[mink]

Scoring: IMP

---

Bidding:

W N E S
# # 1♦ 2♣
2♠ - - 3♣
3♦ - 3♠ 4♣
4♠ - - x
xx - - -

While directing I found the movie of this hand with only 1 trick played (♣3KA8). I tried to find out what happened and asked West and North. There was no answer by West. This was my chat with North:

->North: what happened in your board 6 - who was slow?
North: opps 4!S X -3 they dont play
->North: ok I shall check
North: sorry -2
North: not problem with me i play with beginner but it is not honest
North: not double but redouble
->North: movie shows that it was your partner's turn to play next card when timeout
North: you have to make black list i think
->North: ?
->North: I did not say that I do not belive you - maybe there is an explaination

then, after tourney was finished:

->North: North, I am still waiting for your explanation about what happened in board 6 pls

no answer ever - maybe he blacklisted me and therefore could not hear me.

I then tried to ask East, but he obviously had gone away from his computer after the tourney, so he could answer my request only long time after the end of the tourney - here is the chat:

->East: hi, are you there?
->East: hello East, can you hear me????????????????????????????????????
->East: hello East, can you hear me????????????????????????????????
->East: hello East, can you hear me???????????????????????????????????
East (Lobby): now i can hear u
->East: I like to ask you a question about board 6 in yulek's tourney, do you have time?
East (Lobby): sure
->East: I just would like to know why there was only 1 trick played
East (Lobby): sry i will have 2 see the board again to recall
->East: it was 4!Sxx by your partner
->East: opps were celmare and redale
East (Lobby): yes only 1 trick was played
->East: I did ask your partner during the tourney but he did not answer
->East: had no time to ask you during the tourney
East (Lobby): only 1 trick was played
->East: yes, but why?
->East: who caused the delay?
East (Lobby): is it important NOW
->East: I am just curious because I did not get an answer by your partner and an unsatisfactory answer by your opps
->East: of course I cannot adjust now
->East: as the tourney already disappeared
->East: but maybe I shall write in the Forum about it
East (Lobby): do u log everything
->East: I can only log what I see, and I was not at the table when the board was played
->East: I log all chat of course
->East: I stumbled over that board when playing was already over
East (Lobby): ok
->East: if you do not want to talk about it, it is ok with me
East (Lobby): pl ask
->East: my question still is: who caused the delay so that only 1 trick could be played?
East (Lobby): i am free
East (Lobby): i had bad connection so i cannot be very sure.but i think it was opps
->East: was it during bidding or after the bidding?
East (Lobby): both
->East: ok, thank you
East (Lobby): wlcm

As I understand it, it sounds like East wanted to protect his partner and did not like to tell the full truth. Why else did he ask if I "log everything"?

North was obviously convinced that E/W did not play, but refused to explain why it was South's turn to play when the round ended. But it is entirely possible that the delay occurred when the dummy came down, and East continued to play just before the end of the round with one minute on the clock.

Even if I cannot really find out what happened, it is a shame that EW got away with a ave- here - if it was scored -1 or -2 they would have lost many more IMPs than the 3 IMPs generated by the ave-, and N/S would have got a much better score.

Maybe I should have adjusted to -1 at once and then investigate about who was responsible for the delay, and maybe adjust again later to -2 if it turned out that it was indeed East who caused the delay.

Oppinions?

Karl

[McBruce]

If nobody called the Director, why adjust? It was up to all four players to call when time looked like it would run out. Nobody did. 40% for all is not unreasonable.

[keylime]

Ditto.

[mink]

In my oppinion, this is a good example to support my policy of adjusting nearly every unfinished board without being asked. Why do I do that?

First of all, I can just announce this policy and thereby avoid all calls that request an adjustment and the answers to these calls. This really saves time, as only few players do not call. You also cannot miss calls. Even in cases where the board was not played at all, there is usually one side responsible for this, and so I find out and adjust to ave+ for the non-responsible side.

If - like in this case - a pair that does not care to call meets a pair that (probably)does not play when seeing the result will be bad, I do not like at all to let that pair get away with it.

Karl

[xx1943]

mink, on Jun 16 2004, 03:12 AM, said:

In my oppinion, this is a good example to support my policy of adjusting nearly every unfinished board without being asked. Why do I do that?

First of all, I can just announce this policy and thereby avoid all calls that request an adjustment and the answers to these calls. This really saves time, as only few players do not call. You also cannot miss calls. Even in cases where the board was not played at all, there is usually one side responsible for this, and so I find out and adjust to ave+ for the non-responsible side.

