[cccccttttt]

Chess long ago realized that some players use time as a weapon.

After chess clocks there was no more problem.


Suggest that BBO is in a great position to test a better way of controlling time.

After each bid or card play, the timer for the other side starts and

and ours stops.

Each side gets so much time to complete the bidding and play.

Disconnects count on the clock.

If allocated time for one side expires before the board is finished,

assign an automatic average minus.


Might take some testing but BBO is ideal area to test out such an approach.

ct

[Vampyr]

This might be a good idea for tables or pairs that have fallen behind. Or for pairs that are notoriously slow, or for speedball. There doesn't seem to be a good reason to use clocks in a more general way.

[hotShot]

Although I agree that a clock could be good for the game, you need to find a solution for the disclosure problem.

If I ask my opponent about the partnership agreements of the last bid or play, who's time is running down until I get an answer?

If the answer adds to my clock, opps gain an advantage from answering slow or unclear.
If their time is running down, an unethical player could extend his thinking time and put time pressure on his opps by asking unnecessary questions.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps both clocks should be stopped while questions are asked and answered.

[ahydra]

Agree - if you're gonna try this then both clocks should be stopped while questions are going on. On BBO this isn't so easy - you can't really stop the clock for chatting, only for when someone clicks a bid and the other person is typing the explanation.

I think a dual-clock system would be better than the current one-clock system in BBO tournaments, where people try to run down the clock by not playing (even where there isn't a problem to think about) if they have a bad score.

ahydra

[nige1]

cccccttttt, on 2011-September-26, 01:43, said:

Chess long ago realized that some players use time as a weapon. After chess clocks there was no more problem. Suggest that BBO is in a great position to test a better way of controlling time. After each bid or card play, the timer for the other side starts and and ours stops. Each side gets so much time to complete the bidding and play. Disconnects count on the clock. If allocated time for one side expires before the board is finished, assign an automatic average minus. Might take some testing but BBO is ideal area to test out such an approach.

BBO and other on-line sites have already enhanced Bridge enjoyment by eliminating many mechanical errors. Also by simplifying disclosure and claiming. Timing the game would be another significant improvement. If BBO shows it to work on-line, then face-to-face Bridge could adopt it.

An additional timing option would be to time-limit every action. A player would have to wait for 5 seconds (say) before each bid or play. He would be expected to complete his action within 10 seconds (say). This would reduce the nuisance of unauthorised information from changes in tempo. In certain contexts, the rule would allocate more time (e.g. for the first call of the auction, at the beginning of the play, and after jump bids). Just as at chess, bridge-players would gradually become adept at using each other's thinking time.

Face-to-face, Bridge-mates could be adapted to police all this. Or they could to be replaced by appropriately programmed netbooks or tablets.

[semeai]

nige1, on 2011-October-09, 09:30, said:

An additional timing option would be to time-limit every action. A player would have to wait for 5 seconds (say) before each bid or play.

A nice suggestion, but 5 seconds is likely too much. It alone would account for 4 1/3 minutes if we assume 10 tricks played and 3 rounds of bidding. Maybe 2 or 3 seconds could work and provide enough benefit.

[RMB1]

cccccttttt, on 2011-September-26, 01:43, said:

If allocated time for one side expires before the board is finished, assign an automatic average minus.

So when I'm going for -1100 I just sit out the clock and get 40%

[Vampyr]

semeai, on 2011-October-09, 12:44, said:

A nice suggestion, but 5 seconds is likely too much. It alone would account for 4 1/3 minutes if we assume 10 tricks played and 3 rounds of bidding. Maybe 2 or 3 seconds could work and provide enough benefit.

This would be really, really un-fun and would not solve whatever problems it is designed to solve. When players need to think about a hand, they will take 10 or 20 seconds and sometimes longer, but will do it usually less than once per hand on average. If a trick took, say, ten seconds, it would be maddening most of the time, and when a player did need to think it would be very difficult to do so while waiting for each card to be painstakingly contributed to the trick.

There are people who take too much time, but tournament organisers generally know who they are, and these people should be monitored and penalised when necessary; often when they are good players, this doesn't happen in this country.

I don't really care what happens online, but if every bid or card was delayed for even 2 seconds, people would soon look for something more exciting.

[barmar]

Automatically delaying actions has been suggested numerous times, and Fred has consistently said no. His reasons are basically the responses in this thread. So it's just not gonna happen.

BTW, I frequently play in the "Automated Express" tournaments, which kick players out (replacing them with robots) if they take longer than 30 seconds to make a bid or play, after displaying a warning after about 15 seconds. It's pretty amazing how often that warning pops up, and how often players are kicked out. I'm not sure what's taking them so long. I suspect they're multitasking -- this is something that's possible with online bridge that's uncommon ftf.