[barmar]

JanM, on Jun 4 2010, 02:56 PM, said:

nickf, on Jun 4 2010, 12:15 AM, said:

0 carbon, on Jun 3 2010, 03:21 PM, said:

It would be ideal if FD cards were started for each of the competitors so the bids get explained immediately - at least for the first round or two of bidding.

I agree - that would be ideal - but it just isnt going to happen in our lifetimes.

Writing a FD card is a time consuming exercise and tournament organisers have far more important things to do. The best we can hope is they post copies of the cards online.

nickf
sydney

Actually, someone did try doing FD cards for the US Team Trials last year and we discovered that you can't load them when you're a Vugraph operator. That's a deliberate decision, as I recall. So despite the fact that it appears to be a good idea, it isn't going to happen.

Of all the problems with doing this, that's probably the one that's easiest to solve. But since we're not likely to get FD cards created for most of the pairs that play on Vugraph, it's obviously not high priority.

[cicus]

There is one more thing I'd like to ask for. Some commentators often use u for you, r for are, 2 for to, 4 for for, etc. As a non-native English speaker, I have great difficulties reading such sentences. So please, if you possibly can, use the whole word instead of those short forms.

BTW, 2 and 4 in the above sense are grammatically improper AFAIK (!) as they have long vowels in them.

[gwnn]

Using numbers in any other sense than the numbers they represent is incorrect, irregardless of long vowels But I'd be more happy if the commentators used l33tspk but a little higher level bridge content.

[peachy]

cicus, on Jun 30 2010, 01:04 PM, said:

There is one more thing I'd like to ask for. Some commentators often use u for you, r for are, 2 for to, 4 for for, etc. As a non-native English speaker, I have great difficulties reading such sentences. So please, if you possibly can, use the whole word instead of those short forms.

BTW, 2 and 4 in the above sense are grammatically improper AFAIK (!) as they have long vowels in them.

Good commentators already avoid such things.

Those who do that, in my observation, are the ones who just HAVE to hurry in and say something at EVERY turn whether it is of value to spectators or not, and whether it is even correct analysis or not. It is just a demonstration of the "empty vessels make the most noise".

But if you do not understand something that was said, message the commentator and ask. Good commentators are there for the benefit of the spectators, not to show off (or try to show off), and they will be happy to answer questions.

[aguahombre]

Good points from Peachy, who --at least in one session --- couldn't seem to get a word in edgewise, working with the type commentator described

[cicus]

peachy, on Jul 1 2010, 12:01 PM, said:

But if you do not understand something that was said, message the commentator and ask.

In fact I did just that to a commentator before I wrote this post and, all credit to him, he apologized and promised he'd at least try.

[MBV53]

Thank you fred for nice Guidelines! every commentator must follow these. Other wise no place for them!
MBVSubrahmanyam.

[keylime]

I think the guidelines are both comprehensive and provide enough latitude for commentators to be themselves during the session. I like them a lot.

[akwoo]

 nickf, on 2010-June-04, 01:15, said:

I agree - that would be ideal - but it just isnt going to happen in our lifetimes.

Writing a FD card is a time consuming exercise and tournament organisers have far more important things to do. The best we can hope is they post copies of the cards online.

nickf
sydney

Is there any way of getting at least a basic system description somewhere? FD isn't going to happen, but even a one word description some place obvious, such as in a profile, would be useful.

[manudude03]

 akwoo, on 2011-May-16, 17:13, said:

Is there any way of getting at least a basic system description somewhere? FD isn't going to happen, but even a one word description some place obvious, such as in a profile, would be useful.

Some events will have preposted convention cards online. Unfortunately they are not always available. Also, if the commentators know, they will often give a quick summary of the system at the start.

[hrothgar]

Diamond and Bathurst are two the teams to beat right now.

If only we knew people who played on either of those teams...

[nickf]

 akwoo, on 2011-May-16, 17:13, said:

Is there any way of getting at least a basic system description somewhere? FD isn't going to happen, but even a one word description some place obvious, such as in a profile, would be useful.

I don't think a one word description like "2/1" or "Precision" or "Acol" is much use. Commentators like Al Hollander do their research and find system cards online for participants, where they exist. But he's an exception. Ideally you want organisers to upload systems cards to the interwebs before the event. Some events do so, but not a lot.

nickf
sydney

[arthh]

I'd like to suggest another "don't" for commentators. Don't make comments at the beginning of a hand or play based on your double dummy analysis such as "4 hearts is the normal contract and it makes" or "this hand will go down to defeat on a club lead". Personally I like to kibitz one player, such as Bob Hamman, rather than see all four hands. It allows me to compare what I would do to his actual actions. When the commentator makes a comment early in the bidding or play such as the above, it spoils what I am trying to achieve by watching just one hand.