tune him out if we don't like part of what he does.

Circle the wagons. The great unwashed are attacking. I suspect the commentators themselves have more interest in how their efforts come across than the apologists do.

I agree 100% with aguahombre here. From my experience in working with commentators in the past two years or so, commentators appreciate feedback, be it good or bad. When a spec says something nice, I pass it on. When a spec says something bad and it seems like he/she might have a valid point, I pass it on. In either case such feedback is well received and commentators try to adjust accordingly.

Yes, some are better than others, but so are the specs. What might seem like unnecessary ramblings to one, is perceived as insightful analysis for another. This applies particularly to situations where more adv specs feel commentators are stating the obvious. You'd be surprised at how many kibs do not find that obvious thing obvious at all.

[y66]

 diana_eva, on 2014-May-20, 10:51, said:

In that case you missed out on Kit's excellent analysis on voice commentary. Just sayin

Second that. The commentary during this event was superb, including many interesting at the table comments relayed by vugraph operators. The voice commentary by Roland, David, Peter, Kit, Josh, Michael and others was as insightful and colorful as anything I've heard in professional sports broadcasting and that includes John Madden, Johnny Miller, Billy Packer and the BBC Radio 5 Live Golf team.

[TMorris]

I think different commentators aim for a different audience eg David Bird tries to explain things to beginners and does so rather well. I only have one commentator as a enemy as he is pretty much guaranteed to say the exact opposite of what would be a sensible play every time - fortunately he is not on voice. Most try hard but things like stating the IMPs on an earlier boards when it is shown on the scoresheet do try my patience.

[marcD]

 diana_eva, on 2014-May-20, 10:51, said:

In that case you missed out on Kit's excellent analysis on voice commentary. Just sayin

you would think so. Actually, after I have made up my mind on what is being suggested . This was very interesting during the 7S hand : i was following Weinstein and thought about a first round spade finesse !
I do it too when the hand seems to present no problem and declarer or defender (generally Fantoni )takes for ever to play . Then it is quite interesting to see what Kit has to say about what the declarer may be considering

[gwnn]

These videos are great to watch, thanks!