Late play

[Vampyr]

Yes, but some of us think if both pairs refuse to play the board late, both pairs are directly at fault for it not getting played, and have limited themselves to A- at most, absent some very odd extenuating circumstances.

 

"Odd"? What if the not-at-fault pair need to catch a train?

[blackshoe]

When I started playing here, 24 boards in three hours was the norm. Now clubs are trying to get 26 or 27 boards done in the same three hours. Folks now expect that when the session starts at noon, they're going to be out the door at 3:05, however many boards were scheduled. Couple this with players who will not sit down and shut up at noon (or better, at five minutes 'til) so the director can count tables and get the movement started, and you have a situation where people will show a definite lack of interest in late plays. Yet there is still an expectation, I think, that if you agree to play a session, you agree to play all the boards the director schedules for you in that session, and if that means taking a later train, so be it. Of course, if there is no later train, no doubt the pair will just assume that the club will accommodate them, even if they don't mention the need in advance. At least, I've rarely seen anyone around here say anything to the TD about a need to leave on time (or early) until the time comes.

 

It occurs to me that if a pair comes to me before the session starts and says "we have to leave in no more than three hours", I will at least be able to plan ahead a bit, and perhaps cancel the last round or part of it for them and their opponents because they need to leave when they do. Or use a movement that accommodates the need. I have had pairs ask for a last round sit out, when there's an odd number of pairs, and I would certainly accommodate that where possible too (I might get two or three pairs asking for that, I suppose, though it hasn't happened yet). But if they don't do that, I don't see why I should feel obligated (other than the standard club owner's fear they won't come back, to which I don't subscribe) to accommodate them in that way.

[Vampyr]

if there is no later train, no doubt the pair will just assume that the club will accommodate them, even if they don't mention the need in advance. At least, I've rarely seen anyone around here say anything to the TD about a need to leave on time (or early) until the time comes.

 

When people are rushing to get a train it is usually the last one. There is no reason that they should be penalised when the slow play was no fault of theirs.

 

 

It occurs to me that if a pair comes to me before the session starts and says "we have to leave in no more than three hours", I will at least be able to plan ahead a bit, and perhaps cancel the last round or part of it for them and their opponents because they need to leave when they do. Or use a movement that accommodates the need.

 

I was not talking about a pair who have not made allowances for the normal duration of the session.

[blackshoe]

Just forget I said anything at all.

[joostb1]

...

3. North America is not going to adopt Scandinavian hardware, movements, or methods any time soon. ;)

The hardware is Dutch, at least in design, and probably produced somewhere in Asia. Not that that will make much of a difference.;)

[trevahound]

Bridgemates are awesome. However, we have one club that hilariously misuses them. This club has set them up to still show all the previous results on the board (traveler style), thus slowing the heck out of the game and polluting the room with UI about previous results.

 

I can't think of an analogy silly enough. It's using a wonderful solution to multiple problems, and then adding those problems right back on again.

 

Soon we'll even play pre-dupes during Swisses at Sectionals. Imagine that, duplicate bridge.

[pran]

Bridgemates are awesome. However, we have one club that hilariously misuses them. This club has set them up to still show all the previous results on the board (traveler style), thus slowing the heck out of the game and polluting the room with UI about previous results.

 

I can't think of an analogy silly enough. It's using a wonderful solution to multiple problems, and then adding those problems right back on again.

 

Soon we'll even play pre-dupes during Swisses at Sectionals. Imagine that, duplicate bridge.

Showing the previous results is a feature to make Bridgemate compatible with the old travellers available for everybody to study as the board progressed along the tables. This feature is there mainly to satisfy those who complained that they could no longer see what had happened on the board previously when the travellers disappeared. Such complaints are IMHO completely unjustified.

 

When configuring Bridgemates I always turn off any feature that may indicate how the currect result compares with other scores on a board.

 

My experience is that players love Bridgemate once they learn how to use it (which doesn't take long!). Bridgemate typically reduce scoring errors with a factor of at least ten, and as Director I refuse engangements if for whatever reason Bridgemate cannot be used. So far that has not been any problem.

