How do YOU deal with that ?

[Maaa]

The newest tournamentsoftwere does not allow new board at ( I guess ) 4 min till end of round mark.

Well usually I do not have a problem with that as pple call in time - i can see who the delaying pair is, can make my ave+/ave- adjustments. But unfortunately , from time to time , it happens that I get a message :

" why ave?"

"ave ? can you explain me what you mean ? "

" you took our board away !! why ???"

" were you running late ? if so softwere automatically skipped your board, you should get a message , you did ? "

"yes - why ave ???"

 

When softwere automativally skips boards players get ave== assigned... how do you handle such situations ? Just let the ave== stand ? Or do you adjust this to ave--?

 

If you let ave== stand - do you think this is fair to the players which begun last board in round, but board is not played out, lets say 11 tricks left, TD was NOT called in time to see who the delayers are ( in that case ave-- is assigned ) ... Or do you adjust every board to ave== ?

 

:D

[spwdo]

hi,

 

 

very good question marta, i think the only fair thing that can be done is changing software about this, maening that unrecheived hands (less then 5 minutes to go) would be automatically assignid with the average of the players(pairs) itself, for some giving a= means that they raise their score, for others it lowers significally, so allowing to not take that hand into count would change nothing on scoring , in mp, pairs with for example 65% will keep that, second i want to say i`ve been experimenting with 3boards/round, it doesnt work because you get a lot of problems marta mentioned above, so i changed back to 2boards/round

 

 

 

greetings marc :P :D :P B) :rolleyes: -_- ;) :) :wub:

[Rain]

When softwere automativally skips boards players get ave== assigned... how do you handle such situations ? Just let the ave== stand ? Or do you adjust this to ave--?

 

If you let ave== stand - do you think this is fair to the players which begun last board in round, but board is not played out, lets say 11 tricks left, TD was NOT called in time to see who the delayers are ( in that case ave-- is assigned ) ... Or do you adjust every board to ave== ?

 

 

I don't think this is fair to players who got to play the boards, but then again, I'm a "hardliner" in many ways, and feel that all who can't manage to complete boards in time should receive penalty relating to the amount of time they took. (ie if it is not your pair's fault at all, your pair took only 1 minute compared to opponents took 11 (deliberately or not) and ended up with no time, you will not be penalised.

 

 

I don't like the new tourney software change, but it solves the headache of directors 99% of time, since many of our tourney players seem consistantly to be unable to handle the time requirement of the tourneys they entered.

 

 

r.dog

[Giasone]

We hope to have understood the issue why entrusting your words to a translator all perhaps it is not like would have. if I have not understood the problem badly it is that player does not understand hail in the case the new software the sign hail to 4 minuteren from the end if the table has not begun bid. I as line of behavior in my tornei I have found a simple system in order to obviate to this. the more frequent cases where this happens are when a player is frozen, are not succeeded to find sub or simply the pd of the frozen it has waited for to call the TD. in this case even if lack 11 minuteren well to the end the turn I I waited for that they arrive to 9 minuteren and check ave+ to the pairs innocent in order to make to play they next hand in the case instead this were not possible why it is last hand of turn as all we make in call case I sign innocent and guilty brace and we provide ourselves then to the adjustament without that they call I go and control until today has given good turns out to you these least private chat and many thanks:) I hope I am clearly for you why not to know if this translator translate my words well ;)

 

 

Giasone :rolleyes:

[Free]

Why isn't there a possibility to put "not played" instead of ave==? It's aqtually not fair for anyone if they get 50% on a board without playing it. If you're playing awful, it's great to have a 50%, but if you're playing good and you get only 50%, on a 8 or 12 board match it can make a huge difference. Would help to place "not played" imo...

[inquiry]

Just throwing out a not played hand and calculating the Percentage based on played hands doesn't seem the solution to me.

 

People have long complained about intentional slow play to keep from getting a bad result (famous hands like 3!Cxx down three for sure, but slow play gets only an average minus versus a zero). The problem with that situation is easy to understand. But let;s imagine a similar situation. You are in an eight board event, and got two great boards on round one, an average plus and an average on round three. With four boards to play, you are smoking along at 85% game. First board of next to last round, if going to be flat for EVERYONE for sure. A 10 trick 3NT on 1NT-3NT auction. What is the "winning strategy" if the second board will be "throw out" if not played? I think some might be tempted to drag their feet and play the average board very slowly, so you don't get to the second board. Bridge really should be a game of what you do with the cards, not how you manage the clock. Alas, online world is not a perfect world, I guess I would go with average minus for everyone for the late boards, but I would give them a chance to try to play it. Who knows, maybe able to claim quick.

