Help
I just watched the second half of the final of the EBL cup. It took 2 1/2 hours to play 12 boards!!!! Ridiculous. We watched a guy take 5 minutes to open 1nt (14-16) I dont know if a slow play penalty was extracted or not but if not one should have been!
Bridge is a game that is dying from lack of new players (under the age of 30) A good way to attract players is to show bridge on vugraph or on some large audience venue. If , however, the best players in the world take over 12 minutes to play each board. the game of bridge will appear to be the most boring game on earth. Young people have no tolerance for boredome.
I think that in international play (or any high level event for that matter) a limit should be set on time to play a segment of boards. If that limit is exceeded a SEVERE penalty should be applied to the culprit. Maybe if the slow players see that their slow play could cost their squad the match they will speed up their play.
Comments anyone.
(btw i am so adamant about this issue i'm in the process of emailing the EBL, ACBL, WBF to let them know how i feel about this issue)
Page 1 of 1
Slow play in high level bridge events
#1
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 200
- Joined: 2003-February-16
- Location:Miami, Fl
Posted 2003-October-12, 07:33
This game never ceases to intrigue me!!
#2
- mmm Duvel
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:Duvel, Whisky
Posted 2003-October-12, 09:25
Hmmm, you're absolutely right about that slow play.
The only difference between normal bridge and high level bridge is, that at high level people just think about a lot of things more than normal. Ok, if you need 5 minutes to open a 1NT with balanced 14-16 HCP, THAT is ridiculous. But on some auctions it might be necessary to think a long time before bidding on or playing a card. If you really want to think of everything you can know about that one gift, only then you'll see HIGH LEVEL bridge. If you put too much pressure on players, the level of play will decrease, and that's not the main purpose of these event I think...
The only difference between normal bridge and high level bridge is, that at high level people just think about a lot of things more than normal. Ok, if you need 5 minutes to open a 1NT with balanced 14-16 HCP, THAT is ridiculous. But on some auctions it might be necessary to think a long time before bidding on or playing a card. If you really want to think of everything you can know about that one gift, only then you'll see HIGH LEVEL bridge. If you put too much pressure on players, the level of play will decrease, and that's not the main purpose of these event I think...
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,612
- Joined: 2003-February-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, USA
Posted 2003-October-12, 09:35
Quote
I just watched the second half of the final of the EBL cup. It took 2 1/2 hours to play 12 boards!!!! Ridiculous. We watched a guy take 5 minutes to open 1nt (14-16) I dont know if a slow play penalty was extracted or not but if not one should have been!
Bridge is a game that is dying from lack of new players (under the age of 30) A good way to attract players is to show bridge on vugraph or on some large audience venue. If , however, the best players in the world take over 12 minutes to play each board. the game of bridge will appear to be the most boring game on earth. Young people have no tolerance for boredome.
I think that in international play (or any high level event for that matter) a limit should be set on time to play a segment of boards. If that limit is exceeded a SEVERE penalty should be applied to the culprit. Maybe if the slow players see that their slow play could cost their squad the match they will speed up their play.
Comments anyone.
(btw i am so adamant about this issue i'm in the process of emailing the EBL, ACBL, WBF to let them know how i feel about this issue)
Bridge is a game that is dying from lack of new players (under the age of 30) A good way to attract players is to show bridge on vugraph or on some large audience venue. If , however, the best players in the world take over 12 minutes to play each board. the game of bridge will appear to be the most boring game on earth. Young people have no tolerance for boredome.
I think that in international play (or any high level event for that matter) a limit should be set on time to play a segment of boards. If that limit is exceeded a SEVERE penalty should be applied to the culprit. Maybe if the slow players see that their slow play could cost their squad the match they will speed up their play.
Comments anyone.
(btw i am so adamant about this issue i'm in the process of emailing the EBL, ACBL, WBF to let them know how i feel about this issue)
I happen to agree with you but:
- Guaranteed that there is some explanation for the player
taking 5 minutes to open 1NT. Probably the players were
taking a break or the director was involved.
