[MrAce]

GIB beeping to save time is not as good idea as it sounds. Consider the information gained when it doesnt beep.

[olien]

not that I agree with the idea of GIB beeping, but I think the idea was that it would ONLY beep if all lines were successful...but yes, I agree that a failure to beep means that there is a way to fail which will cause players to take much more time to figure out which line fails...so, I am still opposed to the GIBeep feature

[zasanya]

The main issue is whether there should be time constraints in the game of bridge.Clocks were introduced in chess tournaments in 1883.The games scrabble and Go adopted the chess clocks .All mind games IMO should have time constraints. If the bridge players are serious about resolving the issue especially at the highest level the following scheme can be tried.
Bridge is played by 4 players so 2 digital chess clocks will be used .The screen mates will share a digital chess clock.At any point of time, clock of the player who is considering a move will be running. In the initial position each player could be given an average of 2 mts per deal. So a 16 deal segment will mean each player will get 32 minutes to start with.2 Volunteers will be needed to start and stop the clocks when the tray is pushed to the other side.If clarifications regarding bids are needed or if there is director call or a smoke break all clocks will be stopped.Every time a player makes a move he will get an additional increment of 5 seconds.
When a chess player oversteps the time limit he loses the game irrespective of the position on the board (except when non-offender has insufficient material to force checkmate)The scrabble player loses 10 points for every minute.No idea what the Go Players do as I do not know the game.Re bridge I suggest a penalty of 1 imp for every 10 seconds or part thereof over the time limit.

[Free]

olien, on 2011-May-19, 11:08, said:

My suggestion for the bidding system issue IF computers were to be used seems like it would probably work. Each pair would be responsible for submitting a card in FD format that would then be used during the play. Each bid would automatically be alerted and the opponents would not have to ask for an explanation as that is already provided. I understand that it takes significantly more time to fill out an FD card as opposed to a normal convention card or system summary or advanced summary form, but that time would be at least mostly be made up by the lack of pauses for questions. Sure, there may still be some questions regarding style, but the style is usually covered in a general style in the system summary form.

I won't consider the limitations of FD because that's irrelevant (like max size). If we actually were planning on playing with computers, then these issues would be fixed anyway.

However there's a huge problem with this approach. I think we can all agree that it's extremely time consuming to create 1 FD file. Against most opponents you'll need to create a new FD file because our defensive bidding will vary according to opps bidding, their openings for example. Then we have continuations: some play transfers, or transfers after transfers, other play natural, others play something else even,... Basically you'd have to sit together to discuss what opps bids mean in order to fill in all possible situations. And by doing so, it makes creating an FD file superfluous.

Simple example: the auction 1♦ - 1♥ - Dbl - 1♠ can have many meanings.
- opps may play strong ♦, natural ♦, nebulous 1♦,...
-- Suppose 1♦ was natural, then 1♥ can be 5+♠ or 5+♥ (usually no other meanings except perhaps 4+ cards).
--- If 5+♠, Dbl will usually be ♥. But it may also be a more specific meaning (and 1♠ showing ♥ for example)
---- 1♠ will probably be a signoff
--- If 5+♥, Dbl will usually be ♠. Some play 4♠ exactly, others play 4+♠, others deny a 4 card or longer ♠
---- 1♠ may be takeout, it may also be a transfer to NT or to 2♣,... Various meanings exist depending on what RDbl will show.
- After a strong 1♦ opening I suppose some will play 1♥ as something else than 5+♥. Some will play canapé, some will play 4+♠, some will play suction or psycho suction, some will play CRASH,...
-- Depending on the meaning, Dbl may differ.
--- Depending on the meaning of 1♥, 1♠ may have many different meanings.
...

Also, I know many top players don't have the time to prepare in dept against ALL exotic openings they may encounter. I believe Fred said this was one of the reasons he prefers system restrictions. By letting everyone create some sort of FD file they'll have even less time to prepare.

And what if the file contains an error (because of copy-pasting for example)? New regulations for misinformation?

You might as well ask every participant to just publish their system notes (if they have any).

[Zelandakh]

@zasanya, first of all the 'Fischer clock' idea has been avoided in chess except for specialist circles such as online play. It makes even less sense in bridge where the number of boards is known in advance - just give a fixed time for a session. Secondly, under your rules I am going to request an explanation of my opponents' bidding every turn. If I do not care about the answer then I will use the time gained to consider my next move. All of the games that you quote do not have this feature and that is part of what makes bridge difficult to accurately police time-wise.

