When is a board "started"?

[VixTD]

Our club has started using a timer to control speed of play. It has a buzzer which sounds two minutes before the end of the round is due, which serves as a warning that no new boards are to be started from that point.

 

At what point should a board be considered to have been started? Is it when the cards are withdrawn from the board, when a player looks at their cards, when the first call is made, or some other time?

 

Rules which may help are:

[Definitions] Auction – 1.The process of determining the contract by means of successive calls. It begins when the first call is made.

[17A] The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner withdraws his cards from the board.

[helene_t]

The two paragraphs are not (automatically) applicable here. They were written for other purposes.

 

I would use 17A, though.

[bluejak]

It is a club regulation. The club should expand the regulation to clarify what ti means by started.

 

Of course, it is a much stronger regulation anyway than in general use: nearly everyone else allows boards to be started until the move is called. So I suggest the most lenient application possible of "started".

[blackshoe]

We've had timers for a while at the clubs here. IME, if you aren't watchful, you get things like, thirty seconds after "don't start any new boards", players pulling their cards out and saying "Let's play it. The TD won't notice." Absent a clear regulation, the other side of the coin is the TD who looks at your table the instant the timer announcement is made, sees cards out but no bids on the table, and makes you put the hand away.

 

So, absent a clear regulation, I would argue that 17A defines "start of a board", but I would strongly recommend each club clearly specify, in writing, what is meant by "start of a board".

[VixTD]

Of course it's up to the club to decide - that's the problem.

 

Up until now we've left it up to the director whether or not to use the clock, and how to interpret this regulation, but now the committee are pressing for more consistent use of it.

 

A significant minority in the club like to interpret the "start" as being when the opening lead is faced. I think this would be disastrous. It would allow any pair who are approaching the two-minute deadline and making a hash of the bidding to prolong the auction until the buzzer sounds and thus avoid playing the board.

 

Another vocal minority think that as the time allocated for the bidding and play of a board is seven minutes, the buzzer should sound seven minutes before the end of the round, as anyone who hasn't started by that time will not have time to complete the board and so delay the game for everyone else.

 

I think either removal of cards, looking at the cards, or making the first call should signal the start for this purpose. I don't really mind which, but I think that allowing them two minutes to do a seven-minute job is as generous as it should get. I suppose someone could take a look at an unbiddable hand as dealer and feign a long think until the buzzer sounds if we chose the last of these, but I don't think it's a real worry.

 

I had thought there was a definition of the start of the board in the rules which we could use to avoid argument, but maybe I was imagining it, or maybe it was in the last version. I have just learned that the committee, in my absence, has endorsed the opening lead interpretation. I thought I'd find out what other clubs do before I go and argue with them.

[helene_t]

Strongly agree that it would be a disaster to define the start of the board as after the opening lead has been faced. Even defining it as after the first call has been made could have the same effect, as someone with a difficult-to-bid hand, or a goulash hand when he didn't want a swing, could decide to get the board canceled. But I suppose that is a little far-fetched.

 

If there is a concern that two minutes is not enough, then the solution is to make it three minutes (or w/e). Not to define the start of the board differently.

[axman]

Our club has started using a timer to control speed of play. It has a buzzer which sounds two minutes before the end of the round is due, which serves as a warning that no new boards are to be started from that point.

 

At what point should a board be considered to have been started? Is it when the cards are withdrawn from the board, when a player looks at their cards, when the first call is made, or some other time?

 

Rules which may help are:

[Definitions] Auction – 1.The process of determining the contract by means of successive calls. It begins when the first call is made.

[17A] The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner withdraws his cards from the board.

GIven that it is common practice to allot 7 minutes to complete a board and the choice of the two minute buzzer the appropriate approach might be-

 

When given warning of the round ending it is a slow play infraction to start an auction** once a [two] minute warning is given. For each offending side a PP for the first offense shall be ???; second offense ???? etc

 

** even if the cards have been removed from the board

[axman]

Our club has started using a timer to control speed of play. It has a buzzer which sounds two minutes before the end of the round is due, which serves as a warning that no new boards are to be started from that point.

 

At what point should a board be considered to have been started? Is it when the cards are withdrawn from the board, when a player looks at their cards, when the first call is made, or some other time?

