SLOW Play USA Trials

[Tomi2]

I do not think bridge is a timed event, imo the time limts are just there to prevent "endless" team sessions and to make a pairs tourney run in some way... but its not the aim to find somebody who plays the best bridge in xy minutes (only in speedball this is)

 

if you want to play timed events, then come to Germany - here our tds apply those penalties for slow play as often as possible.

 

this leads to beeing declarer in 4hearts doubled and td saying "you have 48 sec to finish this board"

this leads to endless td calls "opps are playing slowly and i want to prevent the penalty fo us" OR "we have not called but THEY were playing much slower than us" - both create a very friendly atmosphere at the tables and fastens up the events...

or some see others leaving the playing area late - call td "didn't you see they were late? we got that penalty, why did you miss them?"

 

ah yes, and if you have a car accident and miss one segment of 16 boards the td picks his calculator to estimate the 27 VP ((16*8.75-5)/5) penalty for you and you can start regaining the imps by going into the 2nd session with -3*16 imps (sry, have no calculator here)

[TMorris]

It's strange. I often watch US events in particular on vugraph and think how slow they are to the extent that I switch off & do something more interesting. These trials were I thought actually played at a reasonable pace. In comparison to many US events on vugraph they were IMO speedy.

 

There are people who I will not watch on vugraph due to how slow they are (Muller & Feldman spring to mind - I'd rather watch paint dry) but not in these trials. There were a few long pauses but not too many and plenty of quick claims which are seen far too rarely.

 

The Bathhurst team in particular seemed refreshingly fast.

[bluecalm]

I do not think bridge is a timed event, imo the time limts are just there to prevent "endless" team sessions and to make a pairs tourney run in some way... but its not the aim to find somebody who plays the best bridge in xy minutes (only in speedball this is)

 

That's the trick. I can play much better if I play slower and if I take one hour for every play then my cardplay will be on elite level. This is true for most semi-decent players.

The system as it is now punish the players who feel obligation to play reasonably fast and reward players who take 3 minutes for every card (we have some of those in Poland).

As to the pace of USBC finals I really don't think it was particularly slow but of course it's subjective impression of mine.

Bridge doesn't benefit from sponsor's money who want the game to be fast so why make it this way ? Just make it fair and enjoyable for all which require everybody having similar amount of time to use.

[chudecek]

The players in the later rounds of these big events use laptop computers or touch-screen tablets to enter their bids, plays and alerts. The auction and tricks are displayed on each person's screen, along with supplementary information such as alert explanations, session results, and time consumed.

 

This system SAVES money by preventing revokes, "tempo" issues; and director calls. The sponsoring organization also saves money on cards, bidding boxes, private scores, pencils, committees, and directors. The computer cost is amortized over a couple of years and dozens of uses.

 

Have we been watching the same event? The bridge has been absolutely awesome, high presure, in-your-face, tough-as-nails bridge; and I've loved every minute of it.

 

Standardising systems would be ridiculous. In any case, there are far too many combinations of auctions to ever properly document what they all mean. Looking at the latest and greatest methods that the top experts are using is one of the most enjoyable aspects of vugraph.

 

I tend to agree on the slow play bit though, but I'm not sure that computer-based play and/or automated timing systems are really the answer unless the latter is very unobtrusive and isn't going to further slow the game down. I guess the table could be fitted with some sort of optical or proximity reader to automatically capture each card as it's played and I imagine bidding boxes would need to be replaced by some other system to capture bids electronically; but what ever system is employed it must not interfere with the essence of our game which is deck of 52 cards held in our sweaty hands in the heat of battle. I expect that if players have to play their cards in a specfic location on the table and receive some sort of beep or light acknowledging that it's been detected, it would be incredibly distracting and I can't see it happening.

 

For vugraphed events, the BBO system could be employed as a time monitor of sorts with some software modifications, but even that won't be completely fail-safe as the tempo in which the operator enters bids and plays rarely coincides with the actually tempo at the table for several reasons. What could be workable is once a BBO pause during the auction reaches a certain threshold (something like 5 seconds) a pop-up prompts the operator to confirm who is in the tank and then starts ascribing time to that player. For tempo during the play, I'm quite confident that any variation between reality and operator entry would be immaterial. At the end of the session, if slow play penalties need to be handed-out, there will be a pretty accurate representation of who soaked-up more than their fair share of the time.

 

It's hard to imgaine that a perfect system could be devised as you can't really cater for the scenario of declarer prolonging the play to make the defence think they have a problem and then the defence wind up having a whole bunch of time ascribed to them which wouldn't have happened if declarer just claimed. Although I guess you could have GIB determine the point where declarer has the rest of the tricks on all layouts and then all time from there until the claim gets ascribed to declarer.