Hi Karl,

I like your policy and would be happy if I could follow this thread.

But frequently it is not possible to determine, who is responsible for the delay.
Frequently you have no time to do so before the tourney is finished.

What we need to follow up this strategy are two changes in the software:
1) It must be possible for TD to see the chat-history of the table.
2) There must be a notification of the consumed time of every player (like a chess-clock).

Very helpfull could be
1) A notification which boards are not finished. Best in a to-do-list.
2) Easier handling of adjustment (e.g. a little button an the movie named ADJUST, with the possibility to adj by only typing the new result and not names etc.) It costs now a lot of time to write all on a sheat of paper or change perpetually between 2 windows.

I would like to co-direct one of your tourneys to see how your policy performs.
My BBO-name is also xx1943. I'm in BBO mostly 6:00 - 9:00 am CET that is 0:00 - 3:00 EDT (NY). I'm looking forward to here from you.

Al

[mink]

hi Al,

unfortunately, at the time you are in BBO I am normally still sleeping - seldom get up before 9am CET. But I can describe how I do it:

When the clock shows 2 or 1 minutes left, I display tourney status in order to learn what tables are still playing. If I think too many tables are playing I add 2 minutes in order to avoid too many adjustments.

After the round is completed, I visit all tables that maybe did not finish, consult the movie and adjust.

Of course, if there are too many calls that have to be served prior to the adjustments, maybe I cannot do all adjustments during the next round, so they are sometimes delayed, and sometimes I can do them only after the tourney has ended, consulting myhands then.

In survivor tourneys adjusting is sometimes not possible as tables are removed by the cut. That is one reason why I try to avoid survivor tourneys and sometimes argue with directors who run them with high cut values (not such a problem if the value is low and only few tables disappear).

If I host I have 1 board per round and even then do the adjusting. But I admit my regular tourney is rather small, though I do the same when I run or co-direct a larger tourney.

As for the problem to determine who is responsible for the delay, this is not an issue in most cases as there are no alternative scores I have to chose from, but instead it is obvious how the last tricks will devellop. So it is very seldom I really have to ask player, and sometimes it is not necessary as I had been at the table before because there was a problem and I already know what was going on.

There is another thought that did strike my mind which is related to unfinished board - have a look at Law 8B:

"In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players."

If the intention of the creators of the laws was that the sponsoring organization is allowed to abandon playing of unfinished boards when the director gives the signal, I am sure they would have explicitly stated this possibility. So I conclude that the current procedure in clocked, swiss and survivor tourneys does not comply with law 8B. In order to minimize the effect of this I think directors should always adjust all unfinished boards if an adjustment is possible. At least in cases where the line of play is clear the players get the same result as if the software would follow law 8B (which I have suggested here several times).

Karl

[JRG]

mink, on Jun 16 2004, 05:00 AM, said:

[...snip]
There is another thought that did strike my mind which is related to unfinished board - have a look at Law 8B:

"In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players."

If the intention of the creators of the laws was that the sponsoring organization is allowed to abandon playing of unfinished boards when the director gives the signal, I am sure they would have explicitly stated this possibility. So I conclude that the current procedure in clocked, swiss and survivor tourneys does not comply with law 8B. In order to minimize the effect of this I think directors should always adjust all unfinished boards if an adjustment is possible. At least in cases where the line of play is clear the players get the same result as if the software would follow law 8B (which I have suggested here several times).

Karl

Karl,

you make a very good point. This is the first time I've seen anyone mention Law 8B (though I vaguely remember reading it and thinking about the problem you raised).

I still think it would be a good idea to have an article on BBO (in the library with a summary in the Online Help) that states explicitly the changes to the Laws as they are applied on BBO. Claiming, non-disclosure, and unauthorized information seem to be the other big issues. (Oh, I should probably mention before others do, restrictions in tournament events which are contrary to the Laws, such as restrictions against psychic bids.)

So, we now have ACBL sanctioned events. Does the ACBL condone changes to the Laws to facilitate online bridge?

[McBruce]

Law 8B seems at odds with what I think online players want: they want some idea of when the event will end.

If you add 2 minutes to rounds whenever most are not finished, this is not really a clocked tournament--you are allowing the slow players to dictate when the tournament ends, while those who watch the clock and time their play accordingly wait...and wait...and wait...and don't come back.

I think unclocked is closer to the offline norm, but of course the problems created by unclocked are replays and the way slow players often finish an hour or so later than the fastest. (My solution is to whip the slowest into shape by threatening them with penalties in my ratings system if they don't finish in a reasonable time. It works!)

