[McBruce]

OK, let me see if I can summarize:

1. We began with clocked tourneys and AVG- to players who ran out of time. Multiply the number of rounds by the minutes per round and you know exactly when you will finish (unless the Director adds a minute or two).

2. Players in clocked tournaments find that (for example) they pass out a board, claim at trick three on the second, and have nine minutes left on the clock. At a bridge club we would go get coffee or go out for a smoke or take a leak or something, but online this is A Major Problem. Why can't we just find someone else who is also finished and go ahead with the next round against them?

3. And thus it came to pass that Uday created UNCLOCKED tournaments. Once a few tables were finished, the system would reshuflle the players or pairs at these tables and let them go gung ho into the next board, instead of waiting for the round to end. And the slow tables have as much time as they need to play each board, since they may well be able to catch up later.

4. The advantages of unclocked: you cannot lose a board to the clock, you can take extra time on a difficult hand, and you usually wait less time for new opponents than you would in clocked.

5. The disadvantages: replays (playing with/against the same partner/opponent/pair more than once, which results because the unclocked format matches players by their speed, which subdivides the field into smaller groups which you usually cannot escape from), the waiting time still necessary (often in the final group a board will be completed but you have to wait for a slow table to finish it before moving), and the long, sometimes very long, wait at the end for results if you are in a fast group.

6. One solution to the long-wait problem is to penalize players for taking extra time, which cannot be done by BBO yet, but my tournaments include a rating system on my web site, so I can change the order of finish before I compute the ratings, and dock the slow players some matchpoints. The result of this is that my tournaments (15 boards, 8 minutes per board) are always finished within 10 minutes of time. The problem of fast players finishing 30-40 minutes earlier remains though.

The initial question of this thread was why are there such long waits? The answer is that people play at different speeds. There are waits in clocked and in unclocked. As a player I prefer neither, but in a clocked tournament I am going to watch the clock a lot more, and in an unclocked tourney I leave at the end and check the result later instead of waiting for Joe Slow to finish making four overtricks in 3NT on a trump squeeze with 15 winners. As a Director I am not fast enough to be able to handle the flurry of Director calls that comes at the end of a round in clocked. Until the BBO software gives me some way to determine who is at fault when someone shrieks "slow play here!" I'll stick to unclocked.

However, I did discover for the first time last night that I can claim for the slowest table when the result is obvious. This keeps things moving. But we're not going to find a permanaent solution for the waiting ever.

[bridgeboy]

Hi all.. I am new to this forum, so forgive me if I am completely on the wrong track or I made suggestions at the wrong place...

I think there might be a compromise to this conflict. There could be a different type of tourney. ( maybe call it semiclocked )

Where the tables who finish first (maybe the first 5 tables that finish) will change first for the next round. The next 5 tables completed will change when they're done and so on... The others will play on until the std time (maybe 16 mins a rd) finishes. Then all those who are still playing will change for the next round.

I think in this way, the fast (playing faster than the stipulated time) will play continously and can finish soon. On the other hand, the tourney will not take longer than expected to end. (easier time for the players, especially those caught in the slow 'batch' and cannot recover).

Another idea may be to have rd changes at up at one min intervals starting from 12th min (arbitary assuming 2 bds per rd) until a limit of maybe 18/19? this works if there are sufficient tables done within the 1 min interval.


Maybe this is just some rubbish thinking and not feasible Just ignore it then

[mink]

hi Bridgeboy,

what you propose looks to me like a clocked tourney with most pairs swtiching rounds before the deadline. The advantages are that some pairs finish earlier than the maximum time assigned for the tourney, and that there is a maximum time. The disadvantages are, that you have replays like in unclocked tourneys and unfinished boards like in clocked tourneys, that require adjustments by a director. Furthermore, this movement cannot be combined with the swiss/survivor approach, as this requires scores of the last round to be computed before a round change can take place.

