[AEPgh]

Currently the time remaining field is not noticeable, since it only shows MINUTES

I suggest you replace the MINUTES filed with Minute:Second counter (like a Timer). The movement will attract attention and create some urgency with slow players.

a possible enhancements: Assuming an 18 minute round, the Timer color can change after each 6 minutes (to show if you are behind or ahead on average); Two minutes before the end of the round start flashing the Timer.

[pilowsky]

I agree. Great suggestion.
In fact, why not go the whole nine yards and bring Bridge into the computer age.
Chess has had clocks for decades. Why not Bridge?
The term 'barometer' is misused on BBO to mean 'measured'; the correct meaning of 'baro-' is pressure. Baroreceptors in the body measure your blood pressure.
If the computer timed each player and each pair was given a finite amount of time to complete a hand, then under true barometric scoring conditions each pair is responsible for how it uses its own time.
If the clock runs to zero before all the cards are played then the hand is adjudicated by the computer as the worst possible result (from the scores of the field) for the slowest pair.
Watch how everyone starts to play within a reasonable time.
All problems of slowness disappear.
All questions of pausing with inference will be a thing of the past.

[gbb483]

It depends on the club - my previous club was a great stickler for time keeping and had an application running on the scoring laptop which had a timer display and a director who was always calling out the countdown, penalising slow players and generally making the whole experience unpleasant. My current club uses the clock on the wall and, whilst chivvying slow players, will still allow everyone to finish a round before moving people on.

[mycroft]

On "bridge clocks" - short of MTGO level "bounce back 40 times a turn" clock management (which would require *major* refactoring of the BBO interface), tell me how this works without being massively gameable?

An example from the last tournament I played in (all marked calls were alerted with these explanations at the time of call):

---

As someone who has read about, but hasn't played, '1[c] clubs or balanced with transfer responses', I had a few questions. I really appreciated the explanations during the auction, but they are very unclear. I mean, sure, I get that 1♥ shows 4+ spades. But does 2♣ show diamonds, or is it XYNT? Now that they've ended up in hearts, do they play "hearts before spades", or does responder show 5=4 minimum? (one thing I didn't think about, but "what do you bid with majors 5=5". Given that's what declarer had...)?

I got answers - good answers - and I led and we played the hand. But just as I was leading, dummy PM'ed me "your lead" - because it sure looked like I was being slow. My response "Sorry. Your partner's explanations - needed explanation." Everybody had a good laugh about that (and they told me "we're just starting with this, and learning how to explain well. You have suggestions?" at the end of the round). And of course (given the game was BBO clocked, but start the next round if everyone's ready - so 9x3 in just over 2h40), we had no issues whatever finishing the round in time.

But who takes the time for the explanations? The questions? The answers? If good explanations are on my clock, or if it costs the other side to ask the questions, then there's a definite incentive to give garbage explanations, or just Alert and wait for the questions - which happens anyway, joy for encouraging it. If responsibility for full disclosure (and time required) is on the bidding side, then there's an incentive to be an unthinking innocent, and ask about everything. Who's responsible for time costs for not posting a card (or having the system auto-post SAYC, when they're obviously not playing that?) What about the people playing on phones that auto-hide the chat so they can see, so questions asked about their carding say, never get answered? (Note I'm being generous here; frequently it's obvious we're just being ignored - especially when "carding please" gets "your play" 20 seconds later. But I've always liked assuming the best in people).

Table history as a TD has timings of every action, and "who took what in total" can be calculated. But things like these probably are calculated incorrectly...

Never mind the people who freak out when it takes 10-15 seconds to play to trick 1, and then there's a 30-odd second pause at trick 6. They never do that - they just tank 8 seconds on every trick, sometimes with the "tank, then lead to the KJ" "when the Q doesn't pop, tank before playing from dummy" game.

On the other hand, GBB, "still allow(ing) everyone to finish a round before moving people on" is massively unpleasant to the majority of players who are not slow. I know people who have left games, and grumble about certain directors at other games, because "we're waiting 5 minutes every round. Even [slow pair] has time to get a coffee every round! Because X and Y can't play to time, and the director lets them." Call the round on the round, stare at the slow pairs (from an acceptable distance), move them when they're (finally) done, and start again. Or have a 24 board game take almost 4 hours, I guess.