[bluejak]

I think attempts to try to satisfy customers' desires are a good thing. My experience is that customers like seeing previous scores, and, so long as the scores are limited in number, the additional time is very small.

[ICEmachine]

Say a pair arrives late to a table and they can't finish all the boards for the round. The Director says it could be played at the end of the tournament. When the tournament finishes a pair from the late play can't stay to play the hand. How do you score that board for that table? Are late plays an obligation?

 

 

Just play barometer all the time then the late play possibility, puff , goes away :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

Personally I have never been a fan of late play and I think organisers should try their best to let players follow the movement and play the boards according to the movement. Late play delays tournaments and its always irritating for players that finished on time and who are waiting for the final result.

 

 

I think every time there is a late play that delays the finish of a tournament you will have more unhappy pairs than happy.. so if you take that view it should be avoided!

[pran]

Just play barometer all the time then the late play possibility, puff , goes away :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

Personally I have never been a fan of late play and I think organisers should try their best to let players follow the movement and play the boards according to the movement. Late play delays tournaments and its always irritating for players that finished on time and who are waiting for the final result.

 

 

I think every time there is a late play that delays the finish of a tournament you will have more unhappy pairs than happy.. so if you take that view it should be avoided!

Indeed.

 

And I believe that is why late play hardly ever is any issue in our part of the world (barometer is the default) :rolleyes:

[gordontd]

Bridgemate typically reduce scoring errors with a factor of at least ten,

On what do you base this? In my experience about as many errors are introduced by scores being entered with the wrong declarer as those that are avoided by incorrect arithmetic or illegible handwriting.

[gordontd]

Just play barometer all the time then the late play possibility, puff , goes away :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

Personally I have never been a fan of late play and I think organisers should try their best to let players follow the movement and play the boards according to the movement. Late play delays tournaments and its always irritating for players that finished on time and who are waiting for the final result.

 

 

I think every time there is a late play that delays the finish of a tournament you will have more unhappy pairs than happy.. so if you take that view it should be avoided!

I agree that they should be avoided if possible in large serious events, but when boards are played late I think it generally assists all the players at the other tables in finishing on time. In a club event, if there's a single late board outstanding when other players are leaving the club, they'll get the results online when they get home.

[pran]

Bridgemate typically reduce scoring errors with a factor of at least ten,

On what do you base this? In my experience about as many errors are introduced by scores being entered with the wrong declarer as those that are avoided by incorrect arithmetic or illegible handwriting.

Plain, simple experience during 30 years (or even more).

 

But I also believe I know why:

We avoid incorrectly or illegible written reports and we avoid scorer errors when reading reports or entering results to the scoring program.

 

As North enters the result and East confirms it most errors are captured already at this time, but sometimes the players get second thooughts on what they entered and double check with the Director (me) before the round is completed so that an incorrectly entered result can easily be corrected on the Bridgemate.

 

My stated factor of ten represents the ratio between typical number of TD calls because of scoring errors before and after the introduction of Bridgemates in "my" tournaments.

 

One important note: A frequent reason for not detecting wrong declarer is to have the verification display show the result with respect of declaring side instead of North/South! If East or West makes a contract the result on "my" Bridgemates will always be a negative number.

[WellSpyder]

My stated factor of ten represents the ratio between typical number of TD calls because of scoring errors before and after the introduction of Bridgemates in "my" tournaments.

My experience broadly confirms a ratio of perhaps ten, but the other way round - there are far more TD calls because of scoring errors with Bridgemates than there were before. That doesn't mean I am against using Bridgemates - far from it. But there do seem to be quite a lot of errors that are realised just too late for the players to do anything about it (I find it quite frustrating as a player when opponents will "confirm" a score on the Bridgemate without even looking at it, so that they can then see how their score compares with others). With travellers it was very easy for players to correct their own mistakes if they were realised quickly.

 

I suspect there are fewer errors in the final scores with Bridgemates, but that is largely because lots of players never bothered to check individual scores in pre-Bridgemate days, so if a scorer was confused by dire handwriting this might never be picked up.

