SLOW Play USA Trials A proposed fix
#61
Posted 2011-May-18, 10:54
That said, they don't always have to; deals are random and it may happen that one side gets more tough decisions than the other.
For that reason, I would not want to use a chess countdown clock either. If you are going to use a clock, use one that tallies up the time each pair uses during a single session. You could then compare the recorded times with the other table (better comparison than with the other pair at the same table, still not ideal) or, in a pair game, with all the other pairs playing the same way.
heh... i think some people mentioned building in mandatory 5 or 10s period for each call? are you really suggesting that in an uncontested relay auction to, say, a slam that takes 6-7 (maybe 10?) rounds of bidding, the side that is _not_bidding_ could take up as much as two minutes of the allotted seven in the bidding alone? Great idea.
#62
Posted 2011-May-18, 12:08
matmat, on 2011-May-18, 10:54, said:
That said, they don't always have to; deals are random and it may happen that one side gets more tough decisions than the other.
For that reason, I would not want to use a chess countdown clock either. If you are going to use a clock, use one that tallies up the time each pair uses during a single session. You could then compare the recorded times with the other table (better comparison than with the other pair at the same table, still not ideal) or, in a pair game, with all the other pairs playing the same way.
heh... i think some people mentioned building in mandatory 5 or 10s period for each call? are you really suggesting that in an uncontested relay auction to, say, a slam that takes 6-7 (maybe 10?) rounds of bidding, the side that is _not_bidding_ could take up as much as two minutes of the allotted seven in the bidding alone? Great idea.
Whilst I do not have a specific view as to whether time penalties should be used, I fully agree with your approach should a form of time penalty be used. This gives the maximum flexibility whilst addressing the issue. To me that is only half of an equation that requires solving, you then cannot leave penalties down to the officials discretion. The penalties must be mandatory based upon the proviso's inserted within the rules, removing any possible bias or interpretation. In some cases this will result in some pairs / teams being possibly hard done by, but in the overall requirement for fairness this is a price which will have to be paid and one understood by all from the onset.
#63
Posted 2011-May-18, 14:58
helene_t, on 2011-May-18, 10:22, said:
Heh. At my local club, fast players frequently finish before the "three minute warning", stand up, and go hover over the next table, trying to push them into moving so they can sit down. They also move the boards they just played (in spite of the fact that this is technically a NS responsibility), and then the NS start asking for boards (which, again technically, aren't supposed to be moved until the round is called). On several occasions this has resulted in half the field being a full round ahead of the other half.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#64
Posted 2011-May-18, 17:52
blackshoe, on 2011-May-18, 14:58, said:
This is what a table with cookies and goodies, removed from the playing area, is for.
#65
Posted 2011-May-18, 18:34
matmat, on 2011-May-18, 17:52, said:
We have those. Doesn't matter.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#67
Posted 2011-May-18, 20:28
bluecalm, on 2011-May-18, 01:14, said:
I don't think that happens too much. For the most part, everyone in these high-level tournaments plays very deliberately. Sometimes declarer takes a full minute or more to plan the play when dummy comes down, other times 3rd hand spends a long time planning his defense. And I doubt that these players are disconcerted much when an opponent goes into the tank, since they're used to it. Instead, they take advantage of the time to do some more thinking of their own.
BTW, wasn't there a Venice Cup (or some other women's world championship) final whose results were reversed because of a time penalty assessed against the winning team? IIRC, the team that was awarded the win offered to play a rematch, because they didn't feel good winning this way.
#68
Posted 2011-May-18, 21:46
glen, on 2011-May-17, 16:39, said:
There is kind of a version of this for the Silodor winners over on bridgewinners.com where Gavin is giving insight into his thought process and the issues for each and every hand from the winning final session of the Silodor pairs. The format is VuGraph style play combined with talking head video (both on the screen at the same time). In addition to being really interesting and education for players of many different levels, it is a good pace for thinking about the hands. Gavin is averaging about 4.5 to 5 minutes a hand (most videos are one 2 board round and are just under 10 minutes long). That is a super watchable format IMO.