 

Rules which may help are:

[Definitions] Auction – 1.The process of determining the contract by means of successive calls. It begins when the first call is made.

[17A] The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner withdraws his cards from the board.

GIven that it is common practice to allot 7 minutes to complete a board and the choice of the two minute buzzer the appropriate approach might be-

 

When given warning of the round ending it is a slow play infraction to start an auction** once a [two] minute warning is given. For each offending side a PP for the first offense shall be ???; second offense ???? etc

 

** even if the cards have been removed from the board

further contemplation brings additional issues:

 

My feelings are that once a board has been started, or at a minimum an auction has started, the board should be completed. The primary consideration with respect to rmoving cards from from the board being a matter of security- it being too easy talk over the hands yet to be [otherwise] played. It being better to not present the temptation.

 

So, to provide additional impetus to avoid infracting the buzzer it seems a good idea to provide for assessing contingent PP for finishing the board after the start of the new round say in so much PP for each minute of delay.

[blackshoe]

We use three minutes, and that seems to work okay.

 

I would argue that Law 90B2 makes it clear that unduly slow play is an irregularity, an error in procedure. Law 90B allows the Director to award an adjusted score, or to postpone or cancel the play of a board. That if the Director postpones the play of a board, the session does not end until that board is played (Law 8B2). That the laws generally consider that a board scheduled to be played should be played if at all possible (there isn't a specific law that says this, but it seems to me to be the sense I get from the laws as a whole). That a board once started should be played to completion, not interrupted and delayed (again, the laws as a whole). That if the TD (in person or by proxy via a clock) tells players to not start a board, they should not do so (Law 90B8). Finally, that a board is started when any player takes his hand out of the board (Law 17A).

 

So I would argue for a regulation that requires the TD to postpone the play of a board which has not been started (i.e., on which no player has drawn his hand from the board) when the clock "dings", that specifies penalties for players who do start a board after the "ding"*, that requires the TD, whenever possible, to provide for a "late play" of any board postponed, and that in cases where play of the board is not possible, the Director is to apply Laws 84, 85, 90B, and 12C2 (artificial adjusted score), noting that the law does not provide for the possibility of "not played" which is commonly given in these cases. I would think it a good idea in writing such a regulation to consider the case of one or both contestants "declining" the late play for whatever reason - in such cases, the contestant(s) concerned should be considered directly at fault for purposes of adjustment under Law 12C2.

 

*I'm not saying there should be "automatic" penalties, just that players who willfully start a board they shouldn't start should be penalized. I would leave the amount of such penalty to the TD's discretion, and note that there may be mitigating circumstances - for example, in at least one venue here it is difficult to see the clock and difficult to hear it, so sometimes players aren't aware that it's "dinged". I would also suggest that players who do not complete the last board of a round before the round is called be warned that they need to "catch up" during the next round, and that if a board must be canceled in a later round, they will be considered at fault if they did not start the relevant round on time.

[Pig Trader]

A significant minority in the club like to interpret the "start" as being when the opening lead is faced. I think this would be disastrous.

 

I agree

 

I have just learned that the committee, in my absence, has endorsed the opening lead interpretation. I thought I'd find out what other clubs do before I go and argue with them.

 

They are mad. I have managed to stop this practice at at least a couple of clubs using your argument ...

 

It would allow any pair who are approaching the two-minute deadline and making a hash of the bidding to prolong the auction until the buzzer sounds and thus avoid playing the board.

 

.... so I hope you give them a piece of your mind!

 

The last time I was instructed to "take an average" in these circumstances, which was several years ago, I was waiting for some time for my LHO to lead against a slam we had reached when the TD came. Had the opening lead been made, I'd have claimed 12 tricks in five seconds before even playing from dummy for an outright Top.

 

Clocks and timers are all very well but there is no substitute for the TD using discretion for when to call a move.

