Slow Tournaments

[spwdo]

hi,

 

 

all this , one advice, make clocked and add first round 1 mnute a board, check up late tables and u ll be ok also, no need to work a day with lowereing scores.

 

 

NEW one to me,tourney is virtually finisched??? well we are in a virtual world, makes u think huh

 

gonna tell u , clocked 8 minutes a baord /10 baords finisched in 84 max, fastest one , so first sections 2 minutes ahaed, first tables their are finisched after 9/10 minutes in last round, they done in 74+-, last slowest player is home in time for dinner with 84 minutes(then an unclocked is starting baord 6/8 the so called slowest part of that tourney).

 

i played them all, i hosted them all, i have fast cable connection and i play always fast, ask my regular partners(they complain that i play to fast) and even i got in several really unfortunate tourneys(i use nice words because i respect every td and his setup) where it took me a hell of a lot longer then 7/8 minutes a baord so if the risk is still there that happens i cant enter an unclocked.

 

 

 

let me clarify something u dont seem to get claus and mcbruce

 

 

we in clocked make sure the slowest cant prolong the tourney, we have a max for that, unclocked doesnt so by defanition a unclocked event is longer because u wait to finsch till the slowest , most frequently bathroomvisitor , distracted finally had enough from it and played his last card in the last baord after phoning seventeen minutes to his his old schoolfriend

 

 

 

marc

[aramesh_]

nowhere i accepted that unclocked tourneys are the answer to curb slow tournaments. with a 'but' or otherwise.

as marc says a 10 board tourney(8min/board) can be finished in 84 minutes. that has been my experience(or is it "practice")too. :D

15 board Alpha points tournies finish in 120 minutes for 2 reasons as i understand it. Players use SAYC only and are penalised 1 IMPper extra minute used. Naturally they play fast.

[csdenmark]

nowhere i accepted that unclocked tourneys are the answer to curb slow tournaments. with a 'but' or otherwise.

as marc says a 10 board tourney(8min/board) can be finished in 84 minutes. that has been my experience(or is it "practice")too. :D

15 board Alpha points tournies finish in 120 minutes for 2 reasons as i understand it. Players use SAYC only and are penalised 1 IMPper extra minute used. Naturally they play fast.

The standard completion for unclocked 10 boards will be:

 

- The quick ones: 40-50 minutes

- The standard : 70-80 minutes

[spwdo]

The standard completion for unclocked 10 boards will be:

 

- The quick ones: 40-50 minutes

- The standard : 70-80 minutes

and how about the slow ones??

and how about those fast ones have to wait for their results??

u pull the plug and they see played hands?

 

So after 4 good baords players freez up because thier results are good, i hope uday on a insane day add this what u are asking, claus they are going to kill u, winners are with 2 baords played out of 10 xxxx, 2 good baords and then every time u are called to a table for slow play , they play one card and u see "ah ok now"and u rush off to the next table where one is doing the same

 

 

 

 

 

pffffffffff :huh:

 

P.S maureen and my offer still stands , but i think u never going to allow your thinking to be changed, but yet u keep disagreeing with everybody else, a shame.

As for your signature, i think the guy invented that had u in mind :D

[csdenmark]

Marc the 10 boards is an example just for easy counting. 10 boards tourneys make no sense in terms of seriousity.

 

But 10 boards will be format 2 x 5 - nothing else possible. A very fast format. The completion will surely be quicker than I stated.

 

People who cannot wait for result. Like X-mas as we were children! Sorry. Result is up for 1 week.

 

Marc please think of the majority. The unlucky minority with bad connections on a day - help them - dont punish them.

 

Your last statement about plug I dont understand the meaning of - sorry!

[aramesh_]

hi

 

pray tell me how to pick only quick ones or standard ones for a tourney--clocked or unclocked

[showle]

Having both played in and directed/co-directed regularly in some of the larger tournaments on this site and previously on another bridge site, I have decided to chime in on this issue.

