[csdenmark]

aramesh_, on Apr 6 2004, 10:43 AM, said:

Unclocked means quick tourney ONLY for the quick ones-One slow pair can prolong the tourney. How to screen pairs for quickness. Impossible to have a "slow player" list like you can have an enemy list. Because slow play may be intentional sometimes or due to connection problems.
In clocked tournies we know for certain how long its going to take.
Unclocked ones may finish faster or get prolonged-often its only prolonged.
When one cannot tolerate waiting for 4 minutes for the next round in a clocked tourney how r they going to feel when the clock runs into negative minutes in an unclocked tourney?

This thread has been started as a complaint by a quick player for wasting much time - up to 40% - just waiting for proceeding of tourney. So I read your statement as "YES - but".

In unclocked events it is not so that slow players delay completetion for the quick ones. Thats the flexibility. You will be slowed down if you are playing at a slow table. If you start playing at a quick table - you are likely to be in that part of the field ending quickly. You will not be affected by others.

What is slow play?

To me a set up with less time for each board than the professionals have available will not be accepted as fair. As far as I remember from Vugraph comments they have 10 minutes per board with an extra option of 2 minutes. The match as a whole also has a time frame within all must be over. I would appreciate very much if somebody would be able to confirm or correct this information!

Bridge is a thinking game - this means there are several reasons for slow down:

- Poor connection
- Distraction
- Thinking
- Personal needs
- Maybe others?

In unclocked you constantly have an option to advance from a slower part of the field to a quicker one. Either by speeding up or making a simple agreement with your opps. to skip a table.

[mpefritz]

Quote

In unclocked you constantly have an option to advance from a slower part of the field to a quicker one. Either by speeding up or making a simple agreement with your opps. to skip a table.

Claus, I think this is where you err. If you are caught at a slow table in the first round-- maybe one with a bad connection or needing a sub, you might be stuck in the late group the rest of the tourney. EVEN if you try to catch up the next round, the fast groups might have already charged on to the next board and you must wait for the rest of the slow group to catch up. In other words instead of being the slowest of the slow, you are now the fastest of the slow and must wait for enough slow tables to catch up. Bailing on a board requires 4 people to agree, AND it just then switches another two pairs down to the slow group.

Now if all slow tables would agree to bail on all boards in order to catch up...well, then you just have a recursive situation which is now occurring in, say, round 4 instead of round 1. It might then condemn a formerly fast pair to the slow gorup . Also how would they know how many boards to bail on?

You also seem to think a 4X4 tourney is the one to analyze. Ok all TDs, raise your hand if you usually (or ever) run a 4X4.

I do like the idea of being able to somehow catch up, but it would just dump other players down to the slow group as far as I can tell -- which would cause more people to complain.

fritz

p.s. Claus -- I hereby grant you the right to my former signature "You don't have to agree with me, but it is quicker."

I am not saying this as an insult, but in respect for your desire to improve the software/playing conditions at BBO and your insistence for not settling for less than perfection. I still respectfully disagree with you on this topic, though. I just think your solutions here would cause more annoyances to more people than help the few. Proof not supplied, but a gut feeling on my part.

[csdenmark]

Quote

You don't have to agree with me, but it is quicker

Excellent Fritz - I will adopt this one!

When I refer to 4x4 - it is just as example to have something specific. 1-2 makes no sense. 3-5 are the serious options.

Yes I would really like to see the problems in unclocked to be settled. I think it will only be a very little modification of software needed as it looks like the features needed already programmed. But of course only Fred and Uday knows.

You certainly have a point in problems to catch up. Then lets try to deal with such. The basic of unclocked is flexibility - so therefore it would be a very good idea to find good solutions in order to have a greater variety - and hopefully more seriousity too.

[McBruce]

I began the Alphabet Points tournament series with a clocked tournament and switched to unclocked after the first one. Now, let's say right away that these events are fifteen-board, one board per round individuals, using SAYC only, so my experience may be different from other tourney formats.