[helene_t]

The idea of GIB claiming when all lines would lead to the same result is a good one but the finals of a top event is probably the place where it is least useful. For two reasons:

1) Top players don't waste time when they have only winners in their hand. Yes, the GIB feature could occasionally save time even in a top event, but the lower the level of the play the more effective it would be.
2) There are only two tables in play so there are only 6 other players to suffer from one pair playing slow. Hence the benefit/cost is lower than in a big pairs event.

Yes, the number of spectators who suffer is large but that should be given a very low priority. Revenues from spectators are largely from commercials and it is not clear if fast play is in the advertizers' interests.

Get the GIB feature implemented on BBO and see how players react to it. If it turns out to be a success and computer aided play is to be implemented for some live events anyway (for other reasons), then one might consider using the GIB feature in those events also. Don't hold your breath, though.

[zasanya]

Zelandakh, on 2011-May-20, 04:48, said:

@zasanya, first of all the 'Fischer clock' idea has been avoided in chess except for specialist circles such as online play. It makes even less sense in bridge where the number of boards is known in advance - just give a fixed time for a session. Secondly, under your rules I am going to request an explanation of my opponents' bidding every turn. If I do not care about the answer then I will use the time gained to consider my next move. All of the games that you quote do not have this feature and that is part of what makes bridge difficult to accurately police time-wise.

1)Sometimes it may so happen that the majority of the critical decisions may have to be taken by a particular pair say North /South axis.Then it will be unfair if some extra time is not given to them.That was the reason behind alotting extra time after each move.(The Fisher Clock Idea)
2)Zlendakh I do not really accept your second objection.I do not think you or any other decent player will try to "coffeehouse" in the manner suggested by you.And if she does I think TDS are smart enough to catch on. BTW in scrabble when a word s challenged the clocks are stopped.So a player who may need time to think may challenge a word he knows to be legal as he would generally get at least extra 5 minutes to consider his move while the referee checks.The penalty for an unsuccessful challenge is just 5 points.I have been the referee at some scrabble tournaments and i have never observed this.

[billw55]

zasanya, on 2011-May-20, 06:03, said:

BTW in scrabble when a word s challenged the clocks are stopped.So a player who may need time to think may challenge a word he knows to be legal as he would generally get at least extra 5 minutes to consider his move while the referee checks.The penalty for an unsuccessful challenge is just 5 points.I have been the referee at some scrabble tournaments and i have never observed this.

In American tournaments, the penalty for an unsuccessful challenge is loss of turn. Big difference!

[blackshoe]

zasanya, on 2011-May-20, 00:43, said:

No idea what the Go Players do as I do not know the game.Re bridge I suggest a penalty of 1 imp for every 10 seconds or part thereof over the time limit.