 

1- Let's not forget that the original poster was not happy with having to wait too long before being allowed to advance to the next round. This is, on the surface, a reasonable/common concern. True, the post itself did not come across as exactly appreciative of the hard work and effort put forth by those who volunteer, but let's try to seperate that issue from the actual complaint.

 

2- Since our site is extremely "worldly", we cannot ever expect that every player will have a strong, fast connection and play at the same pace. This makes for slower play at some tables. No one format (clocked or otherwise) will change this fact.

 

3- Personally, as a player, I have played in many unclocked tournaments. I do not know how the idea that they are somehow "faster" than clocked tournaments came about. My experience has, in fact, been very much the opposite. Sometimes they are indeed faster, but many other times they can be shockingly slow. It's all chance, and usually has little to do with how fast you yourself play.

 

4- From both a player and directors point of view, I find that my day can be more accurately planned when the tournament is clocked. Yes, sometimes rounds can be extended two minutes, but that's about as bad as it gets-- not much of a difference. In general, most players are aware of the clock and make an attempt to finish playing in a timely manner. This helps. And remember, the directors here have lives too! ;-)

 

5- In the Fun Fishy tournament, both Gweny and I will indeed make adjustments for intentional slow play or when the result is obvious. But we both know that the show must go on, and that people have lives to lead. A very small handful of slow players will not stop the show. In general, our Late Fun Fishy is extremely timely and predictable, and I believe that the players appreciate this.

 

6- In clocked tournaments, all of the players finish at about the same time, and all are able to immediately see their results and rankings. Players appreciate this-- hey, bridge is a very competitive game! In unclocked tournaments-- especially those of meaningful size, you may have to wait QUITE a while to see your results.

 

7- There are many types of tournaments currently offered on BBO, and this goes on all around the clock. In fact, no other site offers more choices and more times as far as tournaments go. And let's not forget about the Total Points tournaments either-- they can be quite fun too! If a player prefers one style over another, then (s)he can simply choose to join those types of tournaments and avoid the others.

 

8- As another poster pointed out, let us not forget that we are all guests here when we are players. And as far as directors/co directors go, we are all volunteers. I think that this fact should never be forgotten.

 

9- I believe that, while every voice should be heard, we should listen closely to those that work the hardest. When a host (such as spwdo) has a suggestion, it is a suggestion based on vast experience. Handling large groups/directors calls is no easy task, and these directors are generally very wise. It's not easy finding good directors, much less those who are also able to handle large crowds.

 

10- Let us return to playing bridge and having fun! Somewhere along the line recently, some have lost track of this-- this is still a game, after all. We should be happy that we have been so fortunate as to have had so much recent growth. We should be thankful to have such a fine group of volunteers. As a whole, we make one heck of a team!

 

11- And finally, those that do little else other than complain will likely find themselves not taken seriously. This is human nature. Suggestions for improvements are great, and opinions about tournament formats can and should be varied. But for those who exclusively complain and disagree, it will become only too easy to learn to "not listen" to that person. And that's a shame, since one day they may come up with a truly great idea-- only to not be heard or else ignored.

[spwdo]

hi,

 

 

 

sam, welcome to the forum, nice very nice writing and hopefully we see a lot more of you

 

 

 

 

 

 

marc

spwdo td friends

[csdenmark]

I advocate unclocked not because of speed but because of flexibility. The flexibility needed with many kind of occurences happening which nobody can control. All have to accept the facts.

 

Pace is NO argument in bridge. Bridge is about carefully thoughts and really not much else. Therefore we also see bridge categorized as a 'mind-sport'.

[inquiry]

Pace is NO argument in bridge. Bridge is about carefully thoughts and really not much else. Therefore we also see bridge categorized as a 'mind-sport'.

Come on. Pace has a place in bridge, even at the top levels. And in the friendly confines of BBO where people of all skill levels play, and where they might have pressing other business to attend too, PACE really is very important. People will not want to sign up for a tournment if they can't be realatively assured when it will end. Also, if you could play 10 boards in a unit time in the open room, some will ask why play 6 boards in the same amount of time in the tournments? If you reduce the boards played from 6 to 4, in the same time, then fewer and fewer will want to play in the tourmnents. I like tourneys, but I can play much more actual bridge in the open room.