[gordontd]

Plain, simple experience during 30 years (or even more).

I can't argue with someone who has 30 years experience working with Bridgemates.

[helene_t]

And the 5-10 seconds per board it will save will not help with pairs that are habitually 2-3 minutes behind. The problem is that they take 10-20 seconds for most of their bids and plays.

Yes but a trick that can reduce the delay more substantially is to avoid post-mortems. If the TD (or the clock) announces "you should be playing the last board now" or maybe even "you should be playing the n'th board now" it could help slow tables realize that they are behind so now is a good time stopping time-waste, in particular post-mortems.

[Trinidad]

Yes but a trick that can reduce the delay more substantially is to avoid post-mortems. If the TD (or the clock) announces "you should be playing the last board now" or maybe even "you should be playing the n'th board now" it could help slow tables realize that they are behind so now is a good time stopping time-waste, in particular post-mortems.

I have been timing the post mortems at my table at the club for a while. I never start a post mortem myself and rarely participate, which should only shorten them. Nevertheless, on average they still take more than a minute per board.

 

Rik

[pran]

I can't argue with someone who has 30 years experience working with Bridgemates.

Don't be silly.

 

Doesn't it occur to you that my 30 years experience neccessarily must include both pre-Bridgemate and with-Bridgemate periods in order for a comparison to be possible? (I began using Bridgemate in 2007 and was soon astonished how my life as TD became easier)

[gordontd]

Don't be silly.

 

Doesn't it occur to you that my 30 years experience neccessarily must include both pre-Bridgemate and with-Bridgemate periods in order for a comparison to be possible? (I began using Bridgemate in 2007 and was soon astonished how my life as TD became easier)

Then I have rather more experience with Bridgemates than do you, and my impression does not accord with yours.

[aguahombre]

So, you agree to disagree whether the Bridgemates speed up and/or simplify your directing job. Could the difference possibly be in how effeciently they are being used and how each of you has educated the players on its use?

 

Out here in the West, they are used a lot...Some Bridgemates, some BridgePads. Even lifelong party bridge players seem to pick up the idea quickly and accept their use, with very little need for the TD to unscrew things himself after the first few rounds.

 

Directors' disabling the comparision function of the remote units certainly reduces post mortim time waste between hands; and this is understood by the players.

[Xiaolongnu]

Location: Singapore, subset of Zone 6, the PABF or APBF region.

Rank: Club Director.

Objective: Give my views and asking for opinions.

Conditions: Any views whether compliments or criticisms are welcome, most of you are more experienced than I am and I am happy to take pointers. I could take strong views so there is no need to be politically correct with me (:

 

Views about the OP: I would rule that a pair who failed to stay for the late board, if without a valid reason, will get A-, if with a valid reason "bigger than bridge" (someone here said this but I forgot who :P), he gets A+. An A might be given if the reason is somewhere between acceptable and not, I can't think of one offhand, at the discretion of the Director. A slow play penalty might be imposed to anyone whose slow play caused this situation. For example EW could not stay without a good reason. Under neutral conditions, 60/40 NS, ok, I mean A6040. If NS was guilty of slow play, (in the opinion of the Director), I rule 50/40. Note that the second variation does not really involve a PP, it is more of acknowledging NS as partly at fault, and the result could have been diff from a PP, for example if NS session average is more than 60%. The rationale, logic and intuition behind it is that the Director had "already managed to salvage the situation, but it is the player who failed to cooperate with the Director's plan" so the refusal is sort of an infraction making the refuser an offending side and therefore at least partly at fault.

 

Views about late boards in general: I believe that late boards and the AWOL of them should be solely the discretion of the Director, who will take into account all the situational and operational implications instead of stereotyping it as a standard operating procedure. Yes this assumes that the Director could be trusted, but isn't that an unwritten underlying assumption of our code of conduct? That we have full control of the field at all times.

