[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2026-August-23, 08:45, said:

Telling players that our new round clock software can detect which pairs are consistently slow — and will generate reports on such — does more to speed up the game than any Director sitting at their desk yelling at the room to turn off their phones and hurry up ever will.

I tell players (including club President) that if they don't know which pairs are consistently slow, they are part of one
I'm not particularly keen on a clock software, I find that it slows the tournament in general and gives the slowest pair a pretext to complain if I call the change early because the rest of the room has finished. But if I had more than ten tables to manage I would quickly change idea.
It would be logical to build round timing into our phone app, but so far it it remains similar to bridgemate with players free to enter a result for a board on round 2 once all of their boards of round 1 have been completed.

[mycroft]

Heh, the directors can detect that too, even playing directors - but it's harder to argue bias/"you only notice when"/it's the previous table/it's our opponents/... when you have numbers.

Thinks: maybe investigate adding a "pull report from BWS" to my clock? It goes against my desire to have a clock computer and a game computer, but it's a cool idea...

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2026-August-23, 11:21, said:

Heh, the directors can detect that too, even playing directors - but it's harder to argue bias/"you only notice when"/it's the previous table/it's our opponents/... when you have numbers.

Thinks: maybe investigate adding a "pull report from BWS" to my clock? It goes against my desire to have a clock computer and a game computer, but it's a cool idea...

Like I said, the app could do the clock warning to players and the system the slow play analysis... but adding the concept of start/end of round dictated by TD is far from trivial and requires delicate choices about things like whether or not TD can start next round when one or more tables are still playing and the maximum time has not expired (again, RealBridge got this right first time). I'm in no hurry, but I can see why (the few) colleagues with 10+ tables who are not defending a BridgeMate legacy might well be.
I already wonder why we need a game computer and am definitely not investing in a clock computer or application, if we want clock control without electronic bidding or play then it it should be in the app.

[AL78]

I dealt with slow play by changing bridge clubs, although my new club is a lower standard, they can finish 24 boards in three hours.

[mycroft]

Heh, compliment of the year IMO, from February:

"I like the way you run your games. Especially how you can start an hour later than our club and finish at the same time."

(with the caveat that my game was 24 boards, the club game is 27, but still)

Simple, simple instructions:

• If you have a clock, follow the clock. Adjust the clock if - and only if - either everyone is done (start early) or half the room is late (two tables, even 4 tables - especially if they're consecutive - is not "half the room"). All arguments of blackshoe aside, call at 2 minutes. They're only *late* at zero, but the round changes on 2.
  
• Without a clock, call when about two tables aren't done.
  
• Either way, go through the room and pass the boards from the still playing tables manually. Repeat as needed.
  
• If you're a playing director, 1. and 2. (and 3. if you can) apply even harder, even if you're the slow table. Part of why you get paid/a free game is because you're expected to spend X% of your concentration (and time) on *the* game to the detriment of *your* game.

Yes, you'll get complaints about the "distraction" and the "rushing". If you don't do it, you'll get complaints from the same slow pairs that "it's too loud, can you get them to be quieter? It's hard to concentrate."(*) You're arsed either way, pick the way that gets your game done on time.

(*) I'll never forget that one announcement of Grandmaster Steve's: "I notice it's getting loud in here again. Guess it's time for the next round." It got both points across really quite well. But I won't forget it because it really, *reliably*, is a great flag for the distracted director to wake up and see if it's round-change time.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2026-August-24, 09:58, said:

Heh, compliment of the year IMO, from February:

"I like the way you run your games. Especially how you can start an hour later than our club and finish at the same time."

(with the caveat that my game was 24 boards, the club game is 27, but still)

Simple, simple instructions:

• If you have a clock, follow the clock. Adjust the clock if - and only if - either everyone is done (start early) or half the room is late (two tables, even 4 tables - especially if they're consecutive - is not "half the room"). All arguments of blackshoe aside, call at 2 minutes. They're only *late* at zero, but the round changes on 2.
  
• Without a clock, call when about two tables aren't done.
  
• Either way, go through the room and pass the boards from the still playing tables manually. Repeat as needed.
  
• If you're a playing director, 1. and 2. (and 3. if you can) apply even harder, even if you're the slow table. Part of why you get paid/a free game is because you're expected to spend X% of your concentration (and time) on *the* game to the detriment of *your* game.

Yes, you'll get complaints about the "distraction" and the "rushing". If you don't do it, you'll get complaints from the same slow pairs that "it's too loud, can you get them to be quieter? It's hard to concentrate."(*) You're arsed either way, pick the way that gets your game done on time.

(*) I'll never forget that one announcement of Grandmaster Steve's: "I notice it's getting loud in here again. Guess it's time for the next round." It got both points across really quite well. But I won't forget it because it really, *reliably*, is a great flag for the distracted director to wake up and see if it's round-change time.

I am never a playing Director, but for the rest I fully agree and am comforted to see I am not alone.
Grandmaster Steve is quite right, the volume is the key and also a great reason not to unnecessarily play in multiple rooms or allow slow players to be stationary in side rooms.
For the same reason, I am not against allowing the players to see and (inevitably) discuss the full traveller with diagram and DD analysis, but ONLY at the end of the round, not after each board... alas FIGB is still deaf in that ear.