BBO Discussion Forums: Was Director Right - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Was Director Right Too Slow

#21 User is offline   Mbodell 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,871
  • Joined: 2007-April-22
  • Location:Santa Clara, CA

Posted 2015-January-14, 01:56

View PostGreenMan, on 2015-January-14, 01:37, said:

My impression of the BBO speedballs is that it's not the director who pulls the boards in progress, it's the computer, which has zero tolerance for playing past the end of a round. The director then assigns a score to unfinished boards. That's part of the CoC of those tournaments, surely.


Sure, but is that a CoC for a bridge tournament or a "bridge" tournament? The computer does whatever you program it to do. If the computer didn't let you lead trump until they've been played on some other trick, we wouldn't shrug and say "it's the computer" and call the result bridge, would we, even if the CoC specified these rules?
0

#22 User is offline   GreenMan 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 2005-October-26

Posted 2015-January-14, 03:51

View PostMbodell, on 2015-January-14, 01:56, said:

Sure, but is that a CoC for a bridge tournament or a "bridge" tournament? The computer does whatever you program it to do. If the computer didn't let you lead trump until they've been played on some other trick, we wouldn't shrug and say "it's the computer" and call the result bridge, would we, even if the CoC specified these rules?


Seems to me that if you'd rather play bridge than "bridge," you're wasting your time on "Bridge" Base Online. If you don't want to play in the online tournaments because slow pairs can't delay the whole field, that's up to you, but it seems silly to me, even more than your goofy "can't lead trump" distraction.
If you put an accurate skill level in your profile, you get a bonus 5% extra finesses working. --johnu
0

#23 User is offline   VixTD 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,052
  • Joined: 2009-September-09

Posted 2015-January-14, 07:37

View Postblackshoe, on 2015-January-13, 14:13, said:

Speaking of "soon enough", some clubs around here set the clock to "don't start any new boards" when there are 3 or 2 or even only 1 minute to go. That's nuts. Leave a reasonable time for a fast finish. Speedballs give five minutes a board, so I wouldn't go much, if anything, less than that.

Why is that nuts? It seems sensible to me. It gives tables a good chance to play all the boards, without allowing them to take liberties. If the TD sets a time for the round and moves the players when that time is up, there will inevitably be the occasional table still playing out the last few cards who will move a minute or two late. That doesn't usually cause much inconvenience.

If you stop new boards at five minutes to go you'll have a lot of people hanging around doing nothing who could be playing (and often finishing on time) the last board of the set. Removing boards should be a last resort.

I stopped using the countdown timer at the club when the committee decreed that conditions of use should be that no new boards were to be started when there were three minutes of the round left. We had up to then been working quite happily with a limit of two minutes, but I thought that extra minute was too much.

One of the club directors campaigned for a limit of seven minutes, as that is the time allowed for playing the last board. I led a directing workshop last week at a club at the other end of the county where one of the directors does just that. I asked him how that was received by the players, and how many cancelled boards they have per session. The answers were that the players accepted it, and not many, perhaps one or two on average. I bet it makes a difference to the way they play, though, and not necessarily for the better.
1

#24 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,596
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-January-14, 09:31

View PostVixTD, on 2015-January-14, 07:37, said:

Why is that nuts? It seems sensible to me. It gives tables a good chance to play all the boards, without allowing them to take liberties. If the TD sets a time for the round and moves the players when that time is up, there will inevitably be the occasional table still playing out the last few cards who will move a minute or two late. That doesn't usually cause much inconvenience.

If you stop new boards at five minutes to go you'll have a lot of people hanging around doing nothing who could be playing (and often finishing on time) the last board of the set. Removing boards should be a last resort.

I stopped using the countdown timer at the club when the committee decreed that conditions of use should be that no new boards were to be started when there were three minutes of the round left. We had up to then been working quite happily with a limit of two minutes, but I thought that extra minute was too much.

One of the club directors campaigned for a limit of seven minutes, as that is the time allowed for playing the last board. I led a directing workshop last week at a club at the other end of the county where one of the directors does just that. I asked him how that was received by the players, and how many cancelled boards they have per session. The answers were that the players accepted it, and not many, perhaps one or two on average. I bet it makes a difference to the way they play, though, and not necessarily for the better.

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". ;)
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#25 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2015-January-14, 09:47

View Postblackshoe, on 2015-January-14, 09:31, said:

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.


Why are they inherently slow? Why are they incapable of catching up?
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#26 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,415
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-January-14, 10:32

View Postblackshoe, on 2015-January-14, 09:31, said:

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.

#27 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2015-January-14, 11:28

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!
0

#28 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2015-January-14, 12:01

View Postpran, on 2015-January-14, 11:28, said:

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?
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#29 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2015-January-14, 12:22

View PostVampyr, on 2015-January-14, 12:01, said:

How many VPs are available per 4-board match?

It's scored by matchpoints. Converting matchpoints to VPs is not a common thing, globally.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#30 User is offline   campboy 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,347
  • Joined: 2009-July-21

Posted 2015-January-14, 12:50

View Postblackshoe, on 2015-January-14, 09:31, said:

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.
0

#31 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2015-January-14, 14:12

View Postgordontd, on 2015-January-14, 12:22, said:

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".
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#32 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,596
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-January-14, 16:27

View PostVampyr, on 2015-January-14, 09:47, said:

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

I don't know, they just are.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#33 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,596
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-January-14, 16:30

View Postcampboy, on 2015-January-14, 12:50, said:

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.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#34 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2015-January-14, 19:13

View PostVampyr, on 2015-January-14, 12:01, said:

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.)
0

#35 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2015-January-14, 19:32

View PostVampyr, on 2015-January-14, 14:12, said:

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.
0

#36 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2015-January-14, 20:39

View Postpran, on 2015-January-14, 19:13, said:

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?
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#37 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2015-January-15, 01:35

View PostVampyr, on 2015-January-14, 14:12, said:

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.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#38 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2015-January-15, 01:50

View Postblackshoe, on 2015-January-14, 09:31, said:

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
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
0

#39 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2015-January-15, 02:38

View PostVampyr, on 2015-January-14, 20:39, said:

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.
0

#40 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2015-January-15, 06:40

View Postpran, on 2015-January-15, 02:38, said:

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users