Was Director Right

[barmar]

If players are slow, giving them one minute to finish a board isn't enough. They will run over. In fact, IME, give them three minutes and they will run over by five minutes. Since they're now most of a board late, and mostly incapable of catching up, they'll continue to be late the rest of the session.

 

Probably the only real solution is to put all the fast players in one section, and all the slow players in another. The fast section will finish an hour early; the slow section will finish three hours late. But you'll give the latter 15 or 20 minutes a board instead of 6 or 7, so they'll actually be "on time". ;)

The problem is that there are some players who are capable of speeding up when necessary. If the first or second board of the round was exceptionally tricky, it might get them started on the last board a little late. Cancelling the last board with 5 minutes to go is excessive.

 

We have a few pairs in our club who are habitually slow. If we cancelled new boards with 5 minutes left in the round, these pairs would probably end up playing only 75-80% of their allotted boards, since we'd have to cancel a board in around half the rounds. And several of their opponents would also lose a board.

 

It's just too draconian, IMHO.

[pran]

This thread exposes a well known problem, and how to handle it depends a lot on the kind of tournament, the environment and what has been announced as part of CoC.

 

I have had medium to high - level tournaments involving players that at times really "take their time", some notorious for being slow.

 

The following "medicine" has proven successful with Swiss pairs barometer schedule: 4 Boards/round and round time 30 minutes (details of course subject to adaption in the specific event). A countdown clock clearly visible to all players shows minutes and seconds remaining in the round.

 

All players were informed that if their scores in each round have not been completely entered on the Bridgemate terminal before end of round both pairs at that table will face an automatic 10% PP in that round (unless the Director has been called in time to establish that one pair only was at fault, and of course true force majeure excused).

 

As all transactions on the Bridgemates are logged with the exact time of each entry there would be no cause for dispute on whether an entry had been in time or late.

 

The result? No PP needed, and all 64 boards in the event completed on time!

[Vampyr]

4 Boards/round and round time 30 minutes (details of course subject to adaption in the specific event).

 

Why so few boards per match? Is this typical in Norway?

 

How many VPs are available per 4-board match?

[gordontd]

How many VPs are available per 4-board match?

It's scored by matchpoints. Converting matchpoints to VPs is not a common thing, globally.

[campboy]

If players are slow, giving them one minute to finish a board isn't enough. They will run over. In fact, IME, give them three minutes and they will run over by five minutes. Since they're now most of a board late, and mostly incapable of catching up, they'll continue to be late the rest of the session.

That makes no sense. If a slow pair is allowed to start another board with 3 minutes to go, then yes, they will finish late and get further behind. But all that means is you will end up taking a board away from them next round instead (because 3 minutes is the minimum), and so they will catch up.

 

On the other hand, if there is a different reason why they are behind (had to wait for the table, TD calls, just a difficult set) then they should have no problem catching up if they start the last board with 3 minutes left.

[Vampyr]

It's scored by matchpoints. Converting matchpoints to VPs is not a common thing, globally.

 

I was not aware of that.

 

Not converting the matchpoints into VPs seems to eliminate the "match" aspect, making it just an ordinary pairs event with an ideosyncratic movement. One of the things I really like about Swiss events the way the are scored in this country is that a bad board stays in a finished match instead of affecting your score for the remainder of the event. And, of course, you can make decisions based on the state of the match if you need to, and the only consequence is that you will either get the 20-nil you were already getting, or manage to claw back a couple of VPs.

 

Also, when the raw matchpoints are used, don't those in the bottom of the field have the opportunity to shoot up to the top due to the high variance achievable in just four boards? While the top pairs are squeezing out a matchpoint here and there, a weak pair may score 80% in their match against another weak pair. So the pairings may frequently be "wrong".

[blackshoe]

Why are they inherently slow? Why are they incapable of catching up?

I don't know, they just are.

[blackshoe]

On the other hand, if there is a different reason why they are behind (had to wait for the table, TD calls, just a difficult set) then they should have no problem catching up if they start the last board with 3 minutes left.

A priori, that's what I would have said, but my observation over the years is different. Some do catch up, many don't.

[pran]

Why so few boards per match? Is this typical in Norway?

 

How many VPs are available per 4-board match?

What you probably assume is a match is one round in an event for pairs.

 

It is Swiss pairs because players move to the next round according to their current total score. Scoring is matchpoints across the entire Field exactly as what is normal in events for pairs.

 

What probably confuse players unfamiliar with Swiss events for pairs as we play that in Norway is that the same boards are played at all tables during the same round and are therefore scored out immediately after each round. Together with their status report after each round players are told where they are to be seated in the next round. (There is usually a one round delay so that the results from round N are distributed to the players during round N+1 together with information on where they shall sit in round N+2.)

