[matmat]

While I agree with the general principle of policing existing time limits on a session, I think that enforcing a time cap on any single play or call is ridiculous. Some instance require more thought than others, the key is that things ought to balance out in the end during a long session.

That said, they don't always have to; deals are random and it may happen that one side gets more tough decisions than the other.
For that reason, I would not want to use a chess countdown clock either. If you are going to use a clock, use one that tallies up the time each pair uses during a single session. You could then compare the recorded times with the other table (better comparison than with the other pair at the same table, still not ideal) or, in a pair game, with all the other pairs playing the same way.

heh... i think some people mentioned building in mandatory 5 or 10s period for each call? are you really suggesting that in an uncontested relay auction to, say, a slam that takes 6-7 (maybe 10?) rounds of bidding, the side that is _not_bidding_ could take up as much as two minutes of the allotted seven in the bidding alone? Great idea.

[barryallen]

 matmat, on 2011-May-18, 10:54, said:

While I agree with the general principle of policing existing time limits on a session, I think that enforcing a time cap on any single play or call is ridiculous. Some instance require more thought than others, the key is that things ought to balance out in the end during a long session.

That said, they don't always have to; deals are random and it may happen that one side gets more tough decisions than the other.
For that reason, I would not want to use a chess countdown clock either. If you are going to use a clock, use one that tallies up the time each pair uses during a single session. You could then compare the recorded times with the other table (better comparison than with the other pair at the same table, still not ideal) or, in a pair game, with all the other pairs playing the same way.

heh... i think some people mentioned building in mandatory 5 or 10s period for each call? are you really suggesting that in an uncontested relay auction to, say, a slam that takes 6-7 (maybe 10?) rounds of bidding, the side that is _not_bidding_ could take up as much as two minutes of the allotted seven in the bidding alone? Great idea.

Whilst I do not have a specific view as to whether time penalties should be used, I fully agree with your approach should a form of time penalty be used. This gives the maximum flexibility whilst addressing the issue. To me that is only half of an equation that requires solving, you then cannot leave penalties down to the officials discretion. The penalties must be mandatory based upon the proviso's inserted within the rules, removing any possible bias or interpretation. In some cases this will result in some pairs / teams being possibly hard done by, but in the overall requirement for fairness this is a price which will have to be paid and one understood by all from the onset.

[blackshoe]

 helene_t, on 2011-May-18, 10:22, said:

At the local club I play much faster than most others and I have the impression that by doing so I intimidate partner and opps to play fast as well. So we usually end the round before most other tables and have a few minutes extra break. Usually I will not spend precious brain cells on post mortems but just switch off my brain during those minutes. This allows me to stay reasonable awake throughout the session.

Heh. At my local club, fast players frequently finish before the "three minute warning", stand up, and go hover over the next table, trying to push them into moving so they can sit down. They also move the boards they just played (in spite of the fact that this is technically a NS responsibility), and then the NS start asking for boards (which, again technically, aren't supposed to be moved until the round is called). On several occasions this has resulted in half the field being a full round ahead of the other half.

[matmat]

 blackshoe, on 2011-May-18, 14:58, said:

Heh. At my local club, fast players frequently finish before the "three minute warning", stand up, and go hover over the next table, trying to push them into moving so they can sit down. They also move the boards they just played (in spite of the fact that this is technically a NS responsibility), and then the NS start asking for boards (which, again technically, aren't supposed to be moved until the round is called). On several occasions this has resulted in half the field being a full round ahead of the other half.

This is what a table with cookies and goodies, removed from the playing area, is for.

[blackshoe]

 matmat, on 2011-May-18, 17:52, said:

This is what a table with cookies and goodies, removed from the playing area, is for.

We have those. Doesn't matter.

[Bbradley62]

 blackshoe, on 2011-May-18, 14:58, said:

On several occasions this has resulted in half the field being a full round ahead of the other half.

Our director used to call that a half-fast game.

