BBO Discussion Forums: Slow Play - BBO Discussion Forums

Our club is currently undergoing refurbishment, and by arrangement we are able to still use it while work is undertaken. However, we do need to get out ideally by 10.45 as an alarm goes off - previously we could always run late.

Of course everyone plays slightly more slowly, it would seem. Taking away boards that have not started the auction is easy and non-contentious, but most are not that slow. I can find nothing in the Laws which stops a board being removed after the auction has started, but the EBU guidelines don't recommend this. What do other clubs do? One committee member of our club suggested taking away a board if dummy has not been tabled, and the director can give Ave or Ave+/Ave- if he or she assigns blame. Can the bidding be concluded and then the board taken away, with an assessed score assigned?

Surely someone could reset the alarm, or is that too simple a solution to contemplate? I like to hang around and compare scores after a session. Being told to get my hat and coat mighty quick, and being ushered swiftly from the premises sounds more akin to a cheap pub with knowledge of a police raid than a bridge club!

But yes, I agree, some players need a good prod to hurry things up. Slow bidding and play is very annoying.

As I was taught, the Auction Period begins when somebody withdraws his cards from the board and the Director has no power to remove the board after this.

Under our national regulations, the Director can remove a board due to be played if forced to do so due to slow play. In this case he assigns an Adjusted Score as in 12C2a, assigning 40% to a side fully responsible for delay, 50% if partly responsible, 60% if not responsible.

I find it works wonders to remove a board early and offer to give it back if they catch up with the rest of the room.

What is the purpose of the alarm?

Is playing slowly an error in procedure?

Quote

Note 82B2. So I think the director has the authority to cancel a board. I can't find anything in the law book that restricts that to "but not after the auction period has started" or "but not after the auction has started". That said, the purpose of the game is to play the scheduled boards, so I think the director should endeavor, as much as possible, to allow that to happen. Also, as pescetom says, if the director does cancel a board, he should award an artificial adjusted score. "Not played", even when available in the scoring program, is not generally legal. OTOH, if the director cancels the last board of the last round for everybody, then "not played" is fine.

Even with a firm "get out by 10:45" I'd postpone rather than cancel the board if at all possible. If a board that has been started is still in the auction period when the round is called, the director should, if at all possible, allow it to be completed, because each of the players at the table already has some information about the board. If the board was started after a warning not to start any new boards, both pairs should receive a disciplinary penalty. If it was started after the round was called, give 'em a bigger DP.

When a pair has a postponed board still to play at the end of a session, they should play it. Declining because "I don't want to" or the like is not right. OTOH, "I have an 11:15 appointment with my doctor" may be acceptable. One might argue that if a postponed board doesn't get played because one pair leaves, whatever the reason, that pair should get average minus. If both pairs leave they should both get average minus.

All that said, the law is not specific here, so really it's up to the TD (or club management, I suppose, if they want to write a regulation) how to handle it.

FelicityR, on 2019-September-12, 04:42, said:

We don’t own the premises so have no control over the alarm.

Those who want to discuss hands go to the pub afterwards. The club has no bar of its own.

blackshoe, on 2019-September-12, 17:51, said:

82B2 says require, postpone or cancel play of board. No mention or suggestion of interrupt play of a board.

If I cancel the Olympics then it just doesn't happen and people cross it off their diary. Not that everyone is running and throwing and jumping in Tokyo and suddenly it has to stop.

FelicityR, on 2019-September-12, 04:42, said:

As a preemptive approach, If the problem persists, one answer is at the start of the game to reduce the number of boards where there is the expectation of successful completion.

axman, on 2019-September-13, 06:27, said:

The AGM voted to "play at least 24 boards wherever possible", with roved-out classed as played boards. The alarm, as Vampyr states, is outside our control, and it has not gone off yet, but I expect it indicates a premises break-in with security being called and is triggered by late exit, so must be avoided. My preferred option is to take away the board if the auction has not started, and if it has, to take away the board at the end of the auction, and they get the Deep Finesse result for both sides (unless blame can be attributed) - that is an "artificial adjusted score" but reasonably fair. If play has began they complete it. A second late finish costs 10% of a top (and a third, I guess, 20%).

lamford, on 2019-September-13, 07:12, said:

That's the same policy we apply in a MP tournament (it's up to the club/TD).
In Teams, our RA obliges the TD to impose 0.2 IMP per minute of delay or 1 IMP per board cancelled.

pescetom, on 2019-September-13, 03:02, said:

In a perfect world, the laws would cover this contingency. The world isn't perfect. The fact remains that the law allows the director to cancel a board. It says nothing about when he can do that. More to the point, it says nothing about restrictions on his authority to do that.

blackshoe, on 2019-September-13, 09:35, said:

I suspect that there has been some change in the laws since I had my first training as TD. I have not (as TD) had any serious problems with late play so I have never bothered to follow up possible law changes on this subject.

But when I was trained as Director we learned that a Director was not allowed to cancel a board once the auction on that board had started, just because of late play.
He could however forbid starting on a new board after a specified time before the scheduled end of round.

Late play frequently results in procedure penalties ranging from a warning up to 10% or more.

pran, on 2019-September-13, 10:06, said:

That is what I learned in training as Director too, this year.

blackshoe, on 2019-September-13, 09:35, said:

If the lawmakers decided to add 'cancel' and decided not to add another verb such as 'stop' or 'interrupt' then I guess they had a reason.
You cancel something before it takes place, not when it is already taking place.

Webster Dictionary said:

With my limited knowledge of the English language nothing prevents an ongoing process to be cancelled before it is completed, usually with the effect that any outcome from that process before it's cancellation is just nullified.
(If the outcome of the process so far shall be retained I would expect the word interrupted rather than cancelled.)

This corresponds precisely to the use of "cancel" in my Norwegian language.

I agree with Sven. That said, I too was trained that when a board has been started, it should be allowed to go to completion. That said I've seen directors at club level stop a board in the middle of an auction, telling the players they can finish it later. Personally, I think that's absurd.

"cancel the rest of the play of the board" is consistent with the dictionary definition, but I don't think the Laws ever authorize that, only cancelling a board yet to be started. And even if you think the TD is authorized to do it, I think the only time where it might be justified is if the TD has specifically told a table not to start the board, but they went ahead anyway. A DP would also be appropriate in that case.

I think the basis of “don’t cancel a board after it’s been started” is “we’ve always done it that way” rather than what the laws actually say.

blackshoe, on 2019-September-15, 01:31, said:

I think the basis is the English language, as explained, but let's not go in circles.

The way things have always been done also has it's weight in law, for that matter. Pran was taught that way decades ago. I was taught that way this year. I remember reading the same in the law column of a British bridge magazine of about ten years ago. Maybe Gordon could give his or EBU line on this.