Board time limit

[Cosey]

Hi All,

 

I first would like to congrats BBO's team and Directors for their great work !

 

Then here is a problem that I presumed we have all noticed. In almost all the tourneys I played, I faced the time limit issue. Each time, due to some slow opps, or because subs were needed, we were unable to finish one or more hands.

 

I do believe that 15 min for 2 boards is the right amount of time. Most players must be able to complete the hands with 15 min. I do not want to change that, nor to slow down tourneys. It's great to know before starting how long it will be.

 

The issue is how can we react against opps that are obviously trying to run out of time, in order to escape a bad score, or who are facing some connections issues...and how to do that without disturbing the director when he may be occupied ??

 

My suggestion would be to add another button, like the "call director" to indicate that we think we will have a time issue problem. Then, at the end of the time limit, if indeed a pair has been unable to complete a hand, the director will be notified about it and will be able to correct the score before the end of the tourney, if he has time to look at the unfisnished hand through the traveller. If he can't he will be able to do it after the end. It means that the time must be registered too...

 

I don't know wether this should work...any other idea ?

 

Cosey

[mink]

I dislike the idea of any additional work for the director.

 

As long as tourneys run with a fixed movement, it should be decided simply by the time each pair used. This can be measured at the client and transmitted to the server when a board is not finished. Any pair that uses more than half of the time available should get an average minus, and any pair that used less time should get an average plus. Times when the player due to play is not at the table should not be counted as thinking time.

 

If anybody thinks opps let run the time out, the director should be called.

 

If one day a swiss movement is implemented, tables can finish tough the next round has started already, and their next opps simply have to wait a bit. In case of a difficult board the time for the round could be extended if too few tables are ready at the normal time.

 

Karl

[Rain]

I think letting directors have the option of granting 2-3 minutes more for certain rounds will be good.

 

This will alleviate the problem of people cheating by waiting out claims. Of course, they still are cheaters B) but its harder for them to get a better score now. This means that a higher director/table ratio is needed, however, as directors need to have some time to decide if extra time is needed.

 

Persistantly slow people who require a lot of extra time will not be allowed in normal tourneys if directors get frustrated enough.

 

8)

 

 

Luv you all,

 

Rain

[Cosey]

Another solution would be to disable chat between P, during a T. Only chat with opps would be allowed.

That would for sure accelerate the game....

Cosey

[bglover]

I am a strong proponent of Speed pairs... 5 minutes per board. When we ran a speed tourney last week we have 70 tables... so there was presumably a lot of interest, but it was not a success according to Rain. Lots of time issues...

 

I attribute this more to the fact that we didn't highlight the speed aspect of this tourney as much as we should have. Speed bridge can be a lot of fun but, also, is not for every player. Players who feel pressured by the 5 mins/per board format should not enter it.

 

I am hoping that we run another speed pair but better advertise the SPEED aspect of it. A smaller tourney with pairs equipped to handle the shorter time limit could be run concurrently with a "normal" event, giving people the option to play one or the other.

[Cave_Draco]

Why not just have a "chess clock"?

 

If the move is called with an uncompleted hand, automatically assign average- to the slow pair & average+ to the speedier pair, 8).

[mishovnbg]

Vote for average + for fast, average- for slow play. But if possible + must be average for fast pair result in tourney.

Misho

[Rado]

Hi all,

 

It's sad to say that with the tournaments appeared and some unfair actions from some players like deliberately slowing the play when in bad contract.

Proposal for using chess clock and to assign ave+ for fater pair and ave- for slower is resonable, but it's not enough to stop some persons from deliberatly slowing the play in order to get some result. For example after reaching bad contract DOUBLED going down for 800 or 1100 when only partscore board, then one may slow the play and get his ave- (which is 40 % at MP)instead of pure "ZERO" 0% if he is fair to play without purpose delay and to complete on time.

Also after deliberate slow play the non-offender pair will receive only ave+ (60%) instead of well-deserved "TOP" (100 %).

 

One better solution (really only half of the problem) will be to asigng AVE+ to faster pair and "ZERO" to slower. Then the pair in bad contract will try anyway to finish on time, hoping that at other table somebody might be in even worse position and to take some % of the boart insted of 0 % when being late.