What we need is for the clocked option to emulate real TDs and conform to Law 8B. Many have suggested that times taken to make each bid and play need to be recorded, but this is not equivalent to offline play, where nothing of the sort is done, even at the highest levels.

But we can find some middle ground which would work. The software needs to be revised so that:

1) It lets players finished early, who are scheduled to play one another, start early if they wish, but no Director calls are allowed until the next round actually begins. If all tables start a round early, the clock times are adjusted to reflect the time of the last table that started.

2) It automatically gives A- to both sides if less than 4 minutes remain when a board is begun, and moves the players to the next table. It creates a list of unstarted boards, allowing the Director to adjust the default of A-- to "not played" or even assign a late play (limit one per entrant) when the tournament ends.

3) It allows tables two extra minutes to complete the play OR the bidding of a board, but not both. If the auction ends in overtime, the play may not be begun unless the TD allows it as a late play when the tournament ends.

4) It establishes a time-vulnerable rule as follows:

During the extra two minutes, and during any round following one where a contestant (as defined in the Laws -- can be an individual, pair or team, depending on the type of event) arrives at the table after the round began, all members of the late-arriving contestant are 'time-vulnerable.' If a time-vulnerable player takes more than 15 seconds for any bid or play (30 seconds for a trick one play), the contestant automatically gets A- if the round is not completed. If a time-vulnerable player takes more than 30 seconds for any bid or play (1 minute for a trick one play) the Director is automatically called to adjust the score (usually to A- for the offending side unless it is possible they are trying to avoid a worse fate). Timing for this rule is done by the client application from the point that the client application displays that it is the time-vulnerable player's turn to play. The time taken to transmit bids or plays over the internet is not included. The information that a player is time-vulnerable is displayed only on the player's screen.

I think this time-vulnerable rule would conform to the Laws, and allow a lot of flexibility for TD (including the possiblility of having late plays which all could watch, always an exciting concept). It would penalize those inconsiderates who stop everything when something happens that they don't agree with. A TD could advertise 8 minutes per board and be fairly confident that at least a few rounds would end in 7 or less.

[mink]

All quotes of McBruce:

Quote

Law 8B seems at odds with what I think online players want: they want some idea of when the event will end.

This is also true for face-to-face players, and it works there. Could be implemented similar in software.

Quote

If you add 2 minutes to rounds whenever most are not finished, this is not really a clocked tournament--you are allowing the slow players to dictate when the tournament ends, while those who watch the clock and time their play accordingly wait...and wait...and wait...and don't come back.

Extending the time for a board should be an exception and only be done if a large number of tables will probably not catch the deadline. Unlike face-to-face tourneys, the same board is played at all tables online, and it may be a difficult one.

Quote

Many have suggested that times taken to make each bid and play need to be recorded, but this is not equivalent to offline play, where nothing of the sort is done, even at the highest levels.

This would only be an aid to directors that a computer system is able to provide. When directing face-to-face, I watch and find out those who tend to be slow, and I can easily ask, so I find out what to adjust if a whole board is missed.

Quote

1) It lets players finished early, who are scheduled to play one another, start early if they wish, but no Director calls are allowed until the next round actually begins. If all tables start a round early, the clock times are adjusted to reflect the time of the last table that started.

If all tables finish early, a new round starts right away even with the existing software. There is nothing else needed. Disallowing director calls at any time is ridiculous. Starting early gives an unfair advantage to pairs that happen to be matched against another early-finished pair.

Quote

2) It automatically gives A- to both sides if less than 4 minutes remain when a board is begun, and moves the players to the next table. It creates a list of unstarted boards, allowing the Director to adjust the default of A-- to "not played" or even assign a late play (limit one per entrant) when the tournament ends.

The 4-minute rule is already established, except for that ave= is assigned automatically. The only change needed here is that software assigns ave? taking into account which pair (maybe both) caused the delay. Implementing "late play" would be rather costly and not worth the effort.

Quote

3) ... 4) ...

Sounds to me like you are proposing to have new laws that are hard to implement. The 'time-vulnerable' idea is simply crazy in my oppinion, sorry.

Karl

[McBruce]

The reason I advocated no Director calls for early starting rounds until the round actually begins is that without such a rule, a TD will be beseiged with calls from tables where one player is non-responsive simply because he knows that he has two minutes to go and get a Coke. The players should be forced to wait until the round begins before complaining to the Director for a sub.