 

ben

[Gerardo]

I think A+ is max(60%, own average), A- is min (40%, own average) and A= is exactly what it says (what Ben just said he doesn't like).

 

Besides that, people who slow down to get A-, should get their true result plus an extra penalty

[inquiry]

Gosh if Geraldo is right, I am really against this average minus, average plus, average thing as described.

 

Let's imagine an eight table event and you get a top on first board (100%). Now, you don't play another board, getting AVERAGES for the remainder of your boards. You end up with a 100% game. Now that just can't be right. Seems to me an AVERAGE board should be 50%, not average for the hands you played.

 

What I actually said was I was against throwing the board out so that an "AVERAGE" result was what you earned on the rest of your game. I could live with thowing it out and averaging 50% in, but not thrilled about that either. I don't am not fond of any solution that allows people the potential to play with the condition of contest as it relates to time to their advantage. So, right or wrong, I try to bring equity to the results when I direct.... by looking at the hand and adjusting scores as I feel apporpriate. I know the purist and the laws do not support my view on this issue. But if the result is clear, when the round is over, I correct the contract what the result would have been. IF the result is not clear, then I start playing with average pluses and average minuses...

 

But if Geraldo's observation about average plus is right, this is still not good enough. I am sure he didn't mean both average + and average - are less than your own real average (an average plus at 60% of your average, if you had a 50% game, would be only 30%... this is surely not what he meant), nor should an average plus when you have a 50% score be 80 (if it was 1.60% of your score). I think what he might be suggesting is average minus is 90% of your average (-10%) and average plus is 1.10% of your average), with average being your average.

 

But I really don't like this. Imagine a pair who is surely going to get a 70% if the hand is finished, and might get a 100%, (line dependent) but you can't tell. So you go in and award them average+ and their opponents an average minus. But now imagine the team you awareded an average minus had a 70% game before this hand, they end up with 63% score on the hand where the best they could have done was 30% and might have gotten 0%. But what if the pair with the likely good result had a 40% game before this hand? Their average plus ends up as a 44%, nearly a full 30 points below their best possible score, and maybe 56 pts low. And look at the oddity here. The pair that was going to be saddled with a ZERO or 30% score ends up getting much better than a real average (63%) and actually getting a much better score than their opponents at the table.

 

I think AVERAGE Minus should be 38% or so, and average plus should be 62% or so. And average, if you award that should be 50% exactly. What you did no the other hands of no consequences, imho.

 

Ben

[inquiry]

BTW... imagine this scenaro. You playing in mini-event (6 boards) and get 100% on first board, and the "average minus) on all the rest, what is your score. It could be 100+90+90+90+90+90 for 91.7%, or it could be 100+90+85.4 (90% of aveage after 2 boards)+82.6+80.6+78.9. Even here, your final result would be 86.2% game. Somehow this offends my sense of equity.

 

ben

[Gerardo]

I think A+ is max(60%, own average), A- is min (40%, own average) and A= is exactly what it says (what Ben just said he doesn't like).

 

Besides that, people who slow down to get A-, should get their true result plus an extra penalty

I meant based on The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997. Currently on BBO A+ is 60%, A= is 50% and A- is 40%, all percentages taken from a top.

 

So I mean A+ is the greater of 60% and your average (on played hands), then take this number from a top, and assign that to the hand where you got the A-

A- and A= treated the same way.

 

In your example, Ben:

 

the pair who gets A+ gets max(60%, 40%(average on played hands)) = 60%

the pair who gets A- gets min(40%, 70%(average on played hands)) = 40%

 

That is, unless you could extract a result from it. Quoting Law 12C2:

 

" When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing"

 

Besides that, for intentional slow down to try to get a better result I would assign an extra penalty, based on Law 74 (Conduct and Etiquette)

 

BBO scoring methods would need to be revised to allow unbalanced scores and lawful average calculations, and to allow extra penalties, called procedural in the Laws.

[inquiry]

ok... 60% or average is better. I misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification

 

Ben

[spwdo]

hi,

 

 

 

about skipping the board for the overall score, i see here things like( 100score in first board then skip every board after) , first i think we td will be informed if a pair isnt playing anymore:) then they will be subbed, secondly, they only can skip their last board of every round and if not finisched their first they get a- there so they wont be gaining much with that tactic unless they like to see the sub that took their place in topfinischers cause they got a great start and didnt mess up in games to come, after about 20 secs when one player isnt bidding we get calls, then after two minutes play the slow play calls comes, hell, somebody called me yesterday to complain his finesses didnt work while the percentages where favourable :rolleyes: , what i would like to see is the possibilty of expanded penalty adjustments , so far i know we can only adjust to 40%, but i have had occasions where that didnt cut it and i would like to give out a clean nice 0% (false explanations delibertly to mislead opps, repeatedly not explaning when query is made, dummy talk what to play, e.o )

but as stated before we cant be perfect while it is a online thing only triying our best to be fair in the best way we can

B) :D :D :rolleyes:

 

greetings marc

[Trpltrbl]

Maybe that's the reason why during unclocked events things run a lot smoother.

