SLOW Play USA Trials

[chudecek]

I have spent the last several days watching (painfully) what is described

as expert IMP bridge, but is actually a contest involving unusual methods,

furious overbidding to minus scores, phantom saves ad infinitum, director calls,

system inquiries, and worst of all, interminably slow play by some contestants,

to the detriment of the spectators, most contestants, and the game itself.

 

I propose two fixes to remedy nearly all of this:

 

1. Computerized timing of bidding and play, with any contestant limited to

an AVERAGE time of 90 seconds bidding and play per board. Over his 48 minutes

allowed in a typical 32-board session, he is punished one IMP per minute overtime,

and rewarded 0.2 IMPS for every minute under his allocated time.

 

More on the mechanics of this later in this post.

 

2. All contestants play exactly the same system and playing conventions.

 

More on the mechanics of this in a FUTURE post.

 

 

Sixteen years ago (on OK Bridge) I proposed a method for computerized

tracking of time consumed by each player. Basically, the computer records

time in tenths of a second for each bid and play. Furthermore, the previous

TWO bids and plays are delivered simultaneously to the next player to act,

making it more difficult for a player to know which player was slow.

 

To do this, each player has a device (networked laptop computers will do)

to enter his bids and plays, just like online bridge. The device also displays

the consumed time over or under allocation for that player.An X-shaped screen

prevents any player from watching another during bidding and play.

 

And please don’t bring up “what about system explanations?” because that’s

where Item 2 above comes in (and there are other ways to handle that).

 

With computers where they are today, with Bill Gates involved with BBO,

and with scads of players into computer programming, this is a snap.

 

It has the added advantage of preventing revokes or insufficient bids.

And perhaps provoking some heated discussion!

 

Carl Hudecek

[Phil]

Hi, welcome to the Forums.

 

I nominate this for "worst post ever in the history of BBF".

[CSGibson]

I could get behind what you are proposing if it were one tournament, like the Yeh bros or the Cavendish. As a systematic change to all bridge, I hate it. Why should a pair that has been playing precision, and spent countless hours perfecting their system, suddenly be forced to play an arbitrary system? Simply because you find artificiality displeasing?

 

Your suggestion is neither practical nor likely ever to be adopted for mainstream competition. It fundamentally changes the game in the most dramatic fashion since it was invented to put such severe system restrictions and the equivalent of an egg timer in the game environment.

[Fluffy]

lol

[aguahombre]

Since Carl is a respected voice from the past, I merely assume he was putting us on.

 

Or, it is not Carl.

Edited May 17, 2011 by aguahombre

[ArtK78]

The idea of using computerized bidding boxes and recording the time used by each player has some merit. The exact manner in which that would be accomplished and the amount of time alloted to each player needs more work.

 

As for system restrictions, I believe that has been discussed a number of times and the conclusion is that it has no merit at this level of competition.

[chudecek]

As I said, this post is to address the issue of slow play in Trials.

 

The issue of what systems to be allowed at various levels of competition

is to be addressed LATER, in a separate topic.

 

I could get behind what you are proposing if it were one tournament, like the Yeh bros or the Cavendish. As a systematic change to all bridge, I hate it. Why should a pair that has been playing precision, and spent countless hours perfecting their system, suddenly be forced to play an arbitrary system? Simply because you find artificiality displeasing?

 

Your suggestion is neither practical nor likely ever to be adopted for mainstream competition. It fundamentally changes the game in the most dramatic fashion since it was invented to put such severe system restrictions and the equivalent of an egg timer in the game environment.

[hrothgar]

Hi Carl

 

Nice to see you again...

 

Fond memories of various discussions on the OKBridge mailing list...

[pooltuna]

Bummer of a birthmark, Hal...er I mean Carl [apologies to Gary Larsen]

[MickyB]

Hi, welcome to the Forums.

 

I nominate this for "worst post ever in the history of the internet".

 

FYP

[olien]

as for item #1, I do agree with penalizing players for slow play. The WBF already does this, and the introduction of timers would make it easier to assess blame for slow play. Also, shouldn't the timer be given to a pair rather than an individual player? This would make the most sense since we're not punishing individual players. However, I do not agree with "rewarding" players for fast play. It basically makes bridge a speed contest. I agree with bridge being a timed event, but what other "mind sports" reward players for fast play? In chess, a player is not rewarded for playing faster, it won't change who wins or loses, but with your proposal a team could win by playing faster than the opponents even if the opponents play within the time limits.

