[jtfanclub]

OK, so somebody goes dead in a tourney I'm directing, we have some trouble getting a sub, there's less than half the round left, so they get an average on the next board.

The problem is, this is round three of an unclocked tourney...and they were the lead pair. They had to wait 10 minutes for the next hand!

The clock needs to be the same at all tables...when the last table moves to the next round, then the clock should change. People ahead by a round or more simply shouldn't have a clock until then. It doesn't make any sense to do it any other way. Besides, it would make it a lot easier to figure out when a tourney was going to finish.

[spwdo]

point of unclocked is to have diffrent sections playing at a diffrent paste, roundclock sole purposse in unclocked is to know when you get those dreadfull A==

Marc

[uday]

We used to allow tables in unclocked Ts to play without time limits. I found that unclocked Ts had a habit of splitting into 2 or 3 clusters of tables. This in turn reduced the pool of available players for each round, and trapped some medium-slow players into the slow clusters. This led to more playbacks.

Now I force unclocked tables to catch up by skipping boards if they are falling behind. My definition of "falling behind" could stand some thought, no doubt, since your example points out the flaw in simply skipping board 2 if board 1 takes too long.