 

Ben

[csdenmark]

Ben we really need to know what is a fair speed. A fair speed for measuring. I have asked somebody with knowledge of the time limits in proff. level to be helpful. Until now no responses.

 

If Meckstroth has 10 minutes available for all hands in Bermuda Bowl - and I think he has but I am not sure - then it be for lunatics only to sign up for tournaments with penalties after 8 minutes. If Meckstroth only has 5 minutes for a hand - then I will with no problems accept penalties for ordinary players after 8 minutes.

 

I therefore need a little help - guidance - for a reasonable judgement.

[mpefritz]

The lunatics have spoken by signing up for 7 or 8 minute boards!! The shorter the time frame the more likely one is to make a bridge error -- overlook a nice line of play, miscount the hand. BUT , and I beleive this is true for the vast majority of players in BBO tourneys, 8 minutes per board is plenty of time for what they want to get out of the tournament.

 

If everyone were trying to play perfect bridge, then the demands for 10, 11, do I hear 12 minute rounds would be overwhelming the directors. In fact, as I understand it, the STARS aren't griping too loudly about the time limitations for their tournaments are they?

 

Ideal time per hand for playing bridge as a professional and ideal time for playing bridge for someone online trying to have fun for a few hours is completely different. And if they don't want time constraints, they can open a table in the main bridge club advertising 10 minutes per board and see how many takers they get. Or open a tourney with 10 min/board. Gripes and "disconnects" will abound.

 

fritz

[csdenmark]

Fritz I also think 7-8 minutes is good for bridge on BBO.

 

I have accused the set ups for non-serious. Therefore I would like to have something for measuring. I think something like proff. level + 40% would be fair.

 

It is a pity that many just signs up for tourneys and see them as an alternative set up for solely social play. But for all those my arguments make no sense of course. If people are satisfied just to reproduce their own mistakes I like they have the opportunity to do so. - I feel pity for them!

 

I would very much welcome the intensions to improve. You cannot improve unless you try to - think about what you have learned from your own mistakes and try to do something different now and to get experience from that.

[inquiry]

Fritz I also think 7-8 minutes is good for bridge on BBO.

 

I have accused the set ups for non-serious. Therefore I would like to have something for measuring. I think something like proff. level + 40% would be fair.

 

It is a pity that many just signs up for tourneys and see them as an alternative set up for solely social play. But for all those my arguments make no sense of course. If people are satisfied just to reproduce their own mistakes I like they have the opportunity to do so. - I feel pity for them!

 

I would very much welcome the intensions to improve. You cannot improve unless you try to - think about what you have learned from your own mistakes and try to do something different now and to get experience from that.

Cllaus you are going the wrong way on time. Our nonprofessional tournments need LESS TIME than the professional ones. The pro's spend a lot of time thinking and figuring things out. Sadly the VAST majority of players don;t think at all, they just throw out cards, and those of who do try to think, only worry about 1/5th what the pros need. I would say the time needed would be 40% what the pro's get, not 40% more. To make EVERYONE suffer while one player is thinking and thinking is not fair the field, given the type of competition played here.

 

Ben

[aramesh_]

Discussion on clocked vs unclocked tournies has gone on for some time now.

Let TD's like Claus host unclocked tournies and others like spwdo, me and a lot more host clocked events. Let the player make the Hobson's Choice. ;)

[McBruce]

OK, let me see if I can summarize:

 

1. We began with clocked tourneys and AVG- to players who ran out of time. Multiply the number of rounds by the minutes per round and you know exactly when you will finish (unless the Director adds a minute or two).

 

2. Players in clocked tournaments find that (for example) they pass out a board, claim at trick three on the second, and have nine minutes left on the clock. At a bridge club we would go get coffee or go out for a smoke or take a leak or something, but online this is A Major Problem. Why can't we just find someone else who is also finished and go ahead with the next round against them?