 

Barrie

[gwnn]

Are there really that many pairs who would like to avoid playing a board? They did go to a bridge club for a reason did they not? ;)

[jeremy69]

Well, slow play can be a curse at clubs but here the remedy maybe worse than the problem. I think a sensible committee having decided on a buzzer system would give guidance, not absolute instruction, to the director as to what he/she should do if players are still playing at the end of a round. It will clearly cause great resentment if a board is taken away after is has been started (and I think the law makes clear when that is) and surely the aim is to make players complete the round in time more often and not remove boards unless it is a last resort. Typically the "innocent" side is losing 4% of their duplicate as well. Most good directors will know where the slow play "areas" in their duplicate are likely to be and if the buzzer is allowed to do its work together with judicious hurrying by the director then that will solve 98% of the problem and the remainder may need to be settled by warning then fine and even possibly a word to the offending player by a committee member I am sure this will be better than applying some arbitrary and draconian regulation.

[blackshoe]

Are there really that many pairs who would like to avoid playing a board? They did go to a bridge club for a reason did they not? :)

It may not be a case of "would like to avoid". People do make appointments immediately after, or shortly after, the time they expect the game to be done. If the choice is between missing the appointment or missing out on playing the board, well, often that's no choice at all.

[VixTD]

Are there really that many pairs who would like to avoid playing a board? They did go to a bridge club for a reason did they not?

Yes, they did, but they want to play boards under normal conditions. A pair starting their last board a little late and just getting into a cue-bidding sequence don't want to have to be forced to forego their scientific bidding methods and just punt a slam because the clock is ticking down. Neither do their opponents want to be rushed into making an opening lead.

 

I agree with a lot of what has been said. The regulations should not be written in ways that remove control from the director, and once a board has been started legitimately it should not be stopped.

 

Of course, the typical club bridge player wants to start play at 19:30, sit NS, play 27 or 28 boards (no sit-outs, pass-outs or averages), take as long as they like over the bidding, play and post-mortem, take time to go to the bar or outside for a smoke, have a conversation with their friends AND finish by 22:30. (I expect they'd also like a quart of beer in their pint pot.)

 

The committee is trying to introduce the timer to cut down complaints about late finishing. They accept it is going to lead to the occasional lost board, but only (in my experience so far) one every few sessions. It should enable players to see how they are progressing in the round and let them see if they have time to discuss the hand, go for a fag etc.

 

I'm not the principal director at the club, I only direct about 5-10% of games, but for what it's worth my approach is to:

 

-define the start of a board as the time when the cards have been removed from the board

-allow completion of boards started before the buzzer

-award A/A for the first board missed as a result of slow play (unless one side was obviously at fault)

-award A+/A- for the second board missed by the same late-starting pair

-fine anyone for disregarding the buzzer

-retain the option to override the timer if necessary

 

This may allow slow players to get away with too much, and fail to reward the innocent with sufficient A+es, but I think one should be reluctant to apply penalties in club games. It's not always easy for a playing director to apportion blame when a table goes over time. I also need to be careful with the last point. I've taken boards away from myself in the past, but I need to make sure it doesn't look as if I'm adjusting the clock to save myself a board.

[mycroft]

The only thing I'd add to that last (apart from start at 1930, take all the time they need, and finish at *2215* (oh, and never have to wait for the next pair taking all the time *they* needed)) is that averages/no plays should only be assigned where late plays are impossible (FVO impossible including "it's way too late we're going home"). The option to late-play should be available, if it won't unduly disrupt everyone else (i.e. the LPers aren't the last ones finishing their regular board, they have 2+ late plays, and so on).

[Finch]

Surely one of the advantages of being at your local club is that you get to know the players. Most clubs have repeated slow play offenders and it seems right to me that the TD keeps the discretion of when to keep remove boards or not, using the buzzer as a guide.

 

It's really irritating if you arrive at the table late because the people you are following finished the previous round late, then your opponents take a long time over the first board, then the second board gets taken away... and you are the fastest pair in the room.

[bluejak]

Well, folks, tonight the TD took the board away after two rounds of bidding over my vehement objections that it was illegal. Slightly different insofar as this club has no stated policy: I do not like a policy that allows illegal actions by TDs but at least you know where you are. When I said it was illegal the TD said I had not led. Thinking back, and my memory is not that good, I believe this is the first time this has ever happened to me.

[blackshoe]

I would have asked this TD to show me the law that allows him (her?) to take away the board.

 

Did you get to finish it later? If not, what score was awarded?