Quote

American Go Association regulations: E. Timekeeping.
1. The minimum time limits that the AGA accepts for games in AGA-rated tournaments is 30 minutes per player per round of basic time control plus no more than the equivalent of 20 moves in five minutes per overtime control (often called byo-yomi), and 45 minutes per player per round in games with no overtime control. The AGA does not absolutely require the use of clocks during tournament play, but very strongly encourages it.
2. The TD shall explain time allowances, overtime method (if any), and operation of the clocks (as needed) before the commencement of play in the first round. It is strongly suggested that the TD at least summarize this explanation before commencing each round.
3. The TD may start any round with at least ten minutes notice, but no earlier than any previously announced time.
4. Either player may set the initial time allowance on the clock. It is, however, each player's duty to assure him/herself that the clock is correctly set and that he/she understands its working.
a. A player doubtful of clock setting or working must consult the TD or ATD before play begins.
b. Failure to consult the TD or ATD as above leaves a player liable for any timekeeping errors that may occur, except those attributable to clock malfunction during the course of play.
5. Games will start at the time designated by the TD. Absent players' clocks will be started by the TD. If both players are absent, upon the return of either, time remaining in the round will be split equally between them, and the clock started. If clocks are not used, an absent player shall forfeit if more than thirty minutes elapse after the announced start of play.
6. The second player will start the clock for the first player prior to the first move. 7. A player must "punch the clock" with the same hand that plays the stone.
8. Each player is responsible for managing his/her own time. Failure to punch the clock results in time lost; it cannot subsequently be restored.
9. A player who suspects a clock has malfunctioned must notify the TD or ATD at once, and not continue play until the TD or ATD directs. A player may not escape the consequences of running out of time by claiming a clock malfunction earlier in the round which he/she never brought to the TD's attention.
10. Players may stop both clocks only under the following circumstances: a. Scheduled adjournment;
b. At the direction of the TD/ATD; c. Removal of more than one captured stone; d. Exchange of prisoners; e. Game's end; f. To make a protest to the TD/ATD. g. To resolve a dispute with one's opponent, as under E.
11. If the game is not over when a player has used all his/her allotted time, that player must either resign or go into overtime (if overtime is a part of the announced time control).
12. Either the TD, ATD, or a monitor appointed for the purpose should explain conditions of overtime play to the players involved. And although some systems allow the players to conduct overtime themselves, it is preferable for the TD, ATD, or the monitor to do so.
13. Normally a player is responsible for claiming to the TD that an opponent has passed a time control. However, the TD may delegate that responsibility to a monitor.
a. In the Canadian overtime system (see below), the monitor is always responsible for resetting clocks and counting out stones when a player has met a time control.
b. The TD may require monitors to claim forfeits when players miss an overtime control.
c. The TD may also require monitors to claim that a player has missed a basic time control.
d. The TD must announce what role monitors will play in advance of the first round.
14. Overtime play may be conducted in one of three ways:
a. "Second counting." A player must make each move within a fixed number of seconds. Failure to complete a move in time is punished as under 11. Monitors implicitly have powers as under 13.b.
b. Japanese.
(1) A given number of overtime periods of a given length (typically, five periods of 30 seconds) are allotted to the player at that point of basic time equal to the sum of the overtime periods.
(2) If a player completes a move in less than the time of one period, no time elapses.
(3) Whenever a player uses a period's worth of time, the number of periods available is reduced by one.
(4) Failure to complete a move before the expiration of the last overtime period is punished as under 11.
(5) The "reading seconds" provision of the Ing chess/go clock is an acceptable way to carry out this method of overtime.
(6) Monitors implicitly have powers as under 13.b. and c. c. Canadian.
(1) A given number of stones is counted out, the clock reset to a given number of minutes, and the player's stone container closed and removed.
(2) When these stones have been played, a new set is counted out and the clock reset. Continue ad inf.
(3) Failure to play all the stones counted out in the time provided is punished as under 11.
(4) Monitors implicitly have powers as under 13.a. and may have the powers of b. and c. also

.

[gnasher]

Has anyone decided what this new game is going to be called?

[helene_t]

gnasher, on 2011-May-20, 08:19, said:

Has anyone decided what this new game is going to be called?

I vote for "wormhole". Like bridge but faster.

[chudecek]

Tournament Duplicate Bridge. (A game of skill).

gnasher, on 2011-May-20, 08:19, said:

Has anyone decided what this new game is going to be called?

[jmcw]

JLOGIC, on 2011-May-17, 10:39, said:

As a participant, I must say I am torn on the slow play stuff. On the one hand, it's supposed to be a timed event, however penalties are not really imposed. On the other hand, I feel like this is the finals, and it's ok for everyone to take as much time as they want. TBH it is almost distractingly slow for me, perhaps a sign of my inexperience at this level (I have only played one other final of a national team game, and 16 board sets were taking forever then also). I'm not sure what my point is, but I think I am ok with the speed, I just have to get used to it.

If the sanctioning body imposes time constraints, then they should be enforced and penalties assigned in accordance with the applicable rule. Having said that I don't know what framework should apply for determining the "guilty" party when the time allotted is exceeded.
It seems quite silly to me that applying such a rule has not been universally agreed, you would think that after 50 years or more the "braintrust" would have figured this out by now.

During the finals or semi's (I don't remember) a 7♥ call was cancelled and rolled back to 6♥. It looked for a time that this decision may have decided the outcome of the match. Presumably the decision to bid 7♥ was influenced by the time taken by the 6♥ bidder indicating a problem.
IMO this is ridiculous. Some bidding sequences will take longer that others, at the slam level it is likely to be less clear what response to make. In this type of situation I would like to see a "delayed" measure of time before the bid is released. A match should never be decided by a break in tempo or a 20 second delay in making a bid.

[bluecalm]

Quote

A match should never be decided by a break in tempo or a 20 second delay in making a bid.

Do you prefer matches being decided by using unauthorized information then ?

[jmcw]

bluecalm, on 2011-May-20, 17:09, said:

Do you prefer matches being decided by using unauthorized information then ?