[pran]

I was not aware of that.

 

Not converting the matchpoints into VPs seems to eliminate the "match" aspect, making it just an ordinary pairs event with an ideosyncratic movement. One of the things I really like about Swiss events the way the are scored in this country is that a bad board stays in a finished match instead of affecting your score for the remainder of the event. And, of course, you can make decisions based on the state of the match if you need to, and the only consequence is that you will either get the 20-nil you were already getting, or manage to claw back a couple of VPs.

 

Also, when the raw matchpoints are used, don't those in the bottom of the field have the opportunity to shoot up to the top due to the high variance achievable in just four boards? While the top pairs are squeezing out a matchpoint here and there, a weak pair may score 80% in their match against another weak pair. So the pairings may frequently be "wrong".

 

Good points. And those are the reason why regulation specifies that the number of rounds in a Swiss event for pairs should be at least 20% or 8 (whichever is greater) and not exceed 40% of the number of contestants or 35 (whichever is smaller).

 

Experience has shown that while "pairings" may occationally be wrong ("frequently" is an exaggeration) the result list is usually "fair" for the top number of pairs corresponding to the number of rounds played. And Swiss pairs has become very popular here, maybe even more popular than standard round robin pairs where all pairs meet during the event.

[Vampyr]

What you probably assume is a match is one round in an event for pairs.

 

It is Swiss pairs because players move to the next round according to their current total score. Scoring is matchpoints across the entire Field exactly as what is normal in events for pairs.

 

What probably confuse players unfamiliar with Swiss events for pairs as we play that in Norway is that the same boards are played at all tables during the same round and are therefore scored out immediately after each round. Together with their status report after each round players are told where they are to be seated in the next round. (There is usually a one round delay so that the results from round N are distributed to the players during round N+1 together with information on where they shall sit in round N+2.)

 

I know what Swiss Pairs is. And it is obvious that all tables in Swiss Pairs have to play the same boards per round, or match, because otherwise you couldn't generate match points. but I think that not converting to VPs is a mistake.

 

Our assignments used to be one round in arrears, like yours. How I hated it! Why can't you do current round assignments?

[gordontd]

I was not aware of that.

 

Not converting the matchpoints into VPs seems to eliminate the "match" aspect, making it just an ordinary pairs event with an ideosyncratic movement. One of the things I really like about Swiss events the way the are scored in this country is that a bad board stays in a finished match instead of affecting your score for the remainder of the event. And, of course, you can make decisions based on the state of the match if you need to, and the only consequence is that you will either get the 20-nil you were already getting, or manage to claw back a couple of VPs.

 

Also, when the raw matchpoints are used, don't those in the bottom of the field have the opportunity to shoot up to the top due to the high variance achievable in just four boards? While the top pairs are squeezing out a matchpoint here and there, a weak pair may score 80% in their match against another weak pair. So the pairings may frequently be "wrong".

There are advantages and disadvantages to each method. Scoring just by matchpoints makes each board have equal value, which in my opinion makes it more suitable for shorter rounds and stops people from "shooting" towards the end of a match.

[Trinidad]

If players are slow, giving them one minute to finish a board isn't enough. They will run over. In fact, IME, give them three minutes and they will run over by five minutes. Since they're now most of a board late, and mostly incapable of catching up, they'll continue to be late the rest of the session.

There are basically two reasons for slow play:

A board may have required particularly careful play (by either side) or a lengthy, complex auction.

One or more players are inherently slow.

 

The slow boards are incidents. They will statisitically be offset by fast boards. We play 3 boards a round in 21 minutes. The last time I played, there were two slow boards in the same round that took together 20 minutes. The third board went 1NT-4NT;6NT, opening lead, claim 12 tricks, losing only a missing ace, and was scored up with more than enough time to laugh about it.

 

The slow boards are not the problem. The slow players are. But you can do a few things to speed up players.

 

• 
   
  
• Time penalties. This is actually an area where penalties work: The rules are clear, there is no judgement involved on how they should be applied. (Compare that to a UI case, where a player may do his best to be ethical, judge wrong in a mentally complex situation, and is so readily slapped with a PP for 'flagrant use of UI', no matter how hard he tried to do the right thing.) There is a clock for everyone to see. Playing slow is a sign of arrogance and disrespect to other players, as well as the TD, and deserves to be penalized.
  
• There are several things that make people slow... and most of them are not slow play. Typical things slow players do, that cost minutes per board and have nothing to do with the play, are:
  
  • Discussing while their opponents are waiting. This is rude in itself, but it slows down the play too. I have timed players who easily take 4 minutes before they get the cards out of the first board.
    