If you are thinking of TV ESPN did something like that for the world series of poker where the winner would give commentary about the final table broadcast. It wasn't quite as well done as what Gavin did, because the ESPN commentary is an add on to an existing program. But it shows that TV folks have thought about presenting a game where the players spend most of their time thinking. Of course if ESPN was covering the team trials the whole thing would be boiled down to 3 or 4 hands, and likely only a single decision or 2 from each of the hands. I can just imagine Norman Chad talking about his failed marriages between talking about if Grue will be whamboozled by the preempt. Or ESPN hyping the drama as a player tanks on a finesse/drop play, and only showing that one trick from both tables. I guess my point is that what makes for real TV for the masses, is not the same as what is enjoyable depth of coverage for someone who appreciates the actual game in question. And if you think bridge is slow, try the final table of the world series of poker. Some years ESPN has broadcast it unedited on ESPN3 online or on PPV and the final table is often 12-16 hours in duration to play 100-150 poker hands. But as a poker player it is more interesting and insightful in to the actual poker being played to watch that then to watch the 1 hour summary program (that is half full of background information and B-roll and interviews anyways) that only shows the "interesting" hands.
#69
Posted 2011-May-19, 05:55
chudecek, on 2011-May-17, 09:03, said:
LOL. I suggest you start a new bridge league with these constraints, I bet you won't have any success. The variety is attractive and makes people happy with what they play. Forcing someone to play a system is frustrating because no system is perfect and the people won't be allowed to fix any issues.
#70
Posted 2011-May-19, 08:06
Free, on 2011-May-19, 05:55, said:
As I have said several times, THIS thread is about time constraints tracked by computer. A subsequent post will comment on "allowed systems", and don't jump to conclusions until you see that proposal, which WILL allow considerable "variety" and will permit "issue fixes".
#71
Posted 2011-May-19, 11:08
#72
Posted 2011-May-19, 11:29
#73
Posted 2011-May-19, 12:07
About systems: system restrictions are for lol players. Sure, there are enough of them out there to gather interest in club level "one-system" events. But I really don't think there are many lols in the USA trials, or the Spingold, etc. I doubt you could find one player actually entered in these events that would want this.
-gwnn
#74
Posted 2011-May-19, 13:26
mrdct, on 2011-May-17, 22:03, said:
This is a great idea. Just think of it, you are sitting there trying to work out if you can guarantee the contract, and suddenly the computer beeps at you. Now you know that (i) you are too stupid to see the 100% line, and (ii) for every second you think, another matchpoint is taken away....
#75
Posted 2011-May-19, 13:31
(unlike, for example, Chess computers that crunch the whole position).
#76
Posted 2011-May-19, 13:51
mrdct, on 2011-May-17, 22:03, said:
I really like this idea. However, I don't think you are taking this quite far enough. If GIB knows there is a 95% line, and all other lines are less than 50%, surely the declarer at this level will eventually find that line anyway, and GIB should also claim and award tricks according the actual layout.
Once GIB gets better, you can move the thresholds closer and closer together.
Once GIB is really good, GIB could just play the hand and stop at close decisions asking for input from declarer, e.g. asking him "Does LHO look like someone having the ♥Q?" etc. - it would REALLY speed up the game while giving the players the fun of solving interesting and psychological problems rather than doing the boring part of avoiding mistakes on easy hands...
#77
Posted 2011-May-19, 14:21
cherdano, on 2011-May-19, 13:51, said:
It worked for Poker...
Why do you think everone switched over to Hold 'Em?
#78
Posted 2011-May-19, 14:48
Quote
For the pros hold em is great since there is more betting/per hour, its a more positionnal game (more opponents behind you) less split pots (vs hi-low games) its simply the best form for making money against amateurs. As a side bonus hold em is the easiest to multi table on the net.
For instance, he doesn't like being used as a human shield when we're being shot at.
I happen to think it's a very noble way to meet one's maker, especially for a guy like him.
Bottom line is we never let that difference of opinion interfere with anything."
#79
Posted 2011-May-19, 16:33
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?