During that first tournament I was deluged with requests to extend the time, claims that players were playing slowly, and on and on. Most of these would come with less than 2 minutes left in the round. I would arrive at the table knowing that one or two other tables had the same complaint, and of course it would be too late to determine anything. From the complaints I got the impression that many, many boards were not being completed, but when I checked the results I discovered that almost all of the top twenty had in fact completed all 15 boards on time.

I decided to switch to unclocked (actually a sort of 'unclocked but clocked' format) for the second tournament, and there are advantages...

--the tournament always is virtually finished in 120 minutes, because I added a rule that penalizes players 1 IMP or 1% per extra minute used. (Of course, the software cannot do this, but the lure of AlphaPoints allows you to tinker with the final results, for slow players or misbehavior, before you post the updated leaderboards.)
--Far fewer complaints about slow play. The only ones I get now are from people who have forgotten it is clocked, or from players who want to finish as quickly as possible, and I mollify them by pointing out that they are already way ahead of the field.
--Nobody ever loses a board to the clock, and nobody can ever delay to turn a zero into an average minus. Occasionally I will hear a delaying complaint, make an announcement to the tournament that you cannot lose a board to the clock, and then go to the complaining table and the problem is mysteriously solved.
--I have not done a study on this, but in entering the results into the AlphaPoints spreadsheet I get the impression that the slower tables produce a much higher proportion of the winners. I'm not seeing as strong an impression in the recent tounnaments, since the warnings/bans to tourney quitters and my recent decision to bar kibitzers until all players have completed 12 boards.

...and disadvantages:

--there are always complaints about waiting times, as the software requires at least three tables to be finished a board before shuffling the 12 or 16 players for the next round. In the late rounds this sometimes means a delay of five or more minutes.
--the 20-30 tables gradually divide into groups of players of similar speed, and after the division is set about 7-10 boards in, these groups play among themselves for the most part. Often a player will play with or against the same partner/opponent two or three times.
--The fastest tables are often done 30-45 minutes before the slowest. Fastest often simply means you were lucky enough to encounter nobody with connection problems, nobody who refuses to claim, and nobody who goes off to the bathroom for five minutes while waiting for a seat change that takes place one minute later.

The 'unclocked but clocked' rule is: if you don't reach board 15 after two hours, or finish it in ten minutes or less, you get penalized for extra time used. Frequent announcements of where everyone should be keeps most people on time, and during the final few rounds I keep a close watch on the 3-4 tables in the slowest group to make sure that they don't encounter any difficulties, advise a time-saving claim, warn them that they'll need to make up time in the next round(s) etc. Recently I have been watching close enough to assign conditional penalties to the players at the last table to complete each of the last 3-5 boards, which protects the unfortunates who get drawn into the slow groups at the beginning and are at their mercy. Usually these conditional penalties are discardrd when everyone finishes in time. Another thing I have done which helps a great deal is I have moved my announcements to the middle of the first round, after I deal with sitouts and subs.

I think this sort of thing may be the answer to the clocked/unclocked dilemma. Certainly the unclocked tournaments I play in take far longer than the advertised clock time, where Alphabet Points tourneys are never more than ten minutes over. My 'unclocked but clocked' format seems to have stopped the players who go overtime while still allowing the fast and lucky ones to finish in 70% of the total clock time. I think this might be a far-future wish-list item. The system could:

--penalize late finishers 1 IMP or 1% per extra minute used.
--inform players who are in the last 'group' that they must finish this round on clock time or they will get additional penalties added if they are also late finishing the event.
--a second onscreen clock telling players how many minutes left in the event.
--since most of the problems begin with round one difficulties, an option to hold round two until round one completed at all tables might help

[csdenmark]

Bruce I have problems to understand you. It might be very interesting to understand as your enthusiasm suggest you have a solution.