 

 

Mike :rolleyes:

[Giasone]

I task that cloked and unclocked they have good and defects like saying before also I in the limit of the possible check a result when this is possible to see from the movie when this is not possible only thing at the possible moment is AVE- for guilty brace of slowing down then there are cases in which is not used alert for bid conventional or the this is used to give explanation wrong in order to put road outside opps is much serious second me I penalizes always this why as it says fred bridge on linens it is a bridge that it must educate to teach bridge not sure agonistico therefore like levo maleducata brace levo also also who does not behave the rules more elementary second than bridge. little times this has happened. but if player says that he has mistaken once I can understand if this repeats the mistake then is not error but will to win with every also half not legal and I this do not admit it and invite always all the players of mine tourney to signal these thanks to signallings of players to surveyings intercrossed in collaboration with the yellows of my country I have found a cardshape that PC played with 2 in order to gain tornei the thing has been marked and resolved nel.giro.di little days I do not say to make this with who it slows down the purpose game or it supplies explanations mistaken of purpose but if we have the collaboration of the players these persons can then be excluded making the tourney in order to render BBO a more and more pleasant place where to play. :P

Giasone :)

[JRG]

I believe the software does the following (and this is what I am documenting in the Online Help, so if I'm wrong, someone please send me a message):

 

When you set up a tournament, you set the "Minutes per board". The amount of time for the round is calculated based on that times the number of boards per round.

 

If the clock runs out while a deal is in progress, then the average minuses come into play.

 

If a board is about to be played, it can only be started if there is at least 1/2 of the allocated time per board remaining. So if you have set 8 minutes per board and less than 4 minutes remains, the board will be skipped. In this case, both pairs receive averages. I assume average applies to any boards that are skipped in their entirety.

 

It certainly sounded to me like a good idea not to let players begin a board if there appears to be too little time remaining in the round (something similar is sometimes done in face-to-face bridge).

[Free]

Yes, ok, dont start to play. But do you really have to give them 50% for it? Maybe a better sollution is to give 50% on the first skipped board, 40% on the second, 30% on the 3rd skipped,... That way, deliberate slow play won't be encouraging at all!

[uday]

I'm trying to cut down the sqawking from aggrieved customers - i think anything less than Average will increase the # of TD calls

[Gerardo]

But it may be the right thing.

 

Maybe let TDs choose?

[keylime]

When I run my events, skipped boards due to disconnects are A++ automatic UNLESS one of them deliberately did it, then it's A+=.

[Gweny]

:( YES PLEASE GIVE US PENALTY ADJUSTMENT. I, like others, do not think much of this average + thing for much of our prblems.

 

Consider chronic slow players.

(why they continue to enter time events of 7/8 min per board is total mystery to me)

PairA play round 1 and do not play board 2 so they see ave= . This is disgusting. They at fault (assuming no connection problem) and poor PairB is at mercy of PairA. I imagine many times when maybe this second board hold potential for top board but due to not playing 2nd board all they see is Ave=.

 

However... if we ability to assess penalty, (like suggest but rule violation Gerardo mention) this maybe "encourage" chronic slow players to play/bid promptly. AND this give TD other tool to use when making adjustments.

 

And it continue for entire tournament... PairA is now playing PairC and again they time issues... This create extra work for td for this pair is chronic slow, ( and normally very vocal and wanting adjustment!) and what of poor PairC? they come to play nice brisk bridge and instead find painful 1-2 min deliberations on whether to play 2 of spades or 4 of spades tee hee...

 

so Uday/Fred please we beg you... give us ability to assess penalty to this people without affecting entire tournament.

[spwdo]

hi,

 

 

i`m starting to notice that some players use the Avg- as a bonus , they try to get max scores and if and went set they let clock run out , a couple of 100 and a few 40 ,( we all can count) results in coming in above average and in survivor , they survive till last rounds , when we are called to those tables things go faster as long as we`re there,, and its hard to adjust , even give A+ to non offending pairs when they could have a far better score isnt far at all

 

greetings marc

[Giasone]

I task that just pain for who slows down purpose game in order to A = to the hand if called Td and for slow game once and sees slow game pairsC against pairsA pairsA is slow director asks if there are logon problems if it answers then gives a possibility to remain in torneo but I cannot damage pairsC and therefore in first possibility check 60% to pairsC but this he is worth only once if the problems continue I believe that I am right or to give the possibility to slow player of restart PC or it proceeds itself with changing in order to concur to regulate development of tourney. a hand second does not affect tourney and therefore me it does not have to be spoken endured about pain but to only change player obviously if from the TD it comes found slow brace with intentional slow game second me is good norm to exclude it from tourney and to signal it why rigiochi in mine tourney and this to me pain does not seem not one but only a way for having regular tornei most possible with regular developments of hand :P

Giasone :(

[mink]

... Consider chronic slow players.