[mrdct]

The players in the later rounds of these big events use laptop computers or touch-screen tablets to enter their bids, plays and alerts. The auction and tricks are displayed on each person's screen, along with supplementary information such as alert explanations, session results, and time consumed.

 

This system SAVES money by preventing revokes, "tempo" issues; and director calls. The sponsoring organization also saves money on cards, bidding boxes, private scores, pencils, committees, and directors. The computer cost is amortized over a couple of years and dozens of uses.

lol

[olien]

I do not think bridge is a timed event, imo the time limts are just there to prevent "endless" team sessions and to make a pairs tourney run in some way... but its not the aim to find somebody who plays the best bridge in xy minutes (only in speedball this is)

 

if you want to play timed events, then come to Germany - here our tds apply those penalties for slow play as often as possible.

 

this leads to beeing declarer in 4hearts doubled and td saying "you have 48 sec to finish this board"

this leads to endless td calls "opps are playing slowly and i want to prevent the penalty fo us" OR "we have not called but THEY were playing much slower than us" - both create a very friendly atmosphere at the tables and fastens up the events...

or some see others leaving the playing area late - call td "didn't you see they were late? we got that penalty, why did you miss them?"

 

ah yes, and if you have a car accident and miss one segment of 16 boards the td picks his calculator to estimate the 27 VP ((16*8.75-5)/5) penalty for you and you can start regaining the imps by going into the 2nd session with -3*16 imps (sry, have no calculator here)

 

 

I heard about this from a friend, about the car accident and subsequent penalties. Sounds like the german TDs are gestappo? xD

[Phil]

Although I guess you could have GIB determine the point where declarer has the rest of the tricks on all layouts and then all time from there until the claim gets ascribed to declarer.

 

Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any better, I read this.

[han]

if I take one hour for every play then my cardplay will be on elite level.

 

Double.

 

This is true for most semi-decent players.

 

Redouble!

[helene_t]

That's the trick. I can play much better if I play slower and if I take one hour for every play then my cardplay will be on elite level. This is true for most semi-decent players.

hmmm maybe I am not "most" or maybe I am not semi-decent, or maybe my assessment is wrong. But: I think the normal rate of 5-10 minutes per board is optimal for me. More time would make me worse.

 

As for first-order effects, more time would make me less likely to misthink. While most of my losses are due to short-memory lapses, and some are due to lack of knowledge and psychological insight, misthinks play a significant role as well.

 

But spending more time thinking would make my brain wear out quicker and I would start suffering from decreased short-time memory sooner.

 

At the local club I play much faster than most others and I have the impression that by doing so I intimidate partner and opps to play fast as well. So we usually end the round before most other tables and have a few minutes extra break. Usually I will not spend precious brain cells on post mortems but just switch off my brain during those minutes. This allows me to stay reasonable awake throughout the session.

[matmat]

The players in the later rounds of these big events use laptop computers or touch-screen tablets to enter their bids, plays and alerts. The auction and tricks are displayed on each person's screen, along with supplementary information such as alert explanations, session results, and time consumed.

 

This system SAVES money by preventing revokes, "tempo" issues; and director calls. The sponsoring organization also saves money on cards, bidding boxes, private scores, pencils, committees, and directors. The computer cost is amortized over a couple of years and dozens of uses.

 

This is terrible.

I can just see it now, some not-so computer savvy player taking three minutes to type in a sentence into the machine with one finger, looking for the right key to press at every letter. It would add to stress and distract the players. One of the beautiful things about bridge is that the mechanics are remarkably simple and intuitive (despite the rules,systems, and alert procedures being arcane, and play generally hard).

 

Session results? are you suggesting a shift to barometer scoring for national level events?

 

Furthermore, I am not convinced the hardware or software costs would be amortized any faster than the cost of cards, bidding boxes, and screens. We are all very spoiled by the use of BBO for free, software that would be used for this non-commercial purpose would be very unlikely to be so. What if the network gives out (like it seemed to during the Vegas broadcasts)? You still need cards, boxes, private scores, pencils etc. as backup....

 

Also, please explain how this saves $ on committees and directors? what if someone misclicks a bid? what if a system locks up or becomes sluggish in response and that causes a delay? I think it just changes the types of rulings and appeals these people would have to face. What if a computer crashes midhand?

 

I also think that this can be a source of UI. Unless the players are in different rooms, you;d be able to tell who is typing, who is thinking etc. Say p is asked about a bid and starts typing an explanation -- keyboards are loud (to be fair, though, I have little experience with screens and am not sure how much of such information can pass through those).

