Slow Tournaments

[McBruce]

Sounds to me like the great majority of these boards lost to the clock are hands that have just a few cards left. What about this solution: have the computer play the deal out 1000 times choosing cards completely at random (whenever a player has a choice of what to lead or play) from the point that the clock runs out. This will take about 0.1 seconds based on the way computers run these days. If this process results in the same trick total 75% of the time, that is the result automatically adjusted to. I would guess that in virtually all cases where there are less than five tricks to play, the 75% rule will generate the most likely normal result, and if the result is still in doubt, no trick total will get 75% of the results (and you score as A-- as usual). This should prevent the TDs need to view and adjust dozens of boards in a short time.

[Gerardo]

Too much stress on server, as that kind of calculations should not be done on the clients (they shouldn't be trusted).

Maybe one table doesn't matter, but in a fairly sized tourney, you could have a problem.

[Frosty]

Again I like to play in the 5-6 minute per hand games, but the TD must try to come down somewhere in the "Possible" middle. At 7 minutes, I:

 

-> can show no mercy to pairs who delay to avoid being set,

-> have a manageable amount of adjustments and

-> have attracted a consistent field of players who know the time standards.

 

8 minute boards generate even less need for adjustment, but, unless you are running at 1 Board per round, this adds a minimum of 2 minutes to every round - and this can be a VERY long extra 2 minutes to those who can already easily finish in 5-6 minutes per board. 7 minutes is a doable compromise if you are looking for a fast game that won't turn into a disaster :-).

 

By the way - I'm convinced that almost NO ONE reads the tourney descriptions, rules or TD's instructions LOL!

 

Frosty

[JoAnneM]

I believe this particular forum is about offline or ftf bridge. I attended a director refresher course at a recent NABC and we had a discussion about slow play. It is the ACBL position (at least from the director leading this discussion) that it is the slow players who are to be accomodated, not the fast players. Of course extremes are not to be tolerated. But players who rush the game and start hovering with six minutes left in the round are just as annoying to directors as ones who are still finishing a hand as the round is called. The ideal players play in tempo and listen for the round to be called and then make their move. Oh, for a perfect world. :)

[bearmum]

I believe this particular forum is about offline or ftf bridge.  I attended a director refresher course at a recent NABC and we had a discussion about slow play.  It is the ACBL position (at least from the director leading this discussion) that it is the slow players who are to be accomodated, not the fast players.  Of course extremes are not to be tolerated.  But players who rush the game and start hovering with six minutes left in the round are just as annoying to directors as ones who are still finishing a hand as the round is called.  The ideal players play in tempo and listen for the round to be called and then make their move.  Oh, for a perfect world.  :P

WHY should SLOW players (in F2F) be accommodated ?? I REALLY get annoyed :lol: with players who CONSTANTLY finish at LEAST 2 mins behind what the director allows for play ( normally 13 mins for TWO boards!!!) ALL that means is that the opps they have JUST played with -- AND their next opps -- AND their previous opps next opps ( u KNOW what I mean I hope) are under pressure to finish boards in at LEAST 2 mins LESS than anybody else :lol:

 

 

BTW I TOTALLY agree that NOBODY in f2f shuld be ALLOWED to try to move before director has CALLED the move :)

 

 

BUT with CONSISTENT slow play in f2f OR online competitions - MAYBE penalties SHOULD be applied :P

[Gweny]

;) I ADORE 5 min boards. It is fun fast furious bridge - no it is maybe not "real" bridge or "expert" bridge... it is fun fast furious bridge. It is maybe "cowboy" bridge where you ride hard and worry after if you miss xyz.

 

I agree frosty. People do NOT read. it is almost like we need conditions of contest acceptance prior to sign up tee hee.

 

I also agree with bearmum... why must we rate our tournaments at speed of slowest pairs?

 

My solution is keep close eye on how many tables is finish. when I get to 5% or less remaining then we move to next round/do not add time. if it is troublesome round with 2 slam bidding boards and 20 tables is not finish yet then we add time. This is not yielding to slowest pair this is good management.

 

To address this slowest pairs problem we recently change Fun Fishys to 3 board rounds. I am happy to report this is big sucess from players and td perspective. Players is happy for now they play 6 boards prior to first cut, and impact of 1 bad board is reduce.

Tds is happy for we see FAR less adjustments since we now only see 4 rounds :-) Players is better at finishing since they do not need to do hello we play blah blah blah as much times.

 

Downside is people play less pairs. But upside is more people play more boards :-)

Our sub rates is also down.

 

I recommend you try it! you might like it and see some of you slow player issues go away.

[Trpltrbl]

It's hard, nearly impossible, to run SpeedBall tourneys with random players on BBO. At least for now, a lot of people entering don't even know what it is. Then you got players from parts of the world with older pc's and really bad connections, slowing stuff down. And then you have the players who slowplay bad contracts, and it will take time to filter them out.

Adjusting nearly every brd every round should tell you that.

Speedball is different bridge, I know people, on BBO and real life, who will take very much time thinking about every hand, and are always slow.

Come play rubberbridge with me someday, we play about 100 brds in 2 hours :(

Time is money :)

 

Mike :D

[Shrike]

I believe this particular forum is about offline or ftf bridge.  I attended a director refresher course at a recent NABC and we had a discussion about slow play.  It is the ACBL position (at least from the director leading this discussion) that it is the slow players who are to be accomodated, not the fast players.  Of course extremes are not to be tolerated.  But players who rush the game and start hovering with six minutes left in the round are just as annoying to directors as ones who are still finishing a hand as the round is called.  The ideal players play in tempo and listen for the round to be called and then make their move.  Oh, for a perfect world.  :D

I think you'd have a hard time showing that it is the ACBL's position that slow players should be accomodated. The circumstance you describe -- players pushing ahead of the scheduled changes -- has nothing to do with playing slowly, it is about playing quickly (and some other things). Actual slow play is the scourge of a TD's existence, in the ACBL as (I suspect) everywhere else. I cannot remember a tournament (I directed ACBL f2f tourneys for a few years) when slow play was not the subject of discussion among the directors; I cannot remember fast play being cited as a problem even once.

 

There is no question that controlling slow play is difficult, even when the players are right in front of you. Even in the fast pairs at NABC's, a 5-minute-per-board event, slow players enter and do what you'd expect -- they play slowly. (I once played in the fast pairs with a partner who needed a smoking break pretty much every round; we just about managed it, but sometimes we came up against pairs whom even we couldn't catch up.)

 

Until the sanctioning bodies are willing to slap penalties on slow players early and often -- and we know that will not happen -- players will continue to behave as if it is their right to spend just as much time as is allotted to everyone else, plus two minutes. As directors, we recognize this, but that doesn't mean we're accomodating it.

[keylime]

I remember playing a fast pairs event where it was 5 mins a board, and got done at the SAME time as the REGULAR event. Needless to say, I played one session and didn't complete the next - furthermore they couldn't control the conventions allowed (had a multi bidder, a Wilkosz bidder, and a LOS that wasn't pre-alerted to boot). Lovely the ACBL at times....