(why they continue to enter time events of 7/8 min per board is total mystery to me) ...

I think some slow players do not realize that they are slow but think the others are slow, because their bids and cards are diplayed with a delay. The slow player himself clicks without delay when opp's bid/card is displayed for them.

 

Maybe a solution could be if the server ever records thinking time and connection speed, slow players should be given an indication of their own connection speed.

 

And maybe there should be an option for directors to specify the worst connection speed allowed for the tourney. The server will eliminate a slow pair when the current round ends, or automatically substitute the player in question.

 

Karl

[McBruce]

In order to properly apply the priciple of Zero Tolerance, the Director needs to have the option of applying a Disciplinary Penalty (Law 91A). Giving various average minuses will not work. I'm afraid I simply haven't had time in the last few months to direct, but if players are taking advantage of the timing rules, we need to be able to control this. Not only that, there is a sad tendency to making public statements insinuating or even outright alleging cheating, which we need to be able to immediately control. This was posted recently on rec.games.bridge (original post in red, my response in blue):

 

John Schuler wrote:

 

> 1N* 2C

> 2D 3D

> P

>

> *12-15

>

> I held (in on online tournament):

>

> x

> JTx

> Kxxxxx

> AKxx

>

> The opponents, upon seeing dummy, made comments like "I'm tired of this

> kind of crap", etc. I had NO idea what they were talking about at first,

> and eventually they called the director. They complained that 2C should

> be alerted if it didn't promise a 4 card major.

>

> To my utter astonishment, the director agreed! Alerting never occurred

> to me. At the time I ascribed this to an ignorant director and 2 more

> whining opponents* Is this really an alert?

>

> * A player who posts to this newgroup heard us bid 1H-1S-3H, alerted and

> explained as 14-15 hcp, 6+ hearts, and 0-2 spades, and wanted a

> suggested defense - chess? :angry:

>

>

 

I really couldn't care less whether this is alertable or not and my advice is that you shouldn't either. If one of your opponents has been damaged by your failure to disclose your methods -- and whether the rules say alertable or not, there is no reason you cannot indicate privately to the opponents that 2C doesn't promise a four-card major, since you must know that the majority expect it to -- you should accept whatever penalty the Director assigns. On this auction I see no great likelihood that there will be damage, but I guess it is possible.

 

However, if you allow such comments to be made at your table and do not report them to the Director when he arrives, you are doing us all a disservice. There is no reason for a player to make comments like the one you quoted, insinuating DELIBERATE action on your part, in any form of bridge, and if I am the Director and you quote the comment to me when I arrive that will be the first thing I deal with -- and now the question of whether or not your failure to alert/explain caused damage will be decided with you, not the opponent, getting the benefit of the doubt. I don't care what the Laws say, to me we are screwing bridge if we let people get away with gratutitous comments that are very thinly veiled cheating accusations.

 

If Mr. Grumpy was actually damaged, this is my ruling: "Yes, Mr. Grumpy, there is damage here. You forfeited the right to redress when you made the comment. PLAY ON. The Laws may take a different view, but in any case I get to decide the penalty and I'm going to whack you twice as hard with disciplinary penalties. So consider this a favourable ruling. Next time, assuming your aim is restoring equity, and not, as it seems to be here, intimidating the opponents, simply call the Director and keep your idiotic opinions to yourself. You are on report and any further such nonsense will get you expelled."

 

If Mr. Grumpy was not damaged, he gets the same speech AND a quarter-board penalty, escalating if he argues further.

 

 

If we cannot penalize Mr. Grumpy a quarter board for this comment, we have no way of controlling this. If players know they will be penalized in matchpoints for this, they may think twice before doing it.

[Trpltrbl]

I think you can solve a lot of the problems by running a tournament with more 3 or more brds a round. I seem to be able to run a tournament with 6 minutes a brd if I play 3 brds a round, compared with the 16 minutes for 2 brds a round. I have a lot less calls and the chronic slowplayers get put on my customlist, and I have not done that in a while, actually there are only 3 left as we speak.

 

Mike :D