[EarlPurple]

How difficult would it be to implement clocking individually for N/S and E/W in a tourney.

Then, if in a clocked tourney they could not finish playing the hands, the offending pair could be identified and penalised, and the non-offending pair could get Ave+.

For example, you would see two clocks, a N/S clock and an E/W clock, and they would increase when it was their turn to bid/play.

Thus on a 16-minute round, a pair who exceeded 8 minutes would be penalised.

They manage this on chess servers so surely it can't be that impossible to do at bridge?

[Free]

This might bring some abuse problems with it I'm afraid. Suppose following happens:

You're in a 3 boards/round tourney, and you need a lot of thought to make your slam in hand 1, you need some thinking during the 2nd board, and the 3rd board is again one where you have the points. Then opponents might just wait the turn out if you find your magical slam again, they might bid like crazy, whatever, because you took a lot of time during the first 2 boards... They get an ave+ without doing something, just using 'their' time efficiently.

Even if you look at it board per board, if someone exceeds the 7 minutes for some board, then you could again look at who thought most of that time. It's just a fact that declarers usually need more time than defenders (but again, not always). And you can hardly figure out how much time every pair needs for a certain hand.

[MickyB]

Good point Free - I think such a system might be misused by some directors, automatically giving A+ to the pair that have used less time.

Thinking time at T1 is another thing to take into account.

[ack_hh]

How to take into account the time
needed for explanations?

[Resaz0]

Or maybe players could have on the profile the average time they employ to play one hand. In the long distance it will be easy to recognise slow players.

Ciao

[EarlPurple]

I don't really see how it would be abused. If it's a 3-board round and a 24-board round then both sides have 12 minutes think/play time. As long as you don't exceed those 12 minutes you are safe.

True, I can see a scenario where a side has exceeded the 12 minutes and thus the opps purposely play out the clock on the last hand, but then you should not have exceeded the 12 minutes. Yes, playing a bit quicker may cause you to make a mistake, but that's part of the game. If the director wants to make 30 minute rounds instead then you'd have 15 minutes for the 3 hands.

In chess, if your flag falls you lose, no matter how tricky the position was, and regardless of whether or not you are winning the game at the time. If your opponent refuses to resign or accept a draw that's his prerogative.

I don't know if we would see a situation whereby one side purposely tries to play up the other side's clock by asking them bundles of questions, but clearly if someone is abusing the system, the director is there to use his discretion.

From the point of view of most tourney players though, a fine for slow play would be a good idea.

Incidentally, directors might find that having these fines for slow play will encourage players to speed up and they can actually set 10 minutes per hand but the rounds would be over quicker anyway as most pairs would not be using up their allocated time. (Once every table has finished the round can move on regardless).

[xx1943]

EarlPurple said:

For example, you would see two clocks, a N/S clock and an E/W clock, and they would increase when it was their turn to bid/play.

Great idea. Would be much help for TD, if applied sensible. I would appreciate this tool so much. It were my first wish to UDAY, if I had one free.

EarlPurple said:

Then, if in a clocked tourney they could not finish playing the hands, the offending pair could be identified and penalised, and the non-offending pair could get Ave+.

This should be the ultima ratio, when it is not possible to adjust the hand otherwise.

EarlPurple said:

Thus on a 16-minute round, a pair who exceeded 8 minutes would be penalised.

Nooooooooooooooo. not automatically.
Only when no other adjustt possible and it is not clear, who is responsible for the delay.

Free said:

This might bring some abuse problems with it I'm afraid. Suppose following happens:

Sure, but it works better, as when TD must give Ave- to both, because he does not know, who played so slow.

cheers

Al

[spwdo]

implement the clock and DONT show the clock to players only tds have access.

How often we see someone blinking red/back/red/back and so on , returning finally and after the slitest hesitation from opps saying : "Time !!!! opps "when they see td arrives so they try have a advantage if adjust for slowplay is given

[xx1943]

spwdo, on Oct 28 2004, 01:32 PM, said:

implement the clock and DONT show the clock to players only tds have access.

Very good idea.

ty Marc

[EarlPurple]

I'm still for having automatic fines for overrunning your allotted time. After all, lag aside, when you are playing slowly you are seeking to gain an advantage (same as with a chess player).

If, as a result of thinking longer, you find a better line and get yourself a better score, you are also giving a worse score to your opponent, as well, of course, as denying them their own allotted time (eg if you think 10 minutes of a 16-minute round, they can't think for more than 6 minutes).

An equal playing-field, in my opinion, is the way to go. Of course, this could be a settable option. Unlike in chess, "bridge clocks" are not practical in live play (unless electronic tables are used), but are perfectly feasible to implement for online bridge.

It would encourage players to play faster, and if that did, on occasion, lead to them picking an inferior line, it would only be on par with the rest of the field (who would also be similarly restricted).

[hotShot]

I suggested to implement this feature a while ago.

Unlike chess, you need to ask opponents about their bids. So while you are waiting for a full explanation, who's time is running?

What if i don't need an explanation and just hit opps bids to force them to answer so that i can think on their time?

This can cause more problems than it solves.

But a time only visible to the TD within e.g. the players history would be very helpful to th TD if both sides claim, that opps vaseted time.

From a TD point of view, i would like to see that claims have to be answerd before the software moves to the next round, that the last trick is played automaticly and there should be a list (similar to the players history) with all unfinished boards.

[dogsbreath]

Hi
.when i'm 'playing slowly' it's generally 'cos i needed a toilet break (or 'comfort break for our 'cousins') ..i'd hate to be penalised for that.. the consequences could be dire
Rgds Dog

[cherdano]

EarlPurple, the problem with your suggestion is that unlike in chess, the two pairs don't have the same difficulties to solve.
If my opponents have a difficult slam to bid, and then a difficult choice of lines in the play (whereas the defense for me is automatic), then I don't mind using them more than half of the allotted time for this board.
If they would not be allowed to use more than half of the time, we would just waste half of the time we have to play this board. Also, it would encourage not to claim in (for you as declarer) obvious situations, as long as you can give the defense some pseudo-problems and have them use up their time.

[EarlPurple]

I agree with the comments about players who will apply this unethically (asking lots of questions or playing out a hand instead of claiming).

I disagree in the situation where they have a tricky slam to bid. True that their opps do not have so much to think about, but all the other pairs in the room who have also been dealt the slam will be in the same situation as them as far as time constraints are concerned. And the opps at the table will suffer from a bad score if the pair dealt the slam end up doing the right thing (while other pairs do the wrong thing).

Fortunately, for the first situation we have the discretion of the director. If a pair are really asking lots of questions. Same with a pair who refuse to claim. In fact, if they're doing it obviously, such pairs could gain a reputation as unethical and get on ban lists, so it's not advised.