 

Views about slow play and tactics to prevent them: Is it justifiable to assign the sitting pairs to the faster players and delegate to them the task of maintaining the tempo, ready to rule 40/60 against them in the event of any slow play? I would like to know some views about this. There is a lot of dispute here about sitting pairs, who "should" be the sitting pairs, who "deserves" them, to what extent does this "privilege" comes with "responsibility" and what type. There is no hard and fast rule, and justifications by the laws are trivial, not only are sitting pairs primarily responsible (in other words, offending = A-) for maintaining the conditions of play, but the Director could always bring in 81 and "delegate his duties to assistants" while supervising them. I just would like to know what is a more efficient way of approaching this.

 

I came across a similar case recently. North went toilet because he had a stomachache or something along that line, only returned half a round later. While North was away, East on her own accord went to find a substitute player for North, without the permission of North nor the Director. (This is of course illegal in bridge, but socially acceptable in Singapore, we try to keep things informal.) South stated that he does not wish to play with the substitute, as he was preparing and training for a serious game with his partner. When the round was called, the Director ruled a late board. At the end of the session, East refused to play the late board, claiming that South's refusal to play with the substitute was being rude to him, and she wanted to teach him a lesson, so she purposely don't want to play the late board. It occurs to me that this is an extreme case of the OP. I was not on duty then, but had I been, it seemed a clear cut 60/40 to NS, probably with a disciplinary penalty to East. What do you all think?

[gordontd]

So, you agree to disagree whether the Bridgemates speed up and/or simplify your directing job.

No. I'm a fan of Bridgemates, and was a director at the first club in this country to use them regularly, initially as an experiment. I've directed over a thousand events with them since 2005 (if I remember correctly).

 

I'm simply disputing Pran's rather wild assertion that "Bridgemate typically reduce scoring errors with a factor of at least ten". Even allowing for the fact that things are always done better in Norway than anywhere else, this seems most unlikely to me - unless Norway previously had a terrible record of poorly entered travellers?

[barmar]

I'm simply disputing Pran's rather wild assertion that "Bridgemate typically reduce scoring errors with a factor of at least ten". Even allowing for the fact that things are always done better in Norway than anywhere else, this seems most unlikely to me - unless Norway previously had a terrible record of poorly entered travellers?

Are you disputing that they reduce scoring errors, or just arguing over the factor?

 

Around here, scoring errors with travelers aren't all that common to begin with -- maybe a board or two every few games. The most common type of error, I think, is people writing on the wrong line of the traveler. And once one table does this, it often messes up the whole rest of that board (with a normal Mitchell movement, you just get in the habit of writing on the line above the last one filled in, without checking the row numbers). This type of error is almost impossible with BridgeMates.

 

Errors transcribing from the traveler to the computer happen sometimes, but not as much as these.

 

One advantage travelers do have, though, is that if a score is entered wrong (e.g. an EW score is put in the NS column), a later table will often notice it and bring it to the director's attention (we've finally trained our club members not to just put a "?" next to the score).

[gordontd]

Are you disputing that they reduce scoring errors, or just arguing over the factor?

I said earlier that "In my experience about as many errors are introduced by scores being entered with the wrong declarer as those that are avoided by incorrect arithmetic or illegible handwriting", but I wouldn't have bothered quibbling with Pran had it not been such an extreme difference in perception.

 

Around here, scoring errors with travelers aren't all that common to begin with -- maybe a board or two every few games.

There are probably more that aren't noticed - one thing we've discovered is that the amount of information available on the web after events means that more errors are discovered that might well have been overlooked in the past.

 

One advantage travelers do have, though, is that if a score is entered wrong (e.g. an EW score is put in the NS column), a later table will often notice it and bring it to the director's attention (we've finally trained our club members not to just put a "?" next to the score).

With Bridgemates, later players also often notice surprising scores and bring them to the attention of the dirctor, and most software also flags up potential errors of this sort.

[Vampyr]

The most common type of error, I think, is people writing on the wrong line of the traveler. And once one table does this, it often messes up the whole rest of that board (with a normal Mitchell movement, you just get in the habit of writing on the line above the last one filled in, without checking the row numbers).

 

Wouldn't it be easier to use the sort of travellers where you write on the first line in the first round, the second line in the second round, and so on?