- Sponsoring organizations (such as ACBL, WBF, and EBL)
have tried all kinds of ways to penalize slow play and none
of these have ever been acceptable to the players.
- There are conflicting interests here. What many of the top
players want (no time penalties) makes it all but impossible
to turn high-level LIVE bridge into a production that will be
suitable for the masses to watch. Making such productions
taped (ie editing out the delays) might be the only answer.
- In my view, the proliferation of unusual systems and conventions
is at least as serious a problem as slow play in terms of helping
to make bridge a spectator sport for the masses.
Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
#4
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 200
- Joined: 2003-February-16
- Location:Miami, Fl
Posted 2003-October-12, 09:54
Quote
Hmmm, you're absolutely right about that slow play.
The only difference between normal bridge and high level bridge is, that at high level people just think about a lot of things more than normal. Ok, if you need 5 minutes to open a 1NT with balanced 14-16 HCP, THAT is ridiculous. But on some auctions it might be necessary to think a long time before bidding on or playing a card. If you really want to think of everything you can know about that one gift, only then you'll see HIGH LEVEL bridge. If you put too much pressure on players, the level of play will decrease, and that's not the main purpose of these event I think...
The only difference between normal bridge and high level bridge is, that at high level people just think about a lot of things more than normal. Ok, if you need 5 minutes to open a 1NT with balanced 14-16 HCP, THAT is ridiculous. But on some auctions it might be necessary to think a long time before bidding on or playing a card. If you really want to think of everything you can know about that one gift, only then you'll see HIGH LEVEL bridge. If you put too much pressure on players, the level of play will decrease, and that's not the main purpose of these event I think...
yes Bridge players at the highest level do think about more aspects of the hand than do us peons. I dont doubt that some hands will require many minutes to play but then others require only a minute or 2 to bid and play. As such the length of time to play several boards (lets use 12) should certainly avereage less then 8 minutes per board. However if a hand takes 30 minutes to play that is just too long ...
The purpose of a bridge event (imho) is to put the best players/teams in an "arena" and come up with a champion. But shouldnt there be some rules of play. When we take an exam arnt we required to finish it within a certain period of time? Coming up with the solution to a hand within some reasonable time frame should certainly be included in the definition of a champion player/team.In tournaments we have restrictions on conventions allowed, number of players on a team, number of hands that must be played in order to be considered part of a championship team etc. I think it's time to include a time requirement as well. Yes it will put additional pressure on some of the players but so what. Maybe their problem solving skills arnt quick enough to play with players at the highest levels.
This game never ceases to intrigue me!!
#5
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 14,566
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amelia Island, FL
- Interests:Bridge, what else?
Posted 2003-October-12, 10:30
When we take an exam arnt we required to finish it within a certain period of time?
When you take an exam, the time you use is totally up to you. When you play bridge, if time becomes a big issue, your opponent when declearer with all the remaining tricks, can choose a line that gives you a lot of problems, so you run up minutes thinking about a none-issue. This makes trying to figure out who is wasting time/taking too much time a very difficult issue. IT is not the same as chess where you can put a clock on both sides. Time is really a very difficult issue.
Ben
When you take an exam, the time you use is totally up to you. When you play bridge, if time becomes a big issue, your opponent when declearer with all the remaining tricks, can choose a line that gives you a lot of problems, so you run up minutes thinking about a none-issue. This makes trying to figure out who is wasting time/taking too much time a very difficult issue. IT is not the same as chess where you can put a clock on both sides. Time is really a very difficult issue.
Ben
--Ben--
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,724
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2003-October-12, 11:20
First things first: We still very much in the early days of "broadcast" bridge on the Internet.