I suggested another approach some times in this forum:

Tourney is clocked, but round change is eventually delayed until at least xx% (e.g. 95%) of the tables have finished the round. Then all pairs are seated for the next round swiss-like, but some pairs have to wait for opps who have not yet finished the previous round. Swiss seating of unfinished pairs is based on their result without the unfinished board(*). However, unlike todays unclocked tourneys, pairs that start a round late because they had to finish boads of the previous round have less time available for the current round, which maybe causes a board to be missed (already implemented today). For missed boards, ave+ or ave- is assigned depending on if the pair was responsible for the delays that caused the board to be missed or not.

This would result in no unfinished boards (and therefore no need for adjustment by director), no need to add time for difficult boards as this is done automatically, tourney ends at the scheduled end time or maybe only a litte later because of time automatically added. Replays are limited to swiss-related replays which could be avoided with a more sophisticated seating algorithm anyway. Furthermore, you could assign a rather low time per board (e.g. 6 minutes) without having to worry that the directors are faced with any requests for adjustments of unfinished boards. This way, such tourneys will finish earlier than todays clocked tourneys and
very much earlier than unclocked tourneys, and I think not much later than the fast group of an unclocked tourney.

Karl

[JRG]

I noticed that nobody jumped in to defend cgull. Instead, most people seemed to react to his post as if it were simply criticism.

I think this is incorrect (and for what it is worth, I think it comes from not reading what is written carefully).

1. He (she?) started by making a factual statement: He spent more time waiting than playing in a tournament. I'm not sure how this was measured -- perhaps using a chess clock.

2. He a statement that is possibly just his opinion (one I happen to agree with): 15 minutes is plenty of time to play two hands.

3. He stated a feeling he has: That the problem is caused by directors allowing waiting for overly slow players.

4. He suggested a solution: Set a time limit and stick to it.

Instead of shooting him, why not just give a simple explanation of why he is mistaken? As have I, he has probably played face-to-face bridge in games run by a director who makes sure the game moves along and people get to leave at the appointed time. Online bridge is different.

I've only played in a couple of tournaments, but I know from working on the Help and from reading lots of posts in these forums, that a BBO director's job can be very difficult. Despite not playing in tournaments, I am grateful that the volunteer directors run tournaments and add to the BBO community -- thank you!

[spwdo]

cgull, on Apr 2 2004, 05:07 AM, said:

I love to play in tournys. BUT, I spend more time waiting than playing by
actual measure.

I feel that the directors have created this timing monster by waiting for the slow
players. I think if you moved them on, and the lost the hand, it wouldn't take
very long for them to be more time sensitive.

You are, in essence, holding up a lot of people for one or two. That is not right.

. But, I feel, moving them along, will cure the
problem in short order.

Cgull

hi,

john, i reacted the way i have because the orniginal poster his trheat was nothing more like critisism and the worduses wasnt to respectfull of the things we do.

1.timemonster
2.We not fair?
3.holding the game up for one slowplayer?

We tds work very hard to check up on late tables, we go visit them , we get them moving, we never allow extra time for one slowtable, in fact when only a 4/5 tables playing we in bridge too far adjust them either to obviuos result either to A-+ depends on who is to blaim for delay, either to a== if they cant finisch.

Again i say this , we are volunteers working very hard , so any suggestions for software improvement shoud be adressed to uday/fred i think instead of calling us infair.
Again i say that reading tournament format is the only thing players have to do prior to the game, if u dont like the format play somewhere else.
Again i say before judging tds host one time for a change , u will be surprissed believe me.

I read in this topic several good ideas/suggestions for improvement and that is the way to handle things not critisiing without having a clue.


spwdo

[mr1303]

If I'm running a large tourney (around 200 players, or there abouts) I usually run it unclocked. This is to enable me to not have to deal with adjustments, as I have to check the movie etc. before I can adjust the score. However, I know that unclocked tournaments will take a lot longer, as there are ALWAYS WITHOUT FAIL a handful of painfully slow boards that take forever. Usually, these players are not even in contention. What their reasons are for playing so slowly, I don't know. I'll presume for now just poor connection..... Anyway, I certainly make sure that I have plenty of time before running an unclocked tourney.