  • Discussions after the play. Post-mortems can be fun, but most of the post-mortems are between two defenders arguing across the table about who should have prevented that second overtrick against 4♠, while dummy is asking declarer why he didn't go to slam. Everyone is talking and no one is listening.
    
  • Procedures: Slow players have a procedure for everything. First all the bidding cards need to be removed (even if regulations state otherwise), then the contract needs to be entered on the score card, then they need to select their opening lead, then they need to enter the the opening lead on their score card, then the dummy is put down. These procedures are a horror to anyone who has even understood the most rudimentary concepts of time and project management. ;) They can easily cost minutes per board.
     
     
    

So, you need to teach players efficient procedures: write down the contract and opening lead, after you made it while dummy is putting his cards down, then put your bidding cards away. After the board is finished, everybody puts their cards back into the board. North and East take care of the scoring. South takes care of the boards and puts the next board on the table. Typically West is the first one to take the cards out of the next board, then South. It can also help some players when you teach them how to sort their cards efficiently. (Don't forget to mention it when you see a player improving in any of these areas!)

Stop them from discussing when there are still boards to be played. (When they talk after the boards, they will have the same amount of time to talk as when they talk before the boards.)

Point out to them that holding up the game is a nuisance to everyone, and therefore plain and simply rude and asocial, and that you will penalize for rude and asocial behavior.

 

The way we go about slow play at our club is:

• 
   
  
• After the round is over, there is one minute of "grace time". Every table that has not entered their score after the grace time is considered slow.
  
• If a table is slow, the time keeper (in our case, a lightning fast playing elementary school teacher of the stricter kind :) ) will ask the players whether someone wants to take the blame for the slow play. My rough guess is that 3 times out of 4 nobody takes the blame, while one time out of 4 someone says: "I was slow on the second board." If no one takes the blame, both pairs get a slow play warning. If a pair takes the blame, only they get the slow play warning. There is no discussion about who was slow (that would only take more time). If there is any discussion, everyone is to blame. (It does happen regularly that a player tells the time keeper during the next round that he was to blame, obviously that is taken into account.)
  
• The second slow play warning is an automatic penalty of 10% of a board. The third slow play warning costs 20%. (I can't recall that we have ever given one.) For clarity: the fact that you were arriving late because your table was slow the previous round is no excuse for being late again.
  
• In addition, if the slow play was by more than 5 minutes (i.e. 4 minutes + 1 minute "grace time"), there is no warning. The penalty is automatic.
  

These are simple, transparent rules. The players can easily see when they are breaking them. This makes it easy to enforce them, and players accept their time penalties graceously, since they know that the time keeper is only doing the administration (and that you don't mess with this lady). The "grace time" and the fact that you are only warned for the first minor violation work as an efficient filter: They ensure that players are not penalized for an odd sequence of difficult boards, and make sure that slow players are targeted.

 

Rik

[pran]

Our assignments used to be one round in arrears, like yours. How I hated it! Why can't you do current round assignments?

We can, but it will slow down the entire event:

 

We can wait until all tables have completed their round before doing round assignments, then publish the assignments, and wait for all players to find their new seats before we can start the next round. That could delay the event as much as 5 minutes/round (worst case).

 

Or we can assign next round seatings based on the results after 95% of the boards have been completed (our scoring program has that facility), but that means delaying all reports towards end of round, causing stress and (I expect) also delays for the event.

 

Our players appear very happy with receiving last round reports during the first minute (or so) of the current round, and at the same time learn where they are to be seated in the next round. This results in a very smooth process.

[Vampyr]

We can, but it will slow down the entire event:

 

We can wait until all tables have completed their round before doing round assignments, then publish the assignments, and wait for all players to find their new seats before we can start the next round. That could delay the event as much as 5 minutes/round (worst case).

 

The round assignments come out instantly on Bridgemate 2.

 

Or we can assign next round seatings based on the results after 95% of the boards have been completed (our scoring program has that facility), but that means delaying all reports towards end of round, causing stress and (I expect) also delays for the event.

I don't see how you could do this for Swiss Pairs.

 

Our players appear very happy with receiving last round reports during the first minute (or so) of the current round, and at the same time learn where they are to be seated in the next round. This results in a very smooth process.

 

Are people really stressed to receive their match reports later than a minute after the round is finished? Is not as if you can check them while finding your new table and getting ready to start the first board.

 

I know that players are happier with current-round assignments. Gordon or Robin would be able to comment on whether it has slowed down our events.

[Vampyr]

There are advantages and disadvantages to each method. Scoring just by matchpoints makes each board have equal value, which in my opinion makes it more suitable for shorter rounds and stops people from "shooting" towards the end of a match.