I think you are right the groupings are made already in first round. But trying to keep all together for round 2 I cannot see things differently than you wait for round 2 to produce the splitting. OR?

Your penalizing seems unjust to me. I will not comment until I know exactly the rules for time limits the proff's need to apply to. That will be the absolute minimum for a fair time limit for ordinary players.

[spwdo]

hi,


all this , one advice, make clocked and add first round 1 mnute a board, check up late tables and u ll be ok also, no need to work a day with lowereing scores.


NEW one to me,tourney is virtually finisched??? well we are in a virtual world, makes u think huh

gonna tell u , clocked 8 minutes a baord /10 baords finisched in 84 max, fastest one , so first sections 2 minutes ahaed, first tables their are finisched after 9/10 minutes in last round, they done in 74+-, last slowest player is home in time for dinner with 84 minutes(then an unclocked is starting baord 6/8 the so called slowest part of that tourney).

i played them all, i hosted them all, i have fast cable connection and i play always fast, ask my regular partners(they complain that i play to fast) and even i got in several really unfortunate tourneys(i use nice words because i respect every td and his setup) where it took me a hell of a lot longer then 7/8 minutes a baord so if the risk is still there that happens i cant enter an unclocked.



let me clarify something u dont seem to get claus and mcbruce


we in clocked make sure the slowest cant prolong the tourney, we have a max for that, unclocked doesnt so by defanition a unclocked event is longer because u wait to finsch till the slowest , most frequently bathroomvisitor , distracted finally had enough from it and played his last card in the last baord after phoning seventeen minutes to his his old schoolfriend



marc

[aramesh_]

nowhere i accepted that unclocked tourneys are the answer to curb slow tournaments. with a 'but' or otherwise.
as marc says a 10 board tourney(8min/board) can be finished in 84 minutes. that has been my experience(or is it "practice")too.
15 board Alpha points tournies finish in 120 minutes for 2 reasons as i understand it. Players use SAYC only and are penalised 1 IMPper extra minute used. Naturally they play fast.

[csdenmark]

aramesh_, on Apr 7 2004, 06:07 AM, said:

nowhere i accepted that unclocked tourneys are the answer to curb slow tournaments. with a 'but' or otherwise.
as marc says a 10 board tourney(8min/board) can be finished in 84 minutes. that has been my experience(or is it "practice")too.
15 board Alpha points tournies finish in 120 minutes for 2 reasons as i understand it. Players use SAYC only and are penalised 1 IMPper extra minute used. Naturally they play fast.

The standard completion for unclocked 10 boards will be:

- The quick ones: 40-50 minutes
- The standard : 70-80 minutes

[spwdo]

csdenmark, on Apr 7 2004, 06:06 PM, said:

The standard completion for unclocked 10 boards will be:

- The quick ones: 40-50 minutes
- The standard : 70-80 minutes

and how about the slow ones??
and how about those fast ones have to wait for their results??
u pull the plug and they see played hands?

So after 4 good baords players freez up because thier results are good, i hope uday on a insane day add this what u are asking, claus they are going to kill u, winners are with 2 baords played out of 10 xxxx, 2 good baords and then every time u are called to a table for slow play , they play one card and u see "ah ok now"and u rush off to the next table where one is doing the same





pffffffffff

P.S maureen and my offer still stands , but i think u never going to allow your thinking to be changed, but yet u keep disagreeing with everybody else, a shame.
As for your signature, i think the guy invented that had u in mind

[csdenmark]

Marc the 10 boards is an example just for easy counting. 10 boards tourneys make no sense in terms of seriousity.

But 10 boards will be format 2 x 5 - nothing else possible. A very fast format. The completion will surely be quicker than I stated.

People who cannot wait for result. Like X-mas as we were children! Sorry. Result is up for 1 week.

Marc please think of the majority. The unlucky minority with bad connections on a day - help them - dont punish them.

Your last statement about plug I dont understand the meaning of - sorry!