I suggested a delay mechanism might be put in place, not easy to do perhaps, but lets try to avoid situations where UI maybe surface due to pausing, or breaks in tempo.

[mgoetze]

jmcw, on 2011-May-20, 17:44, said:

I suggested a delay mechanism might be put in place, not easy to do perhaps, but lets try to avoid situations where UI maybe surface due to pausing, or breaks in tempo.

There is a delay mechanism in place, they are playing with screens. Also, you seem to be in the wrong thread.

[mycroft]

I think it is very difficult to set and properly enforce proper, fair slow play penalties, without effectively having a monitor at every table and pricing the game out of reach. However, I think there are a lot of players, who do very well at very high level, who at least passively undermine any attempt to do so - frequently with the "This is the finals of <big event> and I think people should be able to take the time they need" argument. I have trouble with that, for the simple reason that pretty much any other event has a clock.

Time management is a skill, as is being able to work out what to do in a reasonable amount of time. Certain time management skills I don't think we should encourage in bridge (even though it's legitimate, even applauded in other fields - get a big lead, then deliberately slow the game down to limit catchup time, for instance), but others, sure.

If asking questions about your system counts against your time, I'm going to be the dumbest bridge player on record, and ask about everything. If asking questions about your system counts against my time, I'm going to bring in the oddest, craziest system I can find, forcing you to ask 10 questions for every one I have to. If boards are taken away, I'll play fast until I get a lead, and slow out the rest. If fines are applied, what do you do with *both teams* who think this is stupid and play to their desired speed anyway? In a KO, anyway, you can't fine both of them, it doesn't matter. You could apply a fine to the next match, to the winner, but then the losing side has an incentive to play "more thoughtfully" - after all, playing the next match with a -20 IMP handicap is better than not playing it at all because we lost, right?

I don't know what to do about slow play in these events, except, frankly, monetary fines to habitual offenders. Sure, the sponsors will pay them (and any fine big enough to affect a sponsor will kill a nonsponsored team, which is another problem), but eventually it's going to be a drag hiring someone who will cost as much in fines as the salary they're paying. The only thing that will change anything, for real, is if the players at the top decide as a group this is wrong and do something about it - starting with avoiding "we don't want matches decided on time fines" and "this is the finals, they should take as long as is necessary to get the best bridge." Unfortunately, I don't see that happening on this continent at least any time soon.

I actually think that the current WBF time guidelines are reasonable, and it's amazing how few fines are generated, including to the American teams. Oh they grumble and complain a lot about that and "these weird systems we need to defend against", but strangely enough, they play to time *there*.

[chudecek]

mycroft, on 2011-May-20, 18:06, said:

I think it is very difficult to set and properly enforce proper, fair slow play penalties, without effectively having a monitor at every table and pricing the game out of reach. However, I think there are a lot of players, who do very well at very high level, who at least passively undermine any attempt to do so - frequently with the "This is the finals of <big event> and I think people should be able to take the time they need" argument. I have trouble with that, for the simple reason that pretty much any other event has a clock.

Time management is a skill, as is being able to work out what to do in a reasonable amount of time. Certain time management skills I don't think we should encourage in bridge (even though it's legitimate, even applauded in other fields - get a big lead, then deliberately slow the game down to limit catchup time, for instance), but others, sure.

If asking questions about your system counts against your time, I'm going to be the dumbest bridge player on record, and ask about everything. If asking questions about your system counts against my time, I'm going to bring in the oddest, craziest system I can find, forcing you to ask 10 questions for every one I have to. If boards are taken away, I'll play fast until I get a lead, and slow out the rest. If fines are applied, what do you do with *both teams* who think this is stupid and play to their desired speed anyway? In a KO, anyway, you can't fine both of them, it doesn't matter. You could apply a fine to the next match, to the winner, but then the losing side has an incentive to play "more thoughtfully" - after all, playing the next match with a -20 IMP handicap is better than not playing it at all because we lost, right?

I don't know what to do about slow play in these events, except, frankly, monetary fines to habitual offenders. Sure, the sponsors will pay them (and any fine big enough to affect a sponsor will kill a nonsponsored team, which is another problem), but eventually it's going to be a drag hiring someone who will cost as much in fines as the salary they're paying. The only thing that will change anything, for real, is if the players at the top decide as a group this is wrong and do something about it - starting with avoiding "we don't want matches decided on time fines" and "this is the finals, they should take as long as is necessary to get the best bridge." Unfortunately, I don't see that happening on this continent at least any time soon.