 

Of course you can get that in a "normal" pairs game.

 

I think that we are very lucky here in England that we play a variety of events.

[pran]

The round assignments come out instantly on Bridgemate 2.

You cannot present round seatings until they have been calculated, i.e. after the last table has completed its round.

And does Bridgemate 2 tell the players where to go or which players are expected at this table?

 

I don't see how you could do this for Swiss Pairs.

Assigning seats based on 95% completed round is a feature available in the scoring program used (among other places) in Norway.

 

Are people really stressed to receive their match reports later than a minute after the round is finished? Is not as if you can check them while finding your new table and getting ready to start the first board.

The players' prime interest at end of round is to know where to go for the next round. They are generally not happy about having to remain at the table for the next seating to become published, and they will certainly not be happy about having to look up their own next seating in a list of all seatings for the next round.

[barmar]

There are several things that make people slow... and most of them are not slow play. Typical things slow players do, that cost minutes per board and have nothing to do with the play, are:

In my club, the players who are habitually behind really are just slow. They're poor players who seem to take 10-20 seconds for almost every decision. They may also suffer from some of the procedural problems that you mention, which exacerbates it, but I think fixing those would probably save less than a minute.

[RMB1]

You cannot present round seatings until they have been calculated, i.e. after the last table has completed its round.

And does Bridgemate 2 tell the players where to go or which players are expected at this table?

 

At the end of the round, the Bridgemates say "Awaiting new movement ..." or some such.

When the new movement (assignment) is updated, the Bridgemates show the move for the players (previously) at the table.

The new players press "OK" and the Bridgemates show the new round informations: pair numbers, boards, and then names.

[Vampyr]

At the end of the round, the Bridgemates say "Awaiting new movement ..." or some such.

When the new movement (assignment) is updated, the Bridgemates show the move for the players (previously) at the table.

The new players press "OK" and the Bridgemates show the new round informations: pair numbers, boards, and then names.

 

Having the assignments projected onto the wall or a screen as well might be a good idea; especially for players who have run to the bar or for a smoke after the round was finished.

 

Do you have any information, Robin, about whether current round assignments have made the events slower?

[Vampyr]

 

The players' prime interest at end of round is to know where to go for the next round. They are generally not happy about having to remain at the table for the next seating to become published, and they will certainly not be happy about having to look up their own next seating in a list of all seatings for the next round.

 

Are you sure? Have the players been surveyed as to whether they would prefer current-round assignments?

[pran]

Are you sure? Have the players been surveyed as to whether they would prefer current-round assignments?

Yes.

 

I do not know of any survey, but I can tell you from experience that no player here accepts having to remain at the table after finishing the round in order to learn where to go next. They want their free time going outside for a smoke or something.

 

In a survey I would expect them to ask: "What can we gain with current-round assignment"? - and honestly I would not be able to give any good reason why one should abandon the present routine that works smoothly.

[Vampyr]

Yes.

 

I do not know of any survey, but I can tell you from experience that no player here accepts having to remain at the table after finishing the round in order to learn where to go next. They want their free time going outside for a smoke or something.

 

In a survey I would expect them to ask: "What can we gain with current-round assignment"? - and honestly I would not be able to give any good reason why one should abandon the present routine that works smoothly.

 

You don't have to stay at the table; you can leave and come back. If you didn't finish early, though, you might as well stay and chat, because there are no breaks between matches.

 

Current round assignments provide more accurate pairings and avoid having to play a potentially unsuitable pair in the second round.

 

Arild Rasmussen & Kjell Gaute Fyrund won the Swiss Pairs at our Year End Congress. So they have done it both ways. If you know them, you could ask if they have any preference.

 

All English players have done it both ways, and I sincerely believe that, among those who care, there is a strong preference for the method used now.

[pran]

You don't have to stay at the table; you can leave and come back. If you didn't finish early, though, you might as well stay and chat, because there are no breaks between matches.

 

Current round assignments provide more accurate pairings and avoid having to play a potentially unsuitable pair in the second round.

 

Arild Rasmussen & Kjell Gaute Fyrund won the Swiss Pairs at our Year End Congress. So they have done it both ways. If you know them, you could ask if they have any preference.

 

All English players have done it both ways, and I sincerely believe that, among those who care, there is a strong preference for the method used now.

I'll rest until (if) the question is raised here.

 

But I can't help expecting a pair returning to the table to see where to go next, only to find the new pairs at that table already seated and no sign of the information then wanted. Exclamation from the new pairs: "Sorry, we didn't know that you hadn't seen it already so we just verified that we are scheduled here."

 

Can you og back on BM2 (I am not much familiar with that version)