I think that that it is highly presumptious to complain because the rules for a major international tournament are not being redesigned to meet the demands of a relatively small number of spectators from the the Internet. [As best I can figure, there are about 525 spectators for this event, which enormous by the standards of broadcast bridge but still quite small compared to a typical broadcast sporting event]. In particular, it is ridiculous to be complaining to the ACBL/WBF because the tempo of the game does not meet your specific requirements. My guess that any significant (5-10 minute) delay for an initial bid is the result of some kind of break rather than someone being stumped as to the right bid. [I take that back. I suppose that if you were kibitzing P.O. Sunderlin, there might be some other explanation, but even here I'd guess a non-bridge related reason]
Second, many folks on this list seem to assume that the best format for a broadcast bridge is analagous to that being used in baseball. The current BBO boradcast is only able to display two tables. All resources are being used to provide the best possible coverage of a limited amount of information. My own belief is that if the WBF decides to get "serious" about broadcasting major bridge events, then inevitably, they will be forced adopted a computerized playing environment.
The beauty of this format is that it allows multiple "channels" of bridge to be displayed/recorded simultaneously. Players that are interested in watching a naturalist pair would have the option of following Fred or Geir Helgemo, or whomever throughout a tournament. Players interested in a more scientific approach would have the option of following Paul Martson Terje Aa or ...
Its entirely possible that the naturalist pairs would garner the highest ratings. In this case, I would readily expect that the majority of the top commentators would migrate to suporting these matches. However, I don't think it reasonable to suggest extremely changes in the convention regulations to support the hypothetical demands of a nascent viewing audience.
I think that that it is highly presumptious to complain because the rules for a major international tournament are not being redesigned to meet the demands of a relatively small number of spectators from the the Internet. [As best I can figure, there are about 525 spectators for this event, which enormous by the standards of broadcast bridge but still quite small compared to a typical broadcast sporting event]. In particular, it is ridiculous to be complaining to the ACBL/WBF because the tempo of the game does not meet your specific requirements. My guess that any significant (5-10 minute) delay for an initial bid is the result of some kind of break rather than someone being stumped as to the right bid. [I take that back. I suppose that if you were kibitzing P.O. Sunderlin, there might be some other explanation, but even here I'd guess a non-bridge related reason]
Second, many folks on this list seem to assume that the best format for a broadcast bridge is analagous to that being used in baseball. The current BBO boradcast is only able to display two tables. All resources are being used to provide the best possible coverage of a limited amount of information. My own belief is that if the WBF decides to get "serious" about broadcasting major bridge events, then inevitably, they will be forced adopted a computerized playing environment.
The beauty of this format is that it allows multiple "channels" of bridge to be displayed/recorded simultaneously. Players that are interested in watching a naturalist pair would have the option of following Fred or Geir Helgemo, or whomever throughout a tournament. Players interested in a more scientific approach would have the option of following Paul Martson Terje Aa or ...
Its entirely possible that the naturalist pairs would garner the highest ratings. In this case, I would readily expect that the majority of the top commentators would migrate to suporting these matches. However, I don't think it reasonable to suggest extremely changes in the convention regulations to support the hypothetical demands of a nascent viewing audience.
Alderaan delenda est
#7
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,612
- Joined: 2003-February-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, USA
Posted 2003-October-12, 13:26
Quote
First things first: We still very much in the early days of "broadcast" bridge on the Internet.
I think that that it is highly presumptious to complain because the rules for a major international tournament are not being redesigned to meet the demands of a relatively small number of spectators from the the Internet. [As best I can figure, there are about 525 spectators for this event, which enormous by the standards of broadcast bridge but still quite small compared to a typical broadcast sporting event]. In particular, it is ridiculous to be complaining to the ACBL/WBF because the tempo of the game does not meet your specific requirements. My guess that any significant (5-10 minute) delay for an initial bid is the result of some kind of break rather than someone being stumped as to the right bid. [I take that back. I suppose that if you were kibitzing P.O. Sunderlin, there might be some other explanation, but even here I'd guess a non-bridge related reason]
Second, many folks on this list seem to assume that the best format for a broadcast bridge is analagous to that being used in baseball. The current BBO boradcast is only able to display two tables. All resources are being used to provide the best possible coverage of a limited amount of information. My own belief is that if the WBF decides to get "serious" about broadcasting major bridge events, then inevitably, they will be forced adopted a computerized playing environment.