[matmat]

While I agree with the general principle of policing existing time limits on a session, I think that enforcing a time cap on any single play or call is ridiculous. Some instance require more thought than others, the key is that things ought to balance out in the end during a long session.

 

That said, they don't always have to; deals are random and it may happen that one side gets more tough decisions than the other.

For that reason, I would not want to use a chess countdown clock either. If you are going to use a clock, use one that tallies up the time each pair uses during a single session. You could then compare the recorded times with the other table (better comparison than with the other pair at the same table, still not ideal) or, in a pair game, with all the other pairs playing the same way.

 

heh... i think some people mentioned building in mandatory 5 or 10s period for each call? are you really suggesting that in an uncontested relay auction to, say, a slam that takes 6-7 (maybe 10?) rounds of bidding, the side that is _not_bidding_ could take up as much as two minutes of the allotted seven in the bidding alone? Great idea.

[barryallen]

While I agree with the general principle of policing existing time limits on a session, I think that enforcing a time cap on any single play or call is ridiculous. Some instance require more thought than others, the key is that things ought to balance out in the end during a long session.

 

That said, they don't always have to; deals are random and it may happen that one side gets more tough decisions than the other.

For that reason, I would not want to use a chess countdown clock either. If you are going to use a clock, use one that tallies up the time each pair uses during a single session. You could then compare the recorded times with the other table (better comparison than with the other pair at the same table, still not ideal) or, in a pair game, with all the other pairs playing the same way.

 

heh... i think some people mentioned building in mandatory 5 or 10s period for each call? are you really suggesting that in an uncontested relay auction to, say, a slam that takes 6-7 (maybe 10?) rounds of bidding, the side that is _not_bidding_ could take up as much as two minutes of the allotted seven in the bidding alone? Great idea.

 

Whilst I do not have a specific view as to whether time penalties should be used, I fully agree with your approach should a form of time penalty be used. This gives the maximum flexibility whilst addressing the issue. To me that is only half of an equation that requires solving, you then cannot leave penalties down to the officials discretion. The penalties must be mandatory based upon the proviso's inserted within the rules, removing any possible bias or interpretation. In some cases this will result in some pairs / teams being possibly hard done by, but in the overall requirement for fairness this is a price which will have to be paid and one understood by all from the onset.

[blackshoe]

At the local club I play much faster than most others and I have the impression that by doing so I intimidate partner and opps to play fast as well. So we usually end the round before most other tables and have a few minutes extra break. Usually I will not spend precious brain cells on post mortems but just switch off my brain during those minutes. This allows me to stay reasonable awake throughout the session.

 

Heh. At my local club, fast players frequently finish before the "three minute warning", stand up, and go hover over the next table, trying to push them into moving so they can sit down. They also move the boards they just played (in spite of the fact that this is technically a NS responsibility), and then the NS start asking for boards (which, again technically, aren't supposed to be moved until the round is called). On several occasions this has resulted in half the field being a full round ahead of the other half. :(

[matmat]

Heh. At my local club, fast players frequently finish before the "three minute warning", stand up, and go hover over the next table, trying to push them into moving so they can sit down. They also move the boards they just played (in spite of the fact that this is technically a NS responsibility), and then the NS start asking for boards (which, again technically, aren't supposed to be moved until the round is called). On several occasions this has resulted in half the field being a full round ahead of the other half. :(

 

 

This is what a table with cookies and goodies, removed from the playing area, is for.

[blackshoe]

This is what a table with cookies and goodies, removed from the playing area, is for.

 

We have those. Doesn't matter.

[Bbradley62]

On several occasions this has resulted in half the field being a full round ahead of the other half. :(

Our director used to call that a half-fast game.

[barmar]

Slow or not the point is that it should not be possible for one pair at the table to take significantly more time thus gaining unfair advantage.

I don't think that happens too much. For the most part, everyone in these high-level tournaments plays very deliberately. Sometimes declarer takes a full minute or more to plan the play when dummy comes down, other times 3rd hand spends a long time planning his defense. And I doubt that these players are disconcerted much when an opponent goes into the tank, since they're used to it. Instead, they take advantage of the time to do some more thinking of their own.

 

BTW, wasn't there a Venice Cup (or some other women's world championship) final whose results were reversed because of a time penalty assessed against the winning team? IIRC, the team that was awarded the win offered to play a rematch, because they didn't feel good winning this way.

[Mbodell]

I really enjoy watch football games as shown on the NFL Network's NFL Replay - this is 1 1/4 hours per game before I fast-forward past the ads. They edit out all the huddles, timeouts, coach's challenges etc. to produce a fast-paced and highly entertaining show. Imagine if the US finals were recorded live, but shown on vugraph with a start time an hour later than actual, and giving one of the commentators the ability to fast forward during the many slow spots, and if necessary, say when somebody fails to take their 9 tricks in a 3NT or makes a clever squeeze to bring in a contract, then a quick instant replay for all those watching who like to watch big hits and touchdowns.