If I want to run a tournament at short notice, I always use clocked, however, and I restrict the number of players to well below my capacity. This is to make sure I can handle the normal dozen or so director calls saying "no ave-", or "opps deliberately played slowly" etc which take so much longer than substitutions.

Having said that, I do struggle to see a good solution. I can't jump round every table and boot slow players, or even assign ave+-, there just isn't time, as I need to sit there and watch for a minute or two, which I just don't have.

[McBruce]

Is it true (or just something I've assumed from reading this thread) that when time runs out on a table in clocked, there is no bidding or cardplay saved, and therefore no way to view the board and make an adjustment to the obvious or most likely result? If so, maybe this is what needs to happen.

[spwdo]

McBruce, on Apr 16 2004, 04:23 AM, said:

Is it true (or just something I've assumed from reading this thread) that when time runs out on a table in clocked, there is no bidding or cardplay saved, and therefore no way to view the board and make an adjustment to the obvious or most likely result? If so, maybe this is what needs to happen.

hi


off course not, u see every card played till the last,bidding& all. So very easy to adjust, no probs.We in our tourneys even adjust(last tables in play) to obviuos when they still playing , several sections mostley so 3,4,5 tds each take a diffrent table and make them move, we are clocked to 8 minutes max but very often several rounds are finisched before time runs out.Its some extra work but we like to host as best/fairest/ and most fast as we can.

The whole reason for us doing clocked is we can time our day and we have lots of regulars that play, the climb, culbaran,bridge to far, abalucys and so on all in one day and its a tight schedule for us and for players but its only way for us/them to manage


spwdo

[spwdo]

hi,

well, at last i have found something to critisise as well ans since this topic was about timemonsters and slowplayers and it sounded for a second that majority of players was fair&fast.

i hosted a speedball today , rules were
1.DONT SIGN UP IF U CANT BID/PLAY/FINISCH A BAORD IN SIX MINUTES
2.DONT CALL DIRECTOR TO THE TABLE FOR ADJUST,USE PRIVATE MESSAGE
3.NO CALLS ABOUT ALERTS&ANY TIMECONSUMING ISSUE(PLAY FAIR&ALERT)
4.USE THE DIRECTORS BOX TO EXPLAIN YOUR PROBLEM
5.NO MUTIPLE CALLS
seems easy huh, 4 tds, i was playing so three others free to visit tables, well one td run away(asked me first to pull the plug since it was my thing) and excused herself to the tournament, her fellowcountryman/woman started to get mad at her/us/me for not beeing able to coope with all adjusts in time.tds who stayed adjusted baord after baord and were depressed after.

i adjusted 23 baords after the tourney, not most BUT ALL BAORDS WERE DOWN(contract bid and unmakeble)
Some had the nerve to call me for one particulary adjust wher they made good score while three other A- didnt seem to bother(yes , u guessed it right, those where the down baords for them) i adjusted all that i had name of, but even with three tds en my 15 minutes after wasnt enough to get most of the unfinisched baords i think.i played with gweny and we had one A-(opps were down) rest of the baords we had some time left so it can be done.


conclusion: what u need is a fair group to play those types of tourneys, becaused with the possiblity that the clock runs out very fast the slightest hesitasion is enough and WILL be taken by a LOT of players when they are down causing many many bad vibes.

Will i do this again? sure with a selected field its a fun time spender, no waits, just bid and play and all end at the same time or with 1 td/8à10 tables when its open for the public

I m not going to apoligies to public for some calling this a "bad" tourney, to many pairs signed up not following claerly stated rules in lobby/tourney/tourneyinfo

I apoligies to tds helping with this and not aware of the hectic speedball can cause with the wrong field


spwdo

[Dwingo]

I once entered as sub, a SuperSpeedball tourney (5 minute per deal) with 1 deal per round and it was a total disaster. Out of the 6 rounds that I played, 5 of them had to be adjusted.

