BBO Discussion Forums: SLOW Play USA Trials - BBO Discussion Forums

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.

@zasanya, first of all the 'Fischer clock' idea has been avoided in chess except for specialist circles such as online play. It makes even less sense in bridge where the number of boards is known in advance - just give a fixed time for a session. Secondly, under your rules I am going to request an explanation of my opponents' bidding every turn. If I do not care about the answer then I will use the time gained to consider my next move. All of the games that you quote do not have this feature and that is part of what makes bridge difficult to accurately police time-wise.

BTW in scrabble when a word s challenged the clocks are stopped.So a player who may need time to think may challenge a word he knows to be legal as he would generally get at least extra 5 minutes to consider his move while the referee checks.The penalty for an unsuccessful challenge is just 5 points.I have been the referee at some scrabble tournaments and i have never observed this.

No idea what the Go Players do as I do not know the game.Re bridge I suggest a penalty of 1 imp for every 10 seconds or part thereof over the time limit.

American Go Association regulations: E. Timekeeping.
1. The minimum time limits that the AGA accepts for games in AGA-rated tournaments is 30 minutes per player per round of basic time control plus no more than the equivalent of 20 moves in five minutes per overtime control (often called byo-yomi), and 45 minutes per player per round in games with no overtime control. The AGA does not absolutely require the use of clocks during tournament play, but very strongly encourages it.
2. The TD shall explain time allowances, overtime method (if any), and operation of the clocks (as needed) before the commencement of play in the first round. It is strongly suggested that the TD at least summarize this explanation before commencing each round.
3. The TD may start any round with at least ten minutes notice, but no earlier than any previously announced time.
4. Either player may set the initial time allowance on the clock. It is, however, each player's duty to assure him/herself that the clock is correctly set and that he/she understands its working.
a. A player doubtful of clock setting or working must consult the TD or ATD before play begins.
b. Failure to consult the TD or ATD as above leaves a player liable for any timekeeping errors that may occur, except those attributable to clock malfunction during the course of play.
5. Games will start at the time designated by the TD. Absent players' clocks will be started by the TD. If both players are absent, upon the return of either, time remaining in the round will be split equally between them, and the clock started. If clocks are not used, an absent player shall forfeit if more than thirty minutes elapse after the announced start of play.
6. The second player will start the clock for the first player prior to the first move. 7. A player must "punch the clock" with the same hand that plays the stone.
8. Each player is responsible for managing his/her own time. Failure to punch the clock results in time lost; it cannot subsequently be restored.
9. A player who suspects a clock has malfunctioned must notify the TD or ATD at once, and not continue play until the TD or ATD directs. A player may not escape the consequences of running out of time by claiming a clock malfunction earlier in the round which he/she never brought to the TD's attention.
10. Players may stop both clocks only under the following circumstances: a. Scheduled adjournment;
b. At the direction of the TD/ATD; c. Removal of more than one captured stone; d. Exchange of prisoners; e. Game's end; f. To make a protest to the TD/ATD. g. To resolve a dispute with one's opponent, as under E.
11. If the game is not over when a player has used all his/her allotted time, that player must either resign or go into overtime (if overtime is a part of the announced time control).
12. Either the TD, ATD, or a monitor appointed for the purpose should explain conditions of overtime play to the players involved. And although some systems allow the players to conduct overtime themselves, it is preferable for the TD, ATD, or the monitor to do so.
13. Normally a player is responsible for claiming to the TD that an opponent has passed a time control. However, the TD may delegate that responsibility to a monitor.
a. In the Canadian overtime system (see below), the monitor is always responsible for resetting clocks and counting out stones when a player has met a time control.
b. The TD may require monitors to claim forfeits when players miss an overtime control.
c. The TD may also require monitors to claim that a player has missed a basic time control.
d. The TD must announce what role monitors will play in advance of the first round.
14. Overtime play may be conducted in one of three ways:
a. "Second counting." A player must make each move within a fixed number of seconds. Failure to complete a move in time is punished as under 11. Monitors implicitly have powers as under 13.b.
b. Japanese.
(1) A given number of overtime periods of a given length (typically, five periods of 30 seconds) are allotted to the player at that point of basic time equal to the sum of the overtime periods.
(2) If a player completes a move in less than the time of one period, no time elapses.
(3) Whenever a player uses a period's worth of time, the number of periods available is reduced by one.
(4) Failure to complete a move before the expiration of the last overtime period is punished as under 11.
(5) The "reading seconds" provision of the Ing chess/go clock is an acceptable way to carry out this method of overtime.
(6) Monitors implicitly have powers as under 13.b. and c. c. Canadian.
(1) A given number of stones is counted out, the clock reset to a given number of minutes, and the player's stone container closed and removed.
(2) When these stones have been played, a new set is counted out and the clock reset. Continue ad inf.
(3) Failure to play all the stones counted out in the time provided is punished as under 11.
(4) Monitors implicitly have powers as under 13.a. and may have the powers of b. and c. also