 

3. And thus it came to pass ;) that Uday created UNCLOCKED tournaments. Once a few tables were finished, the system would reshuflle the players or pairs at these tables and let them go gung ho into the next board, instead of waiting for the round to end. And the slow tables have as much time as they need to play each board, since they may well be able to catch up later.

 

4. The advantages of unclocked: you cannot lose a board to the clock, you can take extra time on a difficult hand, and you usually wait less time for new opponents than you would in clocked.

 

5. The disadvantages: replays (playing with/against the same partner/opponent/pair more than once, which results because the unclocked format matches players by their speed, which subdivides the field into smaller groups which you usually cannot escape from), the waiting time still necessary (often in the final group a board will be completed but you have to wait for a slow table to finish it before moving), and the long, sometimes very long, wait at the end for results if you are in a fast group.

 

6. One solution to the long-wait problem is to penalize players for taking extra time, which cannot be done by BBO yet, but my tournaments include a rating system on my web site, so I can change the order of finish before I compute the ratings, and dock the slow players some matchpoints. The result of this is that my tournaments (15 boards, 8 minutes per board) are always finished within 10 minutes of time. The problem of fast players finishing 30-40 minutes earlier remains though.

 

The initial question of this thread was why are there such long waits? The answer is that people play at different speeds. There are waits in clocked and in unclocked. As a player I prefer neither, but in a clocked tournament I am going to watch the clock a lot more, and in an unclocked tourney I leave at the end and check the result later instead of waiting for Joe Slow to finish making four overtricks in 3NT on a trump squeeze with 15 winners. :) As a Director I am not fast enough to be able to handle the flurry of Director calls that comes at the end of a round in clocked. Until the BBO software gives me some way to determine who is at fault when someone shrieks "slow play here!" I'll stick to unclocked.

 

However, I did discover for the first time last night that I can claim for the slowest table when the result is obvious. This keeps things moving. But we're not going to find a permanaent solution for the waiting ever.

[bridgeboy]

Hi all.. I am new to this forum, so forgive me if I am completely on the wrong track or I made suggestions at the wrong place...

 

I think there might be a compromise to this conflict. There could be a different type of tourney. ( maybe call it semiclocked )

 

Where the tables who finish first (maybe the first 5 tables that finish) will change first for the next round. The next 5 tables completed will change when they're done and so on... The others will play on until the std time (maybe 16 mins a rd) finishes. Then all those who are still playing will change for the next round.

 

I think in this way, the fast (playing faster than the stipulated time) will play continously and can finish soon. On the other hand, the tourney will not take longer than expected to end. (easier time for the players, especially those caught in the slow 'batch' and cannot recover).

 

Another idea may be to have rd changes at up at one min intervals starting from 12th min (arbitary assuming 2 bds per rd) until a limit of maybe 18/19? this works if there are sufficient tables done within the 1 min interval.

 

 

Maybe this is just some rubbish thinking and not feasible :) Just ignore it then

[mink]

hi Bridgeboy,

 

what you propose looks to me like a clocked tourney with most pairs swtiching rounds before the deadline. The advantages are that some pairs finish earlier than the maximum time assigned for the tourney, and that there is a maximum time. The disadvantages are, that you have replays like in unclocked tourneys and unfinished boards like in clocked tourneys, that require adjustments by a director. Furthermore, this movement cannot be combined with the swiss/survivor approach, as this requires scores of the last round to be computed before a round change can take place.

 

I suggested another approach some times in this forum:

 

Tourney is clocked, but round change is eventually delayed until at least xx% (e.g. 95%) of the tables have finished the round. Then all pairs are seated for the next round swiss-like, but some pairs have to wait for opps who have not yet finished the previous round. Swiss seating of unfinished pairs is based on their result without the unfinished board(*). However, unlike todays unclocked tourneys, pairs that start a round late because they had to finish boads of the previous round have less time available for the current round, which maybe causes a board to be missed (already implemented today). For missed boards, ave+ or ave- is assigned depending on if the pair was responsible for the delays that caused the board to be missed or not.