[aramesh_]

hi

pray tell me how to pick only quick ones or standard ones for a tourney--clocked or unclocked

[showle]

Having both played in and directed/co-directed regularly in some of the larger tournaments on this site and previously on another bridge site, I have decided to chime in on this issue.

1- Let's not forget that the original poster was not happy with having to wait too long before being allowed to advance to the next round. This is, on the surface, a reasonable/common concern. True, the post itself did not come across as exactly appreciative of the hard work and effort put forth by those who volunteer, but let's try to seperate that issue from the actual complaint.

2- Since our site is extremely "worldly", we cannot ever expect that every player will have a strong, fast connection and play at the same pace. This makes for slower play at some tables. No one format (clocked or otherwise) will change this fact.

3- Personally, as a player, I have played in many unclocked tournaments. I do not know how the idea that they are somehow "faster" than clocked tournaments came about. My experience has, in fact, been very much the opposite. Sometimes they are indeed faster, but many other times they can be shockingly slow. It's all chance, and usually has little to do with how fast you yourself play.

4- From both a player and directors point of view, I find that my day can be more accurately planned when the tournament is clocked. Yes, sometimes rounds can be extended two minutes, but that's about as bad as it gets-- not much of a difference. In general, most players are aware of the clock and make an attempt to finish playing in a timely manner. This helps. And remember, the directors here have lives too! ;-)

5- In the Fun Fishy tournament, both Gweny and I will indeed make adjustments for intentional slow play or when the result is obvious. But we both know that the show must go on, and that people have lives to lead. A very small handful of slow players will not stop the show. In general, our Late Fun Fishy is extremely timely and predictable, and I believe that the players appreciate this.

6- In clocked tournaments, all of the players finish at about the same time, and all are able to immediately see their results and rankings. Players appreciate this-- hey, bridge is a very competitive game! In unclocked tournaments-- especially those of meaningful size, you may have to wait QUITE a while to see your results.

7- There are many types of tournaments currently offered on BBO, and this goes on all around the clock. In fact, no other site offers more choices and more times as far as tournaments go. And let's not forget about the Total Points tournaments either-- they can be quite fun too! If a player prefers one style over another, then (s)he can simply choose to join those types of tournaments and avoid the others.

8- As another poster pointed out, let us not forget that we are all guests here when we are players. And as far as directors/co directors go, we are all volunteers. I think that this fact should never be forgotten.

9- I believe that, while every voice should be heard, we should listen closely to those that work the hardest. When a host (such as spwdo) has a suggestion, it is a suggestion based on vast experience. Handling large groups/directors calls is no easy task, and these directors are generally very wise. It's not easy finding good directors, much less those who are also able to handle large crowds.

10- Let us return to playing bridge and having fun! Somewhere along the line recently, some have lost track of this-- this is still a game, after all. We should be happy that we have been so fortunate as to have had so much recent growth. We should be thankful to have such a fine group of volunteers. As a whole, we make one heck of a team!

11- And finally, those that do little else other than complain will likely find themselves not taken seriously. This is human nature. Suggestions for improvements are great, and opinions about tournament formats can and should be varied. But for those who exclusively complain and disagree, it will become only too easy to learn to "not listen" to that person. And that's a shame, since one day they may come up with a truly great idea-- only to not be heard or else ignored.

[spwdo]

hi,



sam, welcome to the forum, nice very nice writing and hopefully we see a lot more of you






marc
spwdo td friends

[csdenmark]

I advocate unclocked not because of speed but because of flexibility. The flexibility needed with many kind of occurences happening which nobody can control. All have to accept the facts.

Pace is NO argument in bridge. Bridge is about carefully thoughts and really not much else. Therefore we also see bridge categorized as a 'mind-sport'.

[inquiry]

csdenmark, on Apr 7 2004, 07:25 AM, said:

Pace is NO argument in bridge. Bridge is about carefully thoughts and really not much else. Therefore we also see bridge categorized as a 'mind-sport'.