The beauty of this format is that it allows multiple "channels" of bridge to be displayed/recorded simultaneously. Players that are interested in watching a naturalist pair would have the option of following Fred or Geir Helgemo, or whomever throughout a tournament. Players interested in a more scientific approach would have the option of following Paul Martson Terje Aa or ...
Its entirely possible that the naturalist pairs would garner the highest ratings. In this case, I would readily expect that the majority of the top commentators would migrate to suporting these matches. However, I don't think it reasonable to suggest extremely changes in the convention regulations to support the hypothetical demands of a nascent viewing audience.
I think that that it is highly presumptious to complain because the rules for a major international tournament are not being redesigned to meet the demands of a relatively small number of spectators from the the Internet. [As best I can figure, there are about 525 spectators for this event, which enormous by the standards of broadcast bridge but still quite small compared to a typical broadcast sporting event]. In particular, it is ridiculous to be complaining to the ACBL/WBF because the tempo of the game does not meet your specific requirements. My guess that any significant (5-10 minute) delay for an initial bid is the result of some kind of break rather than someone being stumped as to the right bid. [I take that back. I suppose that if you were kibitzing P.O. Sunderlin, there might be some other explanation, but even here I'd guess a non-bridge related reason]
Second, many folks on this list seem to assume that the best format for a broadcast bridge is analagous to that being used in baseball. The current BBO boradcast is only able to display two tables. All resources are being used to provide the best possible coverage of a limited amount of information. My own belief is that if the WBF decides to get "serious" about broadcasting major bridge events, then inevitably, they will be forced adopted a computerized playing environment.
The beauty of this format is that it allows multiple "channels" of bridge to be displayed/recorded simultaneously. Players that are interested in watching a naturalist pair would have the option of following Fred or Geir Helgemo, or whomever throughout a tournament. Players interested in a more scientific approach would have the option of following Paul Martson Terje Aa or ...
Its entirely possible that the naturalist pairs would garner the highest ratings. In this case, I would readily expect that the majority of the top commentators would migrate to suporting these matches. However, I don't think it reasonable to suggest extremely changes in the convention regulations to support the hypothetical demands of a nascent viewing audience.
Agree with some of this, but you should know that we actually
had people watching vugraph from close to 20,000 different
PCs during the course of the World Junior Championships. This
almost surely represents more than 20,000 people since in
some households there are several bridge players and only
one PC (but some people log in from more than 1 PC as well).
The maximum number of simultaneous viewers during that event
was about 1,100. People from over 100 countries tuned in to
watch vugraph during the World Juniors.
So while the numbers still may be "relatively small", they are a
lot more impressive than your post suggests
I suspect we will easily surpass these numbers during our
coverage of the World Championships in November and, if
we ever do any "real" marketing, that the numbers we see
could be astounding.
Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
#8
- Secretary Bird
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,301
- Joined: 2003-July-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16
Posted 2003-October-12, 13:45
One thing I believe that we will not be able to avoid, which will always (at least always when all four players are in the same room, anyway) be a problem, is the added time due to screens.
Double Alerts, double explanations (all written), fitting the bids into the slots in the tray, pushing the tray back and forth, "random pauses" to minimize tempo information passed - all these things take time. However, I don't see anyone wanting to go back to championships without screens.
Add to that that you have all the explanations done in English (which can't but take extra time in, say, Poland vs Brazil!) and the game will be slower.