I wonder if we should be pushing the boundaries of how fast we can play online bridge. 7 minute per deal is probably the optimal time. If we really want to finish tourneys fast, then No. of deals per round should be increased so that there is a possibility of catchup within the same round, if one deal is delayed. There will be less need for adjustments.

like 6.5 min X 2 deals per round, 6 min X 3 deals per round, 5.5 min X 4 deals per round

[McBruce]

Sounds to me like the great majority of these boards lost to the clock are hands that have just a few cards left. What about this solution: have the computer play the deal out 1000 times choosing cards completely at random (whenever a player has a choice of what to lead or play) from the point that the clock runs out. This will take about 0.1 seconds based on the way computers run these days. If this process results in the same trick total 75% of the time, that is the result automatically adjusted to. I would guess that in virtually all cases where there are less than five tricks to play, the 75% rule will generate the most likely normal result, and if the result is still in doubt, no trick total will get 75% of the results (and you score as A-- as usual). This should prevent the TDs need to view and adjust dozens of boards in a short time.

[Gerardo]

Too much stress on server, as that kind of calculations should not be done on the clients (they shouldn't be trusted).
Maybe one table doesn't matter, but in a fairly sized tourney, you could have a problem.

[Frosty]

Again I like to play in the 5-6 minute per hand games, but the TD must try to come down somewhere in the "Possible" middle. At 7 minutes, I:

-> can show no mercy to pairs who delay to avoid being set,
-> have a manageable amount of adjustments and
-> have attracted a consistent field of players who know the time standards.

8 minute boards generate even less need for adjustment, but, unless you are running at 1 Board per round, this adds a minimum of 2 minutes to every round - and this can be a VERY long extra 2 minutes to those who can already easily finish in 5-6 minutes per board. 7 minutes is a doable compromise if you are looking for a fast game that won't turn into a disaster :-).

By the way - I'm convinced that almost NO ONE reads the tourney descriptions, rules or TD's instructions LOL!

Frosty

[JoAnneM]

I believe this particular forum is about offline or ftf bridge. I attended a director refresher course at a recent NABC and we had a discussion about slow play. It is the ACBL position (at least from the director leading this discussion) that it is the slow players who are to be accomodated, not the fast players. Of course extremes are not to be tolerated. But players who rush the game and start hovering with six minutes left in the round are just as annoying to directors as ones who are still finishing a hand as the round is called. The ideal players play in tempo and listen for the round to be called and then make their move. Oh, for a perfect world.

[bearmum]

JoAnneM, on Apr 22 2004, 05:00 PM, said:

I believe this particular forum is about offline or ftf bridge.  I attended a director refresher course at a recent NABC and we had a discussion about slow play.  It is the ACBL position (at least from the director leading this discussion) that it is the slow players who are to be accomodated, not the fast players.  Of course extremes are not to be tolerated.  But players who rush the game and start hovering with six minutes left in the round are just as annoying to directors as ones who are still finishing a hand as the round is called.  The ideal players play in tempo and listen for the round to be called and then make their move.  Oh, for a perfect world. 

WHY should SLOW players (in F2F) be accommodated ?? I REALLY get annoyed with players who CONSTANTLY finish at LEAST 2 mins behind what the director allows for play ( normally 13 mins for TWO boards!!!) ALL that means is that the opps they have JUST played with -- AND their next opps -- AND their previous opps next opps ( u KNOW what I mean I hope) are under pressure to finish boards in at LEAST 2 mins LESS than anybody else


BTW I TOTALLY agree that NOBODY in f2f shuld be ALLOWED to try to move before director has CALLED the move


BUT with CONSISTENT slow play in f2f OR online competitions - MAYBE penalties SHOULD be applied

[Gweny]

I ADORE 5 min boards. It is fun fast furious bridge - no it is maybe not "real" bridge or "expert" bridge... it is fun fast furious bridge. It is maybe "cowboy" bridge where you ride hard and worry after if you miss xyz.

