[naresh301]

If dummy cannot ask the declarer to claim, how can it make sense for a computer to do so?! I'm not a fan of technology interfering with sports/games, but it seems like Free's suggestion can still work: the computer simply adds time to the declarer's account when there is a good claim. There is no need for declarer to be told anything, at least until the hand is played out.

[Free]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 7 2008, 02:58 PM, said:

Wonderful!


I'm defender, and I am wondering why declarer doesn't claim. Slowly it dawns on me that declarer doesn't actually realise that 6 of diamonds in dummy is a master. In fact, declarer's thinking for so long he's about to go one off by taking a losing finesse instead. But then the computer player says "claim" and he wakes up to the fact that he has the rest in top tricks. That's my +13 imps out of the window.

Perhaps it's just better to let our computer player decide in the background if a claim is justified... This is what brainstorming is for

[jdonn]

I just don't see the whole thing as a very big problem at all. I must be weird that way.

[Echognome]

Actually, it's not very clear to me what should be the conditions of contest and how they might vary depending on the particular competition. It seems that the egregious violations should be dealt with more on a case-by-case basis. I don't believe that timers should necessarily be used for the many reasons pointed out where certain situations just require more time and the violations come on an aggregate basis. I imagine that when Andrew Robson or Michael Rosenberg or Barnet Shenkin (or select your favorite player with a reputation for being slow at times) spends an inordinate amount of time thinking through a bridge problem, it is not because they are trying on gamesmanship. It is because they feel that the problem is complicated and that thinking is part of the game. So is it? Are they right that they should be given ample time to think a problem through? Or is it a timed sport where they should have a limited amount of time to think? (Like we impose on the bridge playing computers.) I think that answer should be dealt with first before deciding how to punish offenders. Once we decide what the limits are (are they per hand? per round? per session? do they depend on the event? etc.) then we can deal with how to enforce those rules. For now, it seems that most players know the egregious offenders and those can be dealt with individually.

Finally, if this is deemed to be an issue amongst the competitors, why not ask the competitors what they want done? I don't think our solutions here are going to be as relevant as the solutions proposed by the players of this national and international events.

[NickRW]

Echognome, on Oct 7 2008, 09:12 PM, said:

Are they right that they should be given ample time to think a problem through? Or is it a timed sport where they should have a limited amount of time to think?

In answer to that particular question, I would say obviously it is, at least to some extent, a timed sport. Organisers cannot allow indefinite amounts of time - it just isn't possible. Also, a great many of us, given indefinite time could play a lot better than we do if we were used to the fact that we could regularly tank at trick one for 5 or 10 minutes - but part of the skill is that you don't get allowed that amound of time and have to "think on your feet" (depend on experience).

It also seems to me (I don't know what an accurate figure is) that top events seem to be allowing something of the order of 8.5 or 9 minutes per board. At our local club we get allowed about 7 - and we have to move every three boards - and we have to keep this up for 27 boards instead of 16 - and, if we want tea or coffee, we have to fit that in as well as the TD makes no actual allowance for a break. So these top players are already being allowed quite a bit of time compared to us mere mortals. I am not saying that is wrong at all - I think our club could go for 24 boards and have a slightly more leisurely evening - and I think at top levels the game is not a race - but even so I think adequate time is being allowed already.

Nick

[awm]

There is another side of things, in that some people:

(1) Have difficulty focusing on a single hand for 20 minutes. Is it really fair to these folks if one of their opponents is allowed to think for 20 minutes on a hand routinely?

(2) Have trouble staying alert at 3 AM. Is it fair to these folks if the session doesn't end until 4 AM (even though it's supposed to end by midnight) because their opponents want to play slow?

(3) Have trouble concentrating when the director is looming over the table issuing time warnings. Is it fair for them to have to deal with this because their opponents played slowly on the preceding hands?

And all of this ignores the more obvious attempts at gamesmanship. I do think there is a serious problem here. But it seems that most people know who the frequent offenders are. A simple solution seem to be to keep track of who frequently finishes late (so there will be a formal record, likely matching the informal feel that most top players have already). Then have the directors watch these tables when they are "not doing anything" -- if it seems like the "frequent offenders" are once again taking more than their share of time, penalize them.

[cherdano]

awm, on Oct 7 2008, 04:53 PM, said:

There is another side of things, in that some people:

(1) Have difficulty focusing on a single hand for 20 minutes. Is it really fair to these folks if one of their opponents is allowed to think for 20 minutes on a hand routinely?

Yes that's entirely their problem. If a pair plays very quickly on 14 out of 16 hands, but takes 15-20 min on the two difficult hands of the set, then I think it's their opponents' problem if they can't handle that.
No chess player would even get the idea to complain when his opponents uses 90% of his time during the opening.

[jdonn]

awm, on Oct 7 2008, 05:53 PM, said:

(2) Have trouble staying alert at 3 AM. Is it fair to these folks if the session doesn't end until 4 AM (even though it's supposed to end by midnight) because their opponents want to play slow?

