In this example you imply both queries are locked by the other in the first set of queries. The first query has achieved all the locks needed to complete the transaction. The command to complete the transaction doesn't exist so the locks will remain in place while that spid&trans remain alive. (Even though the batch query did complete and it is "idle".)

You should have made the point that this first transaction isn't blocked, but the second query is blocked. You should have indicated that by including a commit statement in the seond query. It wouldn't have completed because the locks haven't completed. You should have mentioned the second query doesn't stop while the first one did stop. It isn't finished with the update because it is blocked.

On the other hand, not putting in the commit statement really would have shown that the update, not the commit is being blocked.