Has anyone decided what this new game is going to be called?

Has anyone decided what this new game is going to be called?

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.

A match should never be decided by a break in tempo or a 20 second delay in making a bid.

Do you prefer matches being decided by using unauthorized information then ?

I suggested a delay mechanism might be put in place, not easy to do perhaps, but lets try to avoid situations where UI maybe surface due to pausing, or breaks in tempo.

I think it is very difficult to set and properly enforce proper, fair slow play penalties, without effectively having a monitor at every table and pricing the game out of reach. However, I think there are a lot of players, who do very well at very high level, who at least passively undermine any attempt to do so - frequently with the "This is the finals of <big event> and I think people should be able to take the time they need" argument. I have trouble with that, for the simple reason that pretty much any other event has a clock.

Time management is a skill, as is being able to work out what to do in a reasonable amount of time. Certain time management skills I don't think we should encourage in bridge (even though it's legitimate, even applauded in other fields - get a big lead, then deliberately slow the game down to limit catchup time, for instance), but others, sure.

If asking questions about your system counts against your time, I'm going to be the dumbest bridge player on record, and ask about everything. If asking questions about your system counts against my time, I'm going to bring in the oddest, craziest system I can find, forcing you to ask 10 questions for every one I have to. If boards are taken away, I'll play fast until I get a lead, and slow out the rest. If fines are applied, what do you do with *both teams* who think this is stupid and play to their desired speed anyway? In a KO, anyway, you can't fine both of them, it doesn't matter. You could apply a fine to the next match, to the winner, but then the losing side has an incentive to play "more thoughtfully" - after all, playing the next match with a -20 IMP handicap is better than not playing it at all because we lost, right?

I don't know what to do about slow play in these events, except, frankly, monetary fines to habitual offenders. Sure, the sponsors will pay them (and any fine big enough to affect a sponsor will kill a nonsponsored team, which is another problem), but eventually it's going to be a drag hiring someone who will cost as much in fines as the salary they're paying. The only thing that will change anything, for real, is if the players at the top decide as a group this is wrong and do something about it - starting with avoiding "we don't want matches decided on time fines" and "this is the finals, they should take as long as is necessary to get the best bridge." Unfortunately, I don't see that happening on this continent at least any time soon.

I actually think that the current WBF time guidelines are reasonable, and it's amazing how few fines are generated, including to the American teams. Oh they grumble and complain a lot about that and "these weird systems we need to defend against", but strangely enough, they play to time *there*.

It is possible that players might not have picked the cards for next hand for bid after the hand is played. They may be chatting or discussing over previous hand.
Whereas in the vugraph, next hand is shown right away after the first hand play is over. so, there may not be slow play in some cases.
Is the players complaining about the slow play?

The fines should be in IMPS for IMP tournaments and MP for MP tournaments. I proposed 48 minutes per player for a 32-board match (54 minutes if some insist), with a 1-IMP fine for each minute over that. That amount of time is fair and reasonable. And I see no reason to change that.