 

The uslimate solution is to have enough TD's and appeals Comittee who to determine the reasons for delay and the appropriate results but it's very difficult to apply in practical means.

 

The above was discussed live at our Varna Bridge CLub today among 6-7 people BBO members (Including our National team too).

 

Expecting Your opinions on "AVe+"/"Zero" proposal.

 

Best regards, Rado

[uday]

I did not think this would be a problem but it seems that that is how it has developed.

Here is what we're doing about it.

 

1) We've created the ability for a director to adjust a score for a board, rescoring the entire tourney as needed.

This will be rolled out later tonight or early tomorrow morning.

 

2) Currently, the only movement supported for Pairs is this: When the round clock runs out, EW goes up a table.

What we're doing now is adding some other movements. First, we will add a movement whereby you are paired off against a new opponent (if one is available) the moment you finish a round. This may mean some playbacks if our logic for pairings is too simplistic. However, this will also remove the round-clock issue completely, I hope - now a pair about to go for -800 cannot gain by not playing the board; they will have all the time they need to collect the Zero.

 

In other words, the round clock will no longer force the movement. In exchange, some pairs will finish the tourney well before other pairs and be able to move off and do something else. We'll notify them when the tourney ends and tell them how they did.

 

Does this seem like it will address the issue? Future movements will handle Swiss pairings, scrambling NS/EW each round, etc, but this seems like a good start

[inquiry]

One better solution (really only half of the problem) will be to asigng AVE+ to faster pair and "ZERO" to slower. Then the pair in bad contract will try anyway to finish on time, hoping that at other table somebody might be in even worse position and to take some % of the boart insted of 0 % when being late.Best regards, Rado

 

I suspect this is too radical Rado, even for Bulgarians... After all some parts of the world have worse connections to the BBO, and due to poor connections, slower play can be expected. Also, plenty of very ethical players have ended up spending too much time thinking about a problem others would never see, on one board, and the slow play occurs on another board. So for instance, if you struggle using up the majority of time on board 1, finding a backwash squeeze to make for a cold top, but then the next board is a flat as pancake 4H contract making 10 tricks for your opponents, could they not play slow now, and because of the time you burned on the first hand end up with 100% on the second (you used more time total for the round)? Could they find a line that causes you to expend more time on defense even as they play out the string?

 

So no, I neither think zero/average + solves the real problem, nor is fair to the ethical player who sadly plays too slowly.

 

The best idea is to bannish the people doing this. Imagine if you used up a lot of the clock on hand one, and with time running out, you concede all the remaining tricks but the opponent refuses to accept? Perhpas concede all remaining should be automatically accepted by the computer.

 

I have seen a variety of suggestions: Coming back finish the hand after the last round (horrible suggestion, you are suppose to remember where you were in the play?). Autoplay the last trick when time runs out if only one card left in each hand (good suggestion).

 

And let's all report people who are running out the clock on obviously horrible results. Some one playing slow to a down 800 hand on a part-score (assuming a reasonable attempt to claim by the defense is rejected).... should be reported. Eventually, this kind of scoring problem will be able to be quickly, and effectively handled, by a score-adjustment (just not now). And the people routinely using such a ploy should be banned not only from the tournment but also from the BBO site. However, even here, at IMPs (instead of MP), someone going down 800 versus a part-score might play slowiy due to problems of trying how to figure out how to avoid down 1100, or try to make down 500... there is still a lot of imps at stake. At MP, of course, it doesn't really matter at all.

 

Ben

[inquiry]

First, we will add a movement whereby you are paired off against a new opponent (if one is available) the moment you finish a round. This may mean some playbacks if our logic for pairings is too simplistic. However, this will also remove the round-clock issue completely, I hope - now a pair about to go for -800 cannot gain by not playing the board; they will have all the time they need to collect the Zero.

 

GREAT IDEA....

 

[move]Uday is my hero :-) [/move]

[Cosey]

Congrats Uday, u found a soultion that seems to be THE right one !!