I agree frosty. People do NOT read. it is almost like we need conditions of contest acceptance prior to sign up tee hee.

I also agree with bearmum... why must we rate our tournaments at speed of slowest pairs?

My solution is keep close eye on how many tables is finish. when I get to 5% or less remaining then we move to next round/do not add time. if it is troublesome round with 2 slam bidding boards and 20 tables is not finish yet then we add time. This is not yielding to slowest pair this is good management.

To address this slowest pairs problem we recently change Fun Fishys to 3 board rounds. I am happy to report this is big sucess from players and td perspective. Players is happy for now they play 6 boards prior to first cut, and impact of 1 bad board is reduce.
Tds is happy for we see FAR less adjustments since we now only see 4 rounds :-) Players is better at finishing since they do not need to do hello we play blah blah blah as much times.

Downside is people play less pairs. But upside is more people play more boards :-)
Our sub rates is also down.

I recommend you try it! you might like it and see some of you slow player issues go away.

[Trpltrbl]

It's hard, nearly impossible, to run SpeedBall tourneys with random players on BBO. At least for now, a lot of people entering don't even know what it is. Then you got players from parts of the world with older pc's and really bad connections, slowing stuff down. And then you have the players who slowplay bad contracts, and it will take time to filter them out.
Adjusting nearly every brd every round should tell you that.
Speedball is different bridge, I know people, on BBO and real life, who will take very much time thinking about every hand, and are always slow.
Come play rubberbridge with me someday, we play about 100 brds in 2 hours
Time is money

Mike

[Shrike]

JoAnneM, on Apr 21 2004, 10:00 PM, said:

I believe this particular forum is about offline or ftf bridge.  I attended a director refresher course at a recent NABC and we had a discussion about slow play.  It is the ACBL position (at least from the director leading this discussion) that it is the slow players who are to be accomodated, not the fast players.  Of course extremes are not to be tolerated.  But players who rush the game and start hovering with six minutes left in the round are just as annoying to directors as ones who are still finishing a hand as the round is called.  The ideal players play in tempo and listen for the round to be called and then make their move.  Oh, for a perfect world. 

I think you'd have a hard time showing that it is the ACBL's position that slow players should be accomodated. The circumstance you describe -- players pushing ahead of the scheduled changes -- has nothing to do with playing slowly, it is about playing quickly (and some other things). Actual slow play is the scourge of a TD's existence, in the ACBL as (I suspect) everywhere else. I cannot remember a tournament (I directed ACBL f2f tourneys for a few years) when slow play was not the subject of discussion among the directors; I cannot remember fast play being cited as a problem even once.

There is no question that controlling slow play is difficult, even when the players are right in front of you. Even in the fast pairs at NABC's, a 5-minute-per-board event, slow players enter and do what you'd expect -- they play slowly. (I once played in the fast pairs with a partner who needed a smoking break pretty much every round; we just about managed it, but sometimes we came up against pairs whom even we couldn't catch up.)

Until the sanctioning bodies are willing to slap penalties on slow players early and often -- and we know that will not happen -- players will continue to behave as if it is their right to spend just as much time as is allotted to everyone else, plus two minutes. As directors, we recognize this, but that doesn't mean we're accomodating it.

[keylime]

I remember playing a fast pairs event where it was 5 mins a board, and got done at the SAME time as the REGULAR event. Needless to say, I played one session and didn't complete the next - furthermore they couldn't control the conventions allowed (had a multi bidder, a Wilkosz bidder, and a LOS that wasn't pre-alerted to boot). Lovely the ACBL at times....