 

This would result in no unfinished boards (and therefore no need for adjustment by director), no need to add time for difficult boards as this is done automatically, tourney ends at the scheduled end time or maybe only a litte later because of time automatically added. Replays are limited to swiss-related replays which could be avoided with a more sophisticated seating algorithm anyway. Furthermore, you could assign a rather low time per board (e.g. 6 minutes) without having to worry that the directors are faced with any requests for adjustments of unfinished boards. This way, such tourneys will finish earlier than todays clocked tourneys and

very much earlier than unclocked tourneys, and I think not much later than the fast group of an unclocked tourney.

 

Karl

[JRG]

I noticed that nobody jumped in to defend cgull. Instead, most people seemed to react to his post as if it were simply criticism.

 

I think this is incorrect (and for what it is worth, I think it comes from not reading what is written carefully).

 

1. He (she?) started by making a factual statement: He spent more time waiting than playing in a tournament. I'm not sure how this was measured -- perhaps using a chess clock.

 

2. He a statement that is possibly just his opinion (one I happen to agree with): 15 minutes is plenty of time to play two hands.

 

3. He stated a feeling he has: That the problem is caused by directors allowing waiting for overly slow players.

 

4. He suggested a solution: Set a time limit and stick to it.

 

Instead of shooting him, why not just give a simple explanation of why he is mistaken? As have I, he has probably played face-to-face bridge in games run by a director who makes sure the game moves along and people get to leave at the appointed time. Online bridge is different.

 

I've only played in a couple of tournaments, but I know from working on the Help and from reading lots of posts in these forums, that a BBO director's job can be very difficult. Despite not playing in tournaments, I am grateful that the volunteer directors run tournaments and add to the BBO community -- thank you!

[spwdo]

I love to play in tournys. BUT, I spend more time waiting than playing by

actual measure.

 

I feel that the directors have created this timing monster by waiting for the slow

players. I think if you moved them on, and the lost the hand, it wouldn't take

very long for them to be more time sensitive.

 

You are, in essence, holding up a lot of people for one or two. That is not right.

 

. But, I feel, moving them along, will cure the

problem in short order.

 

Cgull

hi,

 

john, i reacted the way i have because the orniginal poster his trheat was nothing more like critisism and the worduses wasnt to respectfull of the things we do.

 

1.timemonster

2.We not fair?

3.holding the game up for one slowplayer?

 

We tds work very hard to check up on late tables, we go visit them , we get them moving, we never allow extra time for one slowtable, in fact when only a 4/5 tables playing we in bridge too far adjust them either to obviuos result either to A-+ depends on who is to blaim for delay, either to a== if they cant finisch.

 

Again i say this , we are volunteers working very hard , so any suggestions for software improvement shoud be adressed to uday/fred i think instead of calling us infair.

Again i say that reading tournament format is the only thing players have to do prior to the game, if u dont like the format play somewhere else.

Again i say before judging tds host one time for a change , u will be surprissed believe me.

 

I read in this topic several good ideas/suggestions for improvement and that is the way to handle things not critisiing without having a clue.

 

 

spwdo

[mr1303]

If I'm running a large tourney (around 200 players, or there abouts) I usually run it unclocked. This is to enable me to not have to deal with adjustments, as I have to check the movie etc. before I can adjust the score. However, I know that unclocked tournaments will take a lot longer, as there are ALWAYS WITHOUT FAIL a handful of painfully slow boards that take forever. Usually, these players are not even in contention. What their reasons are for playing so slowly, I don't know. I'll presume for now just poor connection..... Anyway, I certainly make sure that I have plenty of time before running an unclocked tourney.

 

If I want to run a tournament at short notice, I always use clocked, however, and I restrict the number of players to well below my capacity. This is to make sure I can handle the normal dozen or so director calls saying "no ave-", or "opps deliberately played slowly" etc which take so much longer than substitutions.