Come on. Pace has a place in bridge, even at the top levels. And in the friendly confines of BBO where people of all skill levels play, and where they might have pressing other business to attend too, PACE really is very important. People will not want to sign up for a tournment if they can't be realatively assured when it will end. Also, if you could play 10 boards in a unit time in the open room, some will ask why play 6 boards in the same amount of time in the tournments? If you reduce the boards played from 6 to 4, in the same time, then fewer and fewer will want to play in the tourmnents. I like tourneys, but I can play much more actual bridge in the open room.

Ben

[csdenmark]

Ben we really need to know what is a fair speed. A fair speed for measuring. I have asked somebody with knowledge of the time limits in proff. level to be helpful. Until now no responses.

If Meckstroth has 10 minutes available for all hands in Bermuda Bowl - and I think he has but I am not sure - then it be for lunatics only to sign up for tournaments with penalties after 8 minutes. If Meckstroth only has 5 minutes for a hand - then I will with no problems accept penalties for ordinary players after 8 minutes.

I therefore need a little help - guidance - for a reasonable judgement.

[mpefritz]

The lunatics have spoken by signing up for 7 or 8 minute boards!! The shorter the time frame the more likely one is to make a bridge error -- overlook a nice line of play, miscount the hand. BUT , and I beleive this is true for the vast majority of players in BBO tourneys, 8 minutes per board is plenty of time for what they want to get out of the tournament.

If everyone were trying to play perfect bridge, then the demands for 10, 11, do I hear 12 minute rounds would be overwhelming the directors. In fact, as I understand it, the STARS aren't griping too loudly about the time limitations for their tournaments are they?

Ideal time per hand for playing bridge as a professional and ideal time for playing bridge for someone online trying to have fun for a few hours is completely different. And if they don't want time constraints, they can open a table in the main bridge club advertising 10 minutes per board and see how many takers they get. Or open a tourney with 10 min/board. Gripes and "disconnects" will abound.

fritz

[csdenmark]

Fritz I also think 7-8 minutes is good for bridge on BBO.

I have accused the set ups for non-serious. Therefore I would like to have something for measuring. I think something like proff. level + 40% would be fair.

It is a pity that many just signs up for tourneys and see them as an alternative set up for solely social play. But for all those my arguments make no sense of course. If people are satisfied just to reproduce their own mistakes I like they have the opportunity to do so. - I feel pity for them!

I would very much welcome the intensions to improve. You cannot improve unless you try to - think about what you have learned from your own mistakes and try to do something different now and to get experience from that.

[inquiry]

csdenmark, on Apr 7 2004, 10:42 AM, said:

Fritz I also think 7-8 minutes is good for bridge on BBO.

I have accused the set ups for non-serious. Therefore I would like to have something for measuring. I think something like proff. level + 40% would be fair.

It is a pity that many just signs up for tourneys and see them as an alternative set up for solely social play. But for all those my arguments make no sense of course. If people are satisfied just to reproduce their own mistakes I like they have the opportunity to do so. - I feel pity for them!

I would very much welcome the intensions to improve. You cannot improve unless you try to - think about what you have learned from your own mistakes and try to do something different now and to get experience from that.

Cllaus you are going the wrong way on time. Our nonprofessional tournments need LESS TIME than the professional ones. The pro's spend a lot of time thinking and figuring things out. Sadly the VAST majority of players don;t think at all, they just throw out cards, and those of who do try to think, only worry about 1/5th what the pros need. I would say the time needed would be 40% what the pro's get, not 40% more. To make EVERYONE suffer while one player is thinking and thinking is not fair the field, given the type of competition played here.

Ben

[aramesh_]

Discussion on clocked vs unclocked tournies has gone on for some time now.
Let TD's like Claus host unclocked tournies and others like spwdo, me and a lot more host clocked events. Let the player make the Hobson's Choice.