 

There is kind of a version of this for the Silodor winners over on bridgewinners.com where Gavin is giving insight into his thought process and the issues for each and every hand from the winning final session of the Silodor pairs. The format is VuGraph style play combined with talking head video (both on the screen at the same time). In addition to being really interesting and education for players of many different levels, it is a good pace for thinking about the hands. Gavin is averaging about 4.5 to 5 minutes a hand (most videos are one 2 board round and are just under 10 minutes long). That is a super watchable format IMO.

 

If you are thinking of TV ESPN did something like that for the world series of poker where the winner would give commentary about the final table broadcast. It wasn't quite as well done as what Gavin did, because the ESPN commentary is an add on to an existing program. But it shows that TV folks have thought about presenting a game where the players spend most of their time thinking. Of course if ESPN was covering the team trials the whole thing would be boiled down to 3 or 4 hands, and likely only a single decision or 2 from each of the hands. I can just imagine Norman Chad talking about his failed marriages between talking about if Grue will be whamboozled by the preempt. Or ESPN hyping the drama as a player tanks on a finesse/drop play, and only showing that one trick from both tables. I guess my point is that what makes for real TV for the masses, is not the same as what is enjoyable depth of coverage for someone who appreciates the actual game in question. And if you think bridge is slow, try the final table of the world series of poker. Some years ESPN has broadcast it unedited on ESPN3 online or on PPV and the final table is often 12-16 hours in duration to play 100-150 poker hands. But as a poker player it is more interesting and insightful in to the actual poker being played to watch that then to watch the 1 hour summary program (that is half full of background information and B-roll and interviews anyways) that only shows the "interesting" hands.

[Free]

All contestants play exactly the same system and playing conventions.

LOL. I suggest you start a new bridge league with these constraints, I bet you won't have any success. The variety is attractive and makes people happy with what they play. Forcing someone to play a system is frustrating because no system is perfect and the people won't be allowed to fix any issues.

[chudecek]

LOL. I suggest you start a new bridge league with these constraints (contestants play the same system). I bet you won't have any success. The variety is attractive and makes people happy with what they play. Forcing someone to play a system is frustrating because no system is perfect and the people won't be allowed to fix any issues.

 

As I have said several times, THIS thread is about time constraints tracked by computer. A subsequent post will comment on "allowed systems", and don't jump to conclusions until you see that proposal, which WILL allow considerable "variety" and will permit "issue fixes".

[olien]

My suggestion for the bidding system issue IF computers were to be used seems like it would probably work. Each pair would be responsible for submitting a card in FD format that would then be used during the play. Each bid would automatically be alerted and the opponents would not have to ask for an explanation as that is already provided. I understand that it takes significantly more time to fill out an FD card as opposed to a normal convention card or system summary or advanced summary form, but that time would be at least mostly be made up by the lack of pauses for questions. Sure, there may still be some questions regarding style, but the style is usually covered in a general style in the system summary form.

[Zelandakh]

@olien, a small issue with that is that the FD card is quite limited in size. Even my incomplete system hit the limit without filling out control-showing relays or most competitive bidding. For any expert pair FD is just not good enough and that is not even starting on the many many hours inputtng a complex system takes. There is also a practical problem, let's say I open a strong club and the opponents overcall 1S. If 1S is natural then my bids mean this, if it shows blacks then this, any 13 cards something else again, and so on. How are you going to bundle all of that into an FD description? And this is a simple situation...

[billw55]

Regarding time: of course there can be special events with very limited/strictly enforced time limits. But the top level events should stay as they are. Building a legacy of the very best bridge is more important than keeping spectators engaged during the actual event. We have seen this trend in chess and Go; ever-shortening time limits leading to lower quality play. Let's keep it out of bridge.

 

About systems: system restrictions are for lol players. Sure, there are enough of them out there to gather interest in club level "one-system" events. But I really don't think there are many lols in the USA trials, or the Spingold, etc. I doubt you could find one player actually entered in these events that would want this.

[Finch]

Although I guess you could have GIB determine the point where declarer has the rest of the tricks on all layouts and then all time from there until the claim gets ascribed to declarer.

 

 

This is a great idea. Just think of it, you are sitting there trying to work out if you can guarantee the contract, and suddenly the computer beeps at you. Now you know that (i) you are too stupid to see the 100% line, and (ii) for every second you think, another matchpoint is taken away....

[AlexJonson]

Of course your GIB won't do very well at all without sight of all hands,

(unlike, for example, Chess computers that crunch the whole position).