We do want a time pressure on these players, for any number of reasons (even ones unrelated to broadcast), but there are decisions that are going to take more time when making the wrong decision means you don't play in the KOs of the World Championship than when the penalty is 6th instead of 4th at the Regina, SK Regional Open Pairs.
The WBF regulations are 2h20 for 16 boards, including any CC questions and explanations of the top and any breaks they wish to take. That's just over 8 minutes a board, about 1 minute/board longer than is given to ordinary bridge players in ordinary tournaments. I don't really find that unreasonable. I will bow to Fred's experience with high-level bridge and time penalties; I do think what exists is annoying enough to keep people moving, while not being enough to be a serious "non-bridge loss".
"let bridge determine the results" is a common cry - but "%*$&it, play a $*%&ing card already" is probably just as common, if unspoken...
On another note, I have never been bored with BBO vugraphs, even when watching PO and other notoriously slow players. More time waiting for a play to be made means more time for the experts to explain to me why they would/would not have done something different - for free, mind you! I don't know where Fred is getting all this goodwill from - I just hope I can do something to add to it, sometime.
Michael.
Double Alerts, double explanations (all written), fitting the bids into the slots in the tray, pushing the tray back and forth, "random pauses" to minimize tempo information passed - all these things take time. However, I don't see anyone wanting to go back to championships without screens.
Add to that that you have all the explanations done in English (which can't but take extra time in, say, Poland vs Brazil!) and the game will be slower.
We do want a time pressure on these players, for any number of reasons (even ones unrelated to broadcast), but there are decisions that are going to take more time when making the wrong decision means you don't play in the KOs of the World Championship than when the penalty is 6th instead of 4th at the Regina, SK Regional Open Pairs.
The WBF regulations are 2h20 for 16 boards, including any CC questions and explanations of the top and any breaks they wish to take. That's just over 8 minutes a board, about 1 minute/board longer than is given to ordinary bridge players in ordinary tournaments. I don't really find that unreasonable. I will bow to Fred's experience with high-level bridge and time penalties; I do think what exists is annoying enough to keep people moving, while not being enough to be a serious "non-bridge loss".
"let bridge determine the results" is a common cry - but "%*$&it, play a $*%&ing card already" is probably just as common, if unspoken...
On another note, I have never been bored with BBO vugraphs, even when watching PO and other notoriously slow players. More time waiting for a play to be made means more time for the experts to explain to me why they would/would not have done something different - for free, mind you! I don't know where Fred is getting all this goodwill from - I just hope I can do something to add to it, sometime.
Michael.
Long live the Republic-k. -- Major General J. Golding Frederick (tSCoSI)
#9
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,724
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2003-October-12, 14:23
Sorry to have gotten the numbers wrong
(Actually, in retrospect, I'm glad that the viewership for other events is higher)
One quick comment: I'm not sure how you are tracking the number of PC's that log in. The "standard" way to do so would be to track IP addresses. However, this has the disadvantage of substantially overestimating the number of PCs. Many end users are on systems that use dynamic IP address assignment. Each time that they reboot, they will typically be assigned a different address.
I you really want to be able to track this sort of information, you'd need to create some kind of "cookie" to store state specific information on the PC.
(Actually, in retrospect, I'm glad that the viewership for other events is higher)
One quick comment: I'm not sure how you are tracking the number of PC's that log in. The "standard" way to do so would be to track IP addresses. However, this has the disadvantage of substantially overestimating the number of PCs. Many end users are on systems that use dynamic IP address assignment. Each time that they reboot, they will typically be assigned a different address.
I you really want to be able to track this sort of information, you'd need to create some kind of "cookie" to store state specific information on the PC.
Alderaan delenda est
#10
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,612
- Joined: 2003-February-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, USA
Posted 2003-October-12, 14:37
Quote
Sorry to have gotten the numbers wrong
(Actually, in retrospect, I'm glad that the viewership for other events is higher)
One quick comment: I'm not sure how you are tracking the number of PC's that log in. The "standard" way to do so would be to track IP addresses. However, this has the disadvantage of substantially overestimating the number of PCs. Many end users are on systems that use dynamic IP address assignment. Each time that they reboot, they will typically be assigned a different address.