(1) Ditto cherdano.

(2) Remember when I played with you at the NABC where they had sessions start at 9 am.? Remember how bad I consistently played in the morning, and how much better we consistently played in the afternoon? (I think our sessions were something like 51 and 63 the first day, 49 and 51 the second, 45 and 56 the third) Life is unfair that way sometimes.

(3) If the director is looming THAT closely, he should back off.

[awm]

Ah but this is more equivalent to....

Say we're playing in the Spingold, and it's supposed to start at 1 pm. Likely even Josh can manage to be awake and play good bridge at 1 pm!

But the day of the match, we get a phone call at 7 am. The director is on the phone, and says that our opponents have decided they would like to start at 8 am. So now we have to drag ourselves out of bed and play at 8 am or the match will be ruled a forfeit by our team. How fair is this? How come our opponents get to decide when we have to play? How come we don't stick to the posted schedule?

Yet this is exactly what happens when opponents decide to play slow. The session is supposed to end around midnight, but no one enforces the time regulations, so now we have to play until 2 AM, 3 AM, 4 AM. We did not get to decide this; we are playing every board within the regulation time. Our opponents decided this for us. How fair is this?

[jdonn]

awm, on Oct 7 2008, 06:36 PM, said:

Say we're playing in the Spingold, and it's supposed to start at 1 pm. Likely even Josh can manage to be awake and play good bridge at 1 pm!

Your argument starts with a faulty premise!

[awm]

My experience has been that occasionally opponents take a really long time to play a hand.

Say we are in the LM pairs, we have to play two boards in about 16 minutes. Suppose my opponent declares the first board and takes 13 minutes to play it. Maybe it was a tough hand, maybe he's a slow player, who knows?

Likely he should not get an automatic penalty for this (but perhaps if he does this a lot he should be penalized). But what actually happens in a real event?

The director will come to the table when our next-round opponents notice that we are still playing the second board. He will tell all of us that we must hurry up. He will threaten us with slow play penalties. So here I am, trying to declare the second board of the round (unfortunately for me I am declarer this time) and I have the director interrupting and threatening me with penalties. Good luck me, now I gotta declare the board in 3 minutes (including the bidding) just to get back on time. And I've got the director bothering me in the middle too.

-------

To give yet another example, say I am leading a head-to-head match. My team has six people, opponents have four. It's probably to my advantage to take forever to play each board. This will tire out my opponents. It might tire me out too, but I'm sitting out the next session. Perhaps the director will come and confiscate boards, but that's fine, the fewer boards we play the better for me (I am leading remember). Maybe the director will let us play, and my opponents will be up until 4 am playing the second half when I am long-since gone to bed and my teammates (who spent the first half napping) are tearing my exhausted opposition apart. Either way, I win.

[blackshoe]

At some arbitrary time, say with 5 minutes left in the round, the TD announces to the room "do not start any new boards". The board becomes a late play. I've seen two late plays for a single pair in a session, but it's rare. If the TD uses and enforces this, and calls the rounds on time, there should be time for a single extra board at the end of the session, even if there is more than one table where a board is played late.

TDs who interrupt players' thought processes with announcements, harrassment, or what have you should be shot.

[mycroft]

1)Cherdano, he said "routinely". That's not "the two hard hands of the set". That's the day I showed up early to the Reno NABC, and decided to watch the round of 16 in the Spingold. The game started at 2000, I sat down at the table at 2010, they finished board 8 at 2130. Sure, it was with screens, but screens don't add *that much* time.

It was one player taking all the time, as well. He routinely - that word again, I'm talking twice a hand - went into the tank for over a minute on a play. Now, he *always* came up with the Right Play out of that tank, and he really, really is a world-class player that used all of that time productively, but should the opponents have to, in addition to attempting to beat a world-class team, have to have the stamina to play 700 minutes of bridge in the one match? And then, should they manage to beat the slow team, have to meet a team that only took the regulation 520 minutes to play their 64 boards?

I ran into Terje Åa (one of the opponents) the next day, and congratulated him on pulling off the win, and asked him two questions:
1) When did the game finish? 0200. And remember, that was probably after a first session of 1300-1800 or later, then dinner, then start up again at 2000.
2) Is it always like this? "Usually", he said, "at least after the first two rounds."

If I ever had wanted to be a bridge pro, that stopped it dead in its tracks.

I note from the latest BoD meetings that someone recommended reducing the Spingold and Vanderbilt matches to 56 boards. We're already moving to 24 instead of 26/27 in the lower games at NABCs "to keep up to time". I am quite firmly convinced that given the choice between speeding up play or playing less, there's a right decision and a wrong decision, and we're making the wrong (but easy) one.

[SoTired]

I think ALL matches should be 56 boards. None should be longer. I think 128 board matches are ridiculous. If the Super Bowl can be played in one day, then the bridge world championship can be played in one day also.