 

and regarding item #2, why impose strict system restrictions? If we're using computers, why not just implement the FD card format and have players submit their systems in advance (obviously this would only be for major competitions). Then after a bid is made, the system can automatically alert and provide an explanation to the opponents. This would have the added benefit of avoiding MI cases.

 

Anyways, just some ideas. I've yet to decide if I'm in favor or opposed to the overall idea. Clearly for the majority of competitions, its the wrong idea. Part of the enjoyment for most players is the social aspect. But at the top levels (e.g. the BB or the ITT, etc) its not as important. People are there to play bridge.

[kenberg]

Well, I did go to bed last night with something like nine boards left to play. Before that there was some talk among the commentators about running off to refill cocktail glasses.

 

Still, as a spec, I'm ok with the pace. I would sometimes try to put myself in the place of the players, sometimes I would try to double dummy it, sometimes I would take a hint from the commentators and refill the wine glass. And sometimes I would even chat a bit with my wife.

 

There were moments. Half way through the play of one hand, after a competitive auction, declarer asked one opponent what it would have meant if the opponent's partner had (though he hadn't) bid 1NT during the auction. I wondered if "It would have meant that he thought he might be able to take seven tricks in no trump" would have been an acceptable answer.

 

I'm enjoying the vu-graph show greatly, but perhaps I am just easily entertained.

[jjbrr]

OP was definitely not the worst on the internet, and i could easily find several worse on this forum. the first paragraph is awesome, but the rest has some merit.

 

though the idea of the OP describes something, imo, that isn't bridge and is a game i wouldn't particularly be interested in playing, i think it's not far from what would be required to make bridge a mainstream, marketable source of entertainment for the general public.

 

to put bridge on tv, for example, the systems of the players would have to be easily understood and there would almost certainly have to be a "shot clock" to keep the game moving.

 

but i'm in favor of interesting methods and excellent card play even if we have to sacrifice alacrity, so i think the points raised are a step in the wrong direction.

 

edit: the computer stuff is a miss though, as has been discussed extensively.

[inquiry]

Carl,

 

Welcome to the forum. I suspect this, your first post here, will generate a lotof comments, many negative (well, mine below included).

 

Let me start with the concept that all participants play the same system. For individual event, forced system is of course fine. For other events forget it.Who cares if spectators understand the bidding. The participants are not bidding/playing the hands for spectator enjoyment, but rather to meet personal goals. They use whatever legal bidding systems that make that most likely for them. This is not a bridge world bidding contest where all the experts bid the same system that you are VERY familiar with being an expert panelist for many years. Also, system develop is very important part of bridge since its beginning. I don't suspect that will change anytime soon. Improvements to bidding methods, as tested at the table in the heat of battle, is something that many players and spectators enjoy about the game.

 

The timing suggestion suffers the very SAME problem. The participants are not playing the hand to make the spectators happy. We are guest who get the"pleasure" of watching them play without cost. They play at whatever speed to maximize their chances to do well. I will admit the timing rules donot apply very well due to a lot of problems, some of which include getting explanationsof the opponents' methods (bidding and carding) during play. But a 90 secondrule per hand (so all hands have to be finished in six minutes is non-sense.Even the careless speedball tournaments on BBO allow 7 MINUTES per board ( 17%more time per hand than you suggest). Increasing the time might alleviate some of the concern, but then "Gamemanship" would enter. Players who havea lot of time remaining would play out hands to add time to the opponents' clock rather than claiming quickly. Or play a complex line in a simple straight foward position to force their opponents to waste time in an effort to maximize time rewards for them.

 

I suspect a better solution for "spectators" is to look at thevugraph record "AFTER" the event is over. This removes the "slow play, slow bidding" from the equation. You can see the bids and plays at whatever speed you want. This also could handle the unknown system stuff,especially if someone add useful comments to the vugraph file -- perhaps even after the play is over. If Bridge is ever to be a TV sport, it will not belive, but rather tape-delayed with such time editing, and afterwards addition of commentator input. This also solves the director calls and appeal stuff. When a hand which goes to committee shows up, because of the delayed nature of the "broadcast" the commentators can give the result of the appealetc at the time the hand is played. So it seems the solution to your problemsas "spectator" is not draconian rule changes on the players, but better use of existing technology (vugraph achieves or perhaps in future, timeedited TV broadcast). For me, time is not a great issue, because I can multitask while waiting for a bid or play and often do.