[bluejak]

No. Ave/Ave.

[PeterE]

Thinking back, and my memory is not that good, I believe this is the first time this has ever happened to me.

Well, as Frances said: "Surely one of the advantages of being at your local club is that you get to know the players." ;) ;) B)

[pran]

Thinking back, and my memory is not that good, I believe this is the first time this has ever happened to me.

Well, as Frances said: "Surely one of the advantages of being at your local club is that you get to know the players." ;) :lol: B)

And the director! :rolleyes:

[McBruce]

I used to have a clock program that beeped out the first four notes of the Dragnet theme at four minutes left in the round... :rolleyes:

 

I think that players who have played the first two boards of a 20 minute round in 16 minutes should be at least vaguely aware of that and strive to avoid delays on the third. But, in making the rounds to see who is in time trouble, when I tell people who are bidding their last board that they need to finish quickly, I am often ignored and the pace seems to slow down further. Drives me nuts, almost as much as the player (there are thousands of this type out there) who finishes a round five minutes after it is called and goes off past those waiting to take his seat to get coffee, saying "I'm a fast player." When I reply "so prove it and THEN get your coffee," I get called a dictator.

 

Every TD should have a spiel, much like the OLOOT spiel, that gets said to a table that finishes late. As soon as they have a result, I tell them something like "you've used 26 minutes on a 20 minute round, so you need to catch up over the next round or two. No need to play 'fast' -- just minimize the delays between deals and rounds and you'll be caught up by round six." When players claim the other side was at fault, I tell them that they needed to tell me that when the delay took place. I find the key is to be understanding and positive instead of accusing and sarcastic. (And have a break or two during the game so habitual offenders can get caught up.)

 

Illegal or not, it's just bad customer relations to take a board away that has been started.

[chastibb]

This is a quote from the EBU White Book that I used when TD’ing for slow play

 

<<Quote ..81.4.2 Pairs events

If the TD is unable to establish which pair is to blame, then he should award average for each board removed. A non-offending pair is entitled to A+, and an offending pair receives A– (see #12.1.1).

A TD is entitled to be stricter with a pair known to be slow. Inexperienced players, the infirm and the elderly should be treated less strictly.Unquote>>

 

In a club where you have TD’d for many years you “know” the players that play slowly and it’s the TD’s job to watch these players.

 

They used to get one warning and if slow play continued a board was removed. It is in black and white that you can do this (see above) and one of the posters edits this book.

 

The score assigned for slow play was as quoted above so how folk can say its “illegal” is beyond me.

 

After applying this remedy the slow players soon speeded up and eventually "slow play" went away.

 

EBU land

[VixTD]

They used to get one warning and if slow play continued a board was removed. It is in black and white that you can do this (see above) and one of the posters edits this book.

 

The score assigned for slow play was as quoted above so how folk can say its “illegal” is beyond me.

But the board that the White Book suggests the TD remove from the slow players is not the one they are currently playing, it is one of the boards they have yet to play. It is the removal of boards which have been started legitimately that people are suggesting is illegal.

[VixTD]

Surely one of the advantages of being at your local club is that you get to know the players. Most clubs have repeated slow play offenders and it seems right to me that the TD keeps the discretion of when to keep remove boards or not, using the buzzer as a guide.

 

It's really irritating if you arrive at the table late because the people you are following finished the previous round late, then your opponents take a long time over the first board, then the second board gets taken away... and you are the fastest pair in the room.

I agree with this, the timer should be the servant of the TD and not his master, and I will not cede control of the game to a machine. I tell the players that they don't move for the next round until I tell them to (although they do have to obey the two-minute warning without being told), and I will deviate from my timekeeping rules for (what I consider to be) good cause.

 

Some players accept the loss of a board with good grace, even though they are not at fault, and others will fight tooth and nail for their right to play every board, even though they were probably the cause of the delay. I think the committee are keen to introduce a clear rule that applies to all.

 

I used to direct county tournaments where there was a very well-known expert player who had become very slow in his old age. The pair following him complained with some justification that they were at a disadvantage to everyone else because they were always starting late and thus had less time than everyone else to play a round. Even if I removed a board it wasn't long before they fell behind again. At least I was a non-playing director and could keep an eye on them.