[skjaeran]

mycroft, on Oct 8 2008, 06:21 PM, said:

1)Cherdano, he said "routinely". That's not "the two hard hands of the set". That's the day I showed up early to the Reno NABC, and decided to watch the round of 16 in the Spingold. The game started at 2000, I sat down at the table at 2010, they finished board 8 at 2130. Sure, it was with screens, but screens don't add *that much* time.

It was one player taking all the time, as well. He routinely - that word again, I'm talking twice a hand - went into the tank for over a minute on a play. Now, he *always* came up with the Right Play out of that tank, and he really, really is a world-class player that used all of that time productively, but should the opponents have to, in addition to attempting to beat a world-class team, have to have the stamina to play 700 minutes of bridge in the one match? And then, should they manage to beat the slow team, have to meet a team that only took the regulation 520 minutes to play their 64 boards?

I ran into Terje Åa (one of the opponents) the next day, and congratulated him on pulling off the win, and asked him two questions:
1) When did the game finish? 0200. And remember, that was probably after a first session of 1300-1800 or later, then dinner, then start up again at 2000.
2) Is it always like this? "Usually", he said, "at least after the first two rounds."

If I ever had wanted to be a bridge pro, that stopped it dead in its tracks.

I note from the latest BoD meetings that someone recommended reducing the Spingold and Vanderbilt matches to 56 boards. We're already moving to 24 instead of 26/27 in the lower games at NABCs "to keep up to time". I am quite firmly convinced that given the choice between speeding up play or playing less, there's a right decision and a wrong decision, and we're making the wrong (but easy) one.

Are you telling us that Terje Aa wasn't the slowest player at the table? That's got to be close to a record, he's one of the consistently slowest players I know.... Your description of his opponent fits very well with how most would describe Terje's tempo at the table.

[NickRW]

awm, on Oct 7 2008, 11:49 PM, said:

Say we are in the LM pairs, we have to play two boards in about 16 minutes. Suppose my opponent declares the first board and takes 13 minutes to play it. Maybe it was a tough hand, maybe he's a slow player, who knows?

Likely he should not get an automatic penalty for this (but perhaps if he does this a lot he should be penalized). But what actually happens in a real event?

The director will come to the table when our next-round opponents notice that we are still playing the second board. He will tell all of us that we must hurry up. He will threaten us with slow play penalties. So here I am, trying to declare the second board of the round (unfortunately for me I am declarer this time) and I have the director interrupting and threatening me with penalties. Good luck me, now I gotta declare the board in 3 minutes (including the bidding) just to get back on time. And I've got the director bothering me in the middle too.

I hate it when that sort of thing happens.

My commonest experience is a pairs - we're sitting NS - the EW pair is slow arriving at the table by about a minute or so. They declare the next two boards - not necessarily taking forever, but quite methodically - and you end up another couple of minutes behind. Then the next board comes, the opening lead has been made and the director calls a move - and then makes a bee line for your table and says please hurry up. "Bbbbut I was ready to start this round on time - we didn't through no fault of mine - and we weren't slow defending the last two boards and now you're blaming me!!!"

What is worse - even if it is the other side declaring - the TD still looks at me - "I didn't do it guv". Maybe I have a guilty look - or maybe they think I can magically hurry everyone up by quickly banging cards on the table or something. Humbug.

Frankly I wish they'd just go for 24 boards in about 3hrs and if runs 5 or 10 mins late then no sweat - instead of trying to cram 27 in 3hrs 15mins (or less if they possibly can) - it would make quite a bit of difference.

Nick

[blackshoe]

Heh. There has been a move afoot locally to play 27 boards in a session — but nobody has suggested extended the total time past the "traditional" three hours. As a result, the "round timer" is set to 6.5 minutes per board, with about 20-30 seconds "move time" between rounds. Three minutes before the round ends, the timer warns us not to start a new board. Ten seconds after that, the TD is running around the room telling us all we're late and we should be moving.

To complicate matters, players who finish early almost immediately start bugging the next higher table for boards - even if the round isn't half over yet - with the result of usually slowing that table down. Then too, sometimes they turn the volume down on the timer, making it hard to hear. So if the next higher table is still playing, but hasn't heard the round called, we get upset people at both tables.

[shintaro]

In the real Bridge World we employ Tournament Directors to run out Competitions; thus it is only logical that the TD is the one who decides what is a reasonable amount of time to take over a Board (Or are they taking too much time);

They are by nature TIMED events like the fact or not; We allow 1 hour for 8 Boards that is generally suffice;

We also give a 5 minute warning to the end of the round and even tell them NOT to start any more Boards.

Why should a Player GOOD BAD or Indifferent be allowed to hold a whole competition to ransom?

[JoAnneM]

I am more than honored to be mistaken for Jan

[blackshoe]

Heh. Apologies to Jan and Joanne for mixing them up. That's what I get for playing too quickly.