[pilowsky]

The inevitable question. It's your time. Keep playing. If opps do not answer promptly and satisfactorily, and I (director) assess that you have been damaged, the score will be adjusted in your favour. Stepbridge is part of the way there already. It works well, Unfortunately, they average the time control across two or even three boards which is not quite as fair.

[mycroft]

Okay, you get the pair that attempts minimal disclosure. The pair that explains 1 Precision club - 1♦ as "waiting". The one that explains 5♥ as "2 keys", with two suits in play. The pair that won't answer their carding, or claim "capp" as their NT defence, but that's only their *strong* NT defence. Or I don't get an answer to "how minimum are your minimum openers?"

And sure, you as the TD can assess that I was damaged, if I was. But the TDs that say that I wasn't damaged, because I play Precision; or because it was "obvious" that that meant "two keycards of five for hearts (as the last bid suit) without the ♥Q, because of course that's what it has to mean" (because they've never seen anyone play 6-Ace, or play "2♣ suit takes priority" or...), or "but they didn't open 1NT, why are you asking?" or any of the other things).

I also don't understand why averaging over a round isn't fair. Board 1, we have a complicated auction to slam, they ask a bunch of questions at the end, I claim at trick 2. I don't get credit for playing at my normal pace for 2 and 3?

[pilowsky]

Bad luck. You should be able to understand the bidding by now. I do not consider that you were damaged. Play continues.

[mycroft]

Wow, that's - interesting. Remind me next time I play you about that. We'll be happy to give "reasonable disclosure for Standard and precision". "You should be able to understand the bidding by now." No damage, it's obvious that 1NT-2♦; 2♥-3♦ promises 5-5, because 2NT would show 5 hearts and a 4 card minor. So sorry you misdefended, but that's just Bad Luck.

[pilowsky]

I do understand the concept of 'minimal disclosure'. Then you arrive at another difficulty. What is sufficient disclosure for every individual person?
Every language has its 'codes'. Shorthand signalling methods save time where time is short. It is not 'your time' Time does not belong to you.
On a ward round the junior doctor starts by saying "Here is Mr Jones a 61-year-old man who woke at 6 am with central chest pain radiating to his jaw". The doctor then talks for 5 more minutes.
All the other doctors know that they are listening to a story about someone who has had a heart attack because of that first sentence. The patient who is not a doctor does not. Mr Jones is not a doctor. He does not speak the code.
In Bridge, special bids are alerted and their meanings are supposed to be clarifiable within a range to prevent damage.
In a timed game you ask, take your answer, use the information and at the end if the Director considers that you were damaged an appropriate adjustment can be made.
1. Complete misinformation was provided. Damage
2. reasonable information was provided that you misconstrued. no Damage
3. and so on
This is what a Director does - they adjudicate, they referee, they review, they apply their knowledge and judgement.
"It ain't nothin' till I call it." Bill Klem
Play on

[mycroft]

Ah, but there is another option.

Get what seems to be incomplete disclosure, ask for clarification. If one doesn't get it, call the TD, who will hopefully be able to understand the questioning and rephrase it to get an answer, or simply compel an answer. I've had people explain their carding as "odd-even first discard", for instance, and totally blow off "what is your non-discard signalling?". As a TD, I have a lot of experience in rephrasing questions, and getting past "it's just bridge" stonewalls, for players.

If we get the answer (even if the question doesn't make sense to the opponents, like "what's your opening NT range" when the auction goes 1♣-1♥; 1NT - invariably the first answer is "but he/I didn't open 1NT"), we can play the game that was designed. If we don't, or in your scheme, if we can't, then the TD gets to play the game. One of the things, as a TD, that I dislike doing, is assigning scores. Not because it isn't my job, it absolutely is, but it takes the play out of the players' hands. And even if they all agree - and the number of "but I would never do that" and "but [winning line] is obvious" discussions I have are testament to they don't always agree - that's not fun for the players. Add into that the "windfall" stories from people at other tables upset at "ludicrous" assigned scores, and "It's Wrong when the match is decided by the Director/Appeal Committee", and I don't want this.

And all so that we can "properly assign blame" to slow play - and assign scores to unplayed/partially played hands with the correct bias. This isn't blitz chess, it isn't even (always) speedball; your solution to the time gaming problem is worse than the disease, and the solution to the slow play problem that allows the gaming is at least as bad as the disease.

The correct answer to slow play, as always, is Hurry up and Think.

[joel1900]

An audible alert at the 2 minute mark would warn players of the need to play quickly. This is what's done at tournaments.