I actually think that the current WBF time guidelines are reasonable, and it's amazing how few fines are generated, including to the American teams. Oh they grumble and complain a lot about that and "these weird systems we need to defend against", but strangely enough, they play to time *there*.

The fines should be in IMPS for IMP tournaments and MP for MP tournaments. I proposed 48 minutes per player for a 32-board match (54 minutes if some insist), with a 1-IMP fine for each minute over that. That amount of time is fair and reasonable. And I see no reason to change that.

[barmar]

A2003, on 2011-May-19, 16:33, said:

It is possible that players might not have picked the cards for next hand for bid after the hand is played. They may be chatting or discussing over previous hand.
Whereas in the vugraph, next hand is shown right away after the first hand play is over. so, there may not be slow play in some cases.
Is the players complaining about the slow play?

Good VG operators wait until the players have started the new board before they click on the Redeal button.

[mtvesuvius]

chudecek, on 2011-May-20, 20:05, said:

The fines should be in IMPS for IMP tournaments and MP for MP tournaments. I proposed 48 minutes per player for a 32-board match (54 minutes if some insist), with a 1-IMP fine for each minute over that. That amount of time is fair and reasonable. And I see no reason to change that.

That is simply absurd. In fact this entire thread makes me want to punch something repeatedly until it is dead, or if it is a pillow, until there are feathers everywhere.

OK, so now that I got that out of the way --

Allowing each INDIVIDUAL player anything less than 3 minutes per board is crazy. This is not a speedball, this is genuine high-level bridge, and I don't believe that a time restriction should influence the result unless one side is extremely slow. I do think that having someone in the room actively monitoring whether one side is taking significantly more time than the other side is a good idea. Using chess clocks or anything else like that is a terrible idea that is incredibly impractical. Also, sometimes there is one player in a partnership that is very slow, and one player that is very fast. Together, they make a perfectly normal and on-time partnership, however if timing is done by side of the screen or by player, the slow one would now go over their time limit, and the fast one would have plenty of time remaining.

Using an online/electronic interface while at the table would allow for somewhat accurate timing, however I'm still strongly against the idea of enforcing restraints like that on any level of bridge. I'm normally a very fast player, and very rarely run into difficulties staying on time for pair games, however I do occasionally have a problem, and being able to think about it and work out how to solve it, is the entire point of bridge. There are genuine problems, more so at high-level bridge, that require a lot of thought. To most people this may seem silly, but there is a lot more depth to every hand than you may think.

Even though it may only matter one overtrick, there are almost always cases, at least hypothetically, where you could beat/make the contract. Figuring out what these are, then devising a plan can take a while, meanwhile the spectators are wondering what the problem is... Because they can see all the cards. If this is such a problem, why don't you just show the players some hand records before the game?

When I am at the table I am constantly thinking, rethinking, and considering a lot of possibilities. Sometimes it takes me a few minutes to work out what I need to do to counter a series of plays, sometimes it comes to me immediately. Most people hate feeling rushed, and making a decision without thinking it through, getting it wrong, then thinking about it a bit more afterwards and realizing you missed something very simple is one of the worst feelings in bridge.

Another problem is that before it is practical for the US to use something like that in the Team Trials, it would need to be implemented at the Bermuda Bowl -- Otherwise what's the point of finding the team that plays the best under a strict time limit, for an event that doesn't have that same time limit? It's like using Matchpoints to select an IMP team (Although I have come around to that idea... lol).

Timing would also present cheating issues as well, asking to use the restroom or calling the director could simply be used as excuses to buy an extra few minutes to think. Distracting someone, or asking questions could also be used to gain time... And answering a question slowly would have a similar effect.

Using time constraints for high-level bridge just to make it a bit better for spectators I'm sure would be extremely unpopular amongst the players.

If the goal is to make bridge more marketable and interesting to kibitz, these should be separate plans, not relevant to current bridge competitions - Because they would be a completely different game.

"Speed bridge" certainly seems more marketable, and enforcing some form of default system is fine, perhaps as a form of money bridge (See Bridge Big). It is a technology that should be considered and looked into, and seems much easier to popularize than the current game. But the point is that they are really two different games. Sure, they are played in the same way, and most of the things are the same, but the bridge as we know it today is NOT "speed bridge", it's "thoughtful bridge". I think they can co-exist, but mixing them together is a recipe for disaster.

Finally, Carl, next time I get penalized in a Matchpoint event, I would like a 3 IMP penalty please.

</rant>