[aguahombre]

I am grateful to be able to see the action, slow or fast, thanks to BBO. I am not "entitled" to be less pained watching it. I am not entitled to be less confused by the wide variety of systems and carding in use.

 

Unless the players at that level, or the people in charge think more should be done with respect to time constraints or system restrictions, discussion by us is pointless.

 

Inquiry, above, beat me to this. So just consider it a condensed version.

Edited May 17, 2011 by aguahombre

[helene_t]

Slow play on vugraph is a luxury problem.

 

You are watching in on the computer rather than your TV so if you really lose patience you can always play tetris for a minute. Or chat with your bbo friends who are watching the same match. Discussing "how would you have bid/lead/played as South?" with your regular partner while watching vugraph together is one of the coolest way of working on your partnership.

 

Compared to the commercials that you have on TV, surely delays in play is a much smaller nuisance. For one, slow play gives the commentators time to discuss and even to think before they write. Believe me, it is extremely hard to be a commentator when the players are playing fast. The slower the play the better the commentary.

 

Time limits have some merits in pairs events where dozens of other pairs are waiting for a single slow pair. In teams events it should only be enforced in extreme situations. IMHO yesterday's match came nowhere close to that point.

[dustinst22]

This post was obviously made with tongue in cheek.

[JLOGIC]

As a participant, I must say I am torn on the slow play stuff. On the one hand, it's supposed to be a timed event, however penalties are not really imposed. On the other hand, I feel like this is the finals, and it's ok for everyone to take as much time as they want. TBH it is almost distractingly slow for me, perhaps a sign of my inexperience at this level (I have only played one other final of a national team game, and 16 board sets were taking forever then also). I'm not sure what my point is, but I think I am ok with the speed, I just have to get used to it.

[paulg]

The players are going to be under strict time control in the Bermuda Bowl so the same should really be in place for the trials. The team to select is the one that can win at the rate required, not the team that can win given unlimited time.

 

Although I know the pace has been slow I have not seen how much overtime the pairs have been taking, but I think it was the Spingold a couple of years ago when Granovetter and Rubin were barred from partnering each other after multiple slow play warnings. So there are remedies.

 

But it will always appear slow on vugraph. I have no problem with that. Just enjoy the commentary!

[rduran1216]

There was a point where moss took 10 minutes to play one card. Next time you're at a table, imagine yourself waiting 1 minute before playing a card, and it seems like an eternity. I know I'd be extremely distracted by that pace, kudos to people who have the patience for that.

[aguahombre]

Note Justin's post within a half hour of the segment start time. Even if he might be on the bench to start, this is impressive. More on his "class act" during these trials later.

[Tomi2]

Slow play on vugraph is a luxury problem.

 

You are watching in on the computer rather than your TV so if you really lose patience you can always play tetris for a minute. Or chat with your bbo friends who are watching the same match. Discussing "how would you have bid/lead/played as South?" with your regular partner while watching vugraph together is one of the coolest way of working on your partnership.

 

Compared to the commercials that you have on TV, surely delays in play is a much smaller nuisance. For one, slow play gives the commentators time to discuss and even to think before they write. Believe me, it is extremely hard to be a commentator when the players are playing fast. The slower the play the better the commentary.

 

Time limits have some merits in pairs events where dozens of other pairs are waiting for a single slow pair. In teams events it should only be enforced in extreme situations. IMHO yesterday's match came nowhere close to that point.

 

totaly agree to this - there have been lots of very interesting deals this week and I have spend lots of time skyping with some of my reg partners during the vug, every time the auction/play took longer, we had time to discuss the boards (how would have the auction gone for us, what cards would we play, what signal would we give..."

[chudecek]

You misinterpreted my proposed time rule. The "90 seconds per hand" is an AVERAGE.

One could take 30 minutes for a single bid or play, as long as he consumed less than

18 minutes on ALL of his other bids and plays in 32 boards.

 

A total time of 48x4 = 192 minutes is 3 hours and 12 minutes for a 32-board set.

Far more than adequate for most players. I have seen 28 boards played in Cayne

matches in less than 90 minutes (HALF of the time limit I have proposed).

 

To have some of the players dawdle, to the detriment and irritation of others

is not right and is not fair. Ninety percent of the best players currently and

historically would find my time restriction more than adequate, and the 10% would

learn to speed up, or play well enough to accept a penalty of a few IMPS.