 

Having said that, I do struggle to see a good solution. I can't jump round every table and boot slow players, or even assign ave+-, there just isn't time, as I need to sit there and watch for a minute or two, which I just don't have.

[McBruce]

Is it true (or just something I've assumed from reading this thread) that when time runs out on a table in clocked, there is no bidding or cardplay saved, and therefore no way to view the board and make an adjustment to the obvious or most likely result? If so, maybe this is what needs to happen.

[spwdo]

Is it true (or just something I've assumed from reading this thread) that when time runs out on a table in clocked, there is no bidding or cardplay saved, and therefore no way to view the board and make an adjustment to the obvious or most likely result? If so, maybe this is what needs to happen.

hi

 

 

off course not, u see every card played till the last,bidding& all. So very easy to adjust, no probs.We in our tourneys even adjust(last tables in play) to obviuos when they still playing , several sections mostley so 3,4,5 tds each take a diffrent table and make them move, we are clocked to 8 minutes max but very often several rounds are finisched before time runs out.Its some extra work but we like to host as best/fairest/ and most fast as we can.

 

The whole reason for us doing clocked is we can time our day and we have lots of regulars that play, the climb, culbaran,bridge to far, abalucys and so on all in one day and its a tight schedule for us and for players but its only way for us/them to manage

 

 

spwdo

[spwdo]

hi,

 

well, at last i have found something to critisise as well ans since this topic was about timemonsters and slowplayers and it sounded for a second that majority of players was fair&fast.

 

i hosted a speedball today , rules were

1.DONT SIGN UP IF U CANT BID/PLAY/FINISCH A BAORD IN SIX MINUTES

2.DONT CALL DIRECTOR TO THE TABLE FOR ADJUST,USE PRIVATE MESSAGE

3.NO CALLS ABOUT ALERTS&ANY TIMECONSUMING ISSUE(PLAY FAIR&ALERT)

4.USE THE DIRECTORS BOX TO EXPLAIN YOUR PROBLEM

5.NO MUTIPLE CALLS

seems easy huh, 4 tds, i was playing so three others free to visit tables, well one td run away(asked me first to pull the plug since it was my thing) and excused herself to the tournament, her fellowcountryman/woman started to get mad at her/us/me for not beeing able to coope with all adjusts in time.tds who stayed adjusted baord after baord and were depressed after.

 

i adjusted 23 baords after the tourney, not most BUT ALL BAORDS WERE DOWN(contract bid and unmakeble)

Some had the nerve to call me for one particulary adjust wher they made good score while three other A- didnt seem to bother(yes , u guessed it right, those where the down baords for them) i adjusted all that i had name of, but even with three tds en my 15 minutes after wasnt enough to get most of the unfinisched baords i think.i played with gweny and we had one A-(opps were down) rest of the baords we had some time left so it can be done.

 

 

conclusion: what u need is a fair group to play those types of tourneys, becaused with the possiblity that the clock runs out very fast the slightest hesitasion is enough and WILL be taken by a LOT of players when they are down causing many many bad vibes.

 

Will i do this again? sure with a selected field its a fun time spender, no waits, just bid and play and all end at the same time or with 1 td/8à10 tables when its open for the public

 

I m not going to apoligies to public for some calling this a "bad" tourney, to many pairs signed up not following claerly stated rules in lobby/tourney/tourneyinfo

 

I apoligies to tds helping with this and not aware of the hectic speedball can cause with the wrong field

 

 

spwdo

[Dwingo]

I once entered as sub, a SuperSpeedball tourney (5 minute per deal) with 1 deal per round and it was a total disaster. Out of the 6 rounds that I played, 5 of them had to be adjusted.

 

I wonder if we should be pushing the boundaries of how fast we can play online bridge. 7 minute per deal is probably the optimal time. If we really want to finish tourneys fast, then No. of deals per round should be increased so that there is a possibility of catchup within the same round, if one deal is delayed. There will be less need for adjustments.

 

like 6.5 min X 2 deals per round, 6 min X 3 deals per round, 5.5 min X 4 deals per round