I you really want to be able to track this sort of information, you'd need to create some kind of "cookie" to store state specific information on the PC.
(Actually, in retrospect, I'm glad that the viewership for other events is higher)
One quick comment: I'm not sure how you are tracking the number of PC's that log in. The "standard" way to do so would be to track IP addresses. However, this has the disadvantage of substantially overestimating the number of PCs. Many end users are on systems that use dynamic IP address assignment. Each time that they reboot, they will typically be assigned a different address.
I you really want to be able to track this sort of information, you'd need to create some kind of "cookie" to store state specific information on the PC.
I am not going to tell you how we do it exactly, but we
use neither IP addresses nor some kind of "cookie-like"
method of counting PCs.
Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
#11
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 200
- Joined: 2003-February-16
- Location:Miami, Fl
Posted 2003-October-12, 16:19
This thread was started because i see a serious problem with the marketing of bridge to the masses not because i saw a problem with BBO's vugraph presentation. I am a bridge kibitzing fanatic. I have gone to Salsomaggiore to watch the european team championships, to Menton to play against and kibitz the worlds best and this morning i got up at 4AM to watch EVERY hand played in the championship. Let me tell you.. its BORING watching someone not play a card or make a call for 2-5 minutes (if this happens prior to every bid or play). If i (the same kibitzing maniac) became bored imagine the reaction of someone who is just getting into the game.And these delays had nothing to do with prooblems of transmission, data entry or simply taking a break. in fact the italian commentator said on any number of occasions "dont go away , there is no transmission problem , they just havent 1. played a card or 2. made a call ".
Maybe slow play is an unsolvable problem. If so we will have lost a great tool (viewing of highlevel bridge) for showing the masses what a beautiful game bridge is.
On a more upbeat note
The commentators did a great job. I especially liked the commentary in the english room where discussion of various suit combinations took place along with bidding and play analysis. The Italian room was also fun but there was only one person commentating so there were'nt any diverse views expressed.
These vugraph presentations are a great resource for learning how to think and evaluate like an expert!! (also where to find a good program for deternining the play of any given suit combination...."Suit Play by Jeroen Warmerdam"
Thanks for giving the bridge world this resource Fred.
I'll be kibitzing the World Championships in November right here on BBO
Fred Wills
Maybe slow play is an unsolvable problem. If so we will have lost a great tool (viewing of highlevel bridge) for showing the masses what a beautiful game bridge is.
On a more upbeat note
The commentators did a great job. I especially liked the commentary in the english room where discussion of various suit combinations took place along with bidding and play analysis. The Italian room was also fun but there was only one person commentating so there were'nt any diverse views expressed.
These vugraph presentations are a great resource for learning how to think and evaluate like an expert!! (also where to find a good program for deternining the play of any given suit combination...."Suit Play by Jeroen Warmerdam"
Thanks for giving the bridge world this resource Fred.
I'll be kibitzing the World Championships in November right here on BBO
Fred Wills
This game never ceases to intrigue me!!
#12
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,612
- Joined: 2003-February-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, USA
Posted 2003-October-12, 22:35
Quote
The commentators did a great job. I especially liked the commentary in the english room where discussion of various suit combinations took place along with bidding and play analysis. The Italian room was also fun but there was only one person commentating so there were'nt any diverse views expressed.
Thanks Fred!
Feedback like this is much appreciated. For example, I sometimes
refrain from discussing card combinations that I find interesting
out of fear that such a discussion would bore the audience.
I have had very little feedback pertaining to which aspects of
the commentary people enjoy or dislike. Knowing what the
audience likes to hear about will make it easier for the
commentators to do a good job in future broadcasts.
Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
Page 1 of 1