 

Awarding a trifling bonus for beating the time limit would have "educational"

benefit for the slowpokes. After all, some alacrity is part of the game, and is

indicative of what bridge tournaments are supposed to measure - bridge skill.

Slow play is the reason chess clocks were invented, and why we have time limits

on most competitive sports such as football, basketball, boxing and even golf.

 

 

Carl,

 

Welcome to the forum. I suspect this, your first post here, will generate a lotof comments, many negative (well, mine below included).

 

Let me start with the concept that all participants play the same system. For individual event, forced system is of course fine. For other events forget it.Who cares if spectators understand the bidding. The participants are not bidding/playing the hands for spectator enjoyment, but rather to meet personal goals. They use whatever legal bidding systems that make that most likely for them. This is not a bridge world bidding contest where all the experts bid the same system that you are VERY familiar with being an expert panelist for many years. Also, system develop is very important part of bridge since its beginning. I don't suspect that will change anytime soon. Improvements to bidding methods, as tested at the table in the heat of battle, is something that many players and spectators enjoy about the game.

 

The timing suggestion suffers the very SAME problem. The participants are not playing the hand to make the spectators happy. We are guest who get the"pleasure" of watching them play without cost. They play at whatever speed to maximize their chances to do well. I will admit the timing rules donot apply very well due to a lot of problems, some of which include getting explanationsof the opponents' methods (bidding and carding) during play. But a 90 secondrule per hand (so all hands have to be finished in six minutes is non-sense.Even the careless speedball tournaments on BBO allow 7 MINUTES per board ( 17%more time per hand than you suggest). Increasing the time might alleviate some of the concern, but then "Gamemanship" would enter. Players who havea lot of time remaining would play out hands to add time to the opponents' clock rather than claiming quickly. Or play a complex line in a simple straight foward position to force their opponents to waste time in an effort to maximize time rewards for them.

 

I suspect a better solution for "spectators" is to look at thevugraph record "AFTER" the event is over. This removes the "slow play, slow bidding" from the equation. You can see the bids and plays at whatever speed you want. This also could handle the unknown system stuff,especially if someone add useful comments to the vugraph file -- perhaps even after the play is over. If Bridge is ever to be a TV sport, it will not belive, but rather tape-delayed with such time editing, and afterwards addition of commentator input. This also solves the director calls and appeal stuff. When a hand which goes to committee shows up, because of the delayed nature of the "broadcast" the commentators can give the result of the appealetc at the time the hand is played. So it seems the solution to your problemsas "spectator" is not draconian rule changes on the players, but better use of existing technology (vugraph achieves or perhaps in future, timeedited TV broadcast). For me, time is not a great issue, because I can multitask while waiting for a bid or play and often do.

[Phil]

Carl, a standard amount of time for a pairs event is 7.5 minutes / board. At a 90 second average per hand per player that is still 6 minutes per board. Your suggestion consists of making the trials to determine our national team to be played at a faster pace than a regular club game. I hope you realize how ludicrous this is, and how difficult it is for anyone to take you seriously.

 

Let's get past this idea of 6 minutes per board. What is reasonable? Is there a fair amount of time?

 

In the 3rd segment yesterday, one of the tables took 110 minutes to play 9 boards (I was timing it). That equates to 12 minutes per hand, which is beyond anyone's measure of timely play.

 

I like the idea of sensor pads or scanners to determine who is at fault. I also like the idea of gauging the time not as an absolute of the table, but relative to the pair holding the same cards at another table.

[awm]

Something really should be done about this, at least to more strictly enforce the time regulations already in place.

 

The same problem comes up in the Spingold and Vanderbilt, and even in some of the top-flight pairs events. The people who play slow all to often end up gaining an advantage, as their opponents are unused to this pace and either have trouble concentrating during the long delays (it's easy to forget what's going on in the hand when your opponent takes ten minutes to play a card) and/or are unused to having the director at the table telling them to play faster (even though penalties are almost never handed out). It also creates problems in long events, since if one team plays slow opponents and finishes at 3 AM, they are at a disadvantage the next day against a team that finished at a normal time and got more rest.

 

Bridge is officially a timed event, and I don't think the winner should necessarily be the team that would play better if given unlimited time, if the same team is unable to play comparably well within the officially required time limits.

 

With that said, chudecek's solution seems draconian and ridiculous, and I'm not sure we'd call such a game bridge any more once no one is allowed to play even the methods commonly allowed in club games, nor allowed to take the time per hand commonly permitted in club games.