[barmar]

 bluecalm, on 2011-May-18, 01:14, said:

Slow or not the point is that it should not be possible for one pair at the table to take significantly more time thus gaining unfair advantage.

I don't think that happens too much. For the most part, everyone in these high-level tournaments plays very deliberately. Sometimes declarer takes a full minute or more to plan the play when dummy comes down, other times 3rd hand spends a long time planning his defense. And I doubt that these players are disconcerted much when an opponent goes into the tank, since they're used to it. Instead, they take advantage of the time to do some more thinking of their own.

BTW, wasn't there a Venice Cup (or some other women's world championship) final whose results were reversed because of a time penalty assessed against the winning team? IIRC, the team that was awarded the win offered to play a rematch, because they didn't feel good winning this way.

[Mbodell]

 glen, on 2011-May-17, 16:39, said:

I really enjoy watch football games as shown on the NFL Network's NFL Replay - this is 1 1/4 hours per game before I fast-forward past the ads. They edit out all the huddles, timeouts, coach's challenges etc. to produce a fast-paced and highly entertaining show. Imagine if the US finals were recorded live, but shown on vugraph with a start time an hour later than actual, and giving one of the commentators the ability to fast forward during the many slow spots, and if necessary, say when somebody fails to take their 9 tricks in a 3NT or makes a clever squeeze to bring in a contract, then a quick instant replay for all those watching who like to watch big hits and touchdowns.

There is kind of a version of this for the Silodor winners over on bridgewinners.com where Gavin is giving insight into his thought process and the issues for each and every hand from the winning final session of the Silodor pairs. The format is VuGraph style play combined with talking head video (both on the screen at the same time). In addition to being really interesting and education for players of many different levels, it is a good pace for thinking about the hands. Gavin is averaging about 4.5 to 5 minutes a hand (most videos are one 2 board round and are just under 10 minutes long). That is a super watchable format IMO.

If you are thinking of TV ESPN did something like that for the world series of poker where the winner would give commentary about the final table broadcast. It wasn't quite as well done as what Gavin did, because the ESPN commentary is an add on to an existing program. But it shows that TV folks have thought about presenting a game where the players spend most of their time thinking. Of course if ESPN was covering the team trials the whole thing would be boiled down to 3 or 4 hands, and likely only a single decision or 2 from each of the hands. I can just imagine Norman Chad talking about his failed marriages between talking about if Grue will be whamboozled by the preempt. Or ESPN hyping the drama as a player tanks on a finesse/drop play, and only showing that one trick from both tables. I guess my point is that what makes for real TV for the masses, is not the same as what is enjoyable depth of coverage for someone who appreciates the actual game in question. And if you think bridge is slow, try the final table of the world series of poker. Some years ESPN has broadcast it unedited on ESPN3 online or on PPV and the final table is often 12-16 hours in duration to play 100-150 poker hands. But as a poker player it is more interesting and insightful in to the actual poker being played to watch that then to watch the 1 hour summary program (that is half full of background information and B-roll and interviews anyways) that only shows the "interesting" hands.

[Free]

 chudecek, on 2011-May-17, 09:03, said:

All contestants play exactly the same system and playing conventions.

LOL. I suggest you start a new bridge league with these constraints, I bet you won't have any success. The variety is attractive and makes people happy with what they play. Forcing someone to play a system is frustrating because no system is perfect and the people won't be allowed to fix any issues.

[chudecek]

 Free, on 2011-May-19, 05:55, said:

LOL. I suggest you start a new bridge league with these constraints (contestants play the same system). I bet you won't have any success. The variety is attractive and makes people happy with what they play. Forcing someone to play a system is frustrating because no system is perfect and the people won't be allowed to fix any issues.

As I have said several times, THIS thread is about time constraints tracked by computer. A subsequent post will comment on "allowed systems", and don't jump to conclusions until you see that proposal, which WILL allow considerable "variety" and will permit "issue fixes".

[olien]

My suggestion for the bidding system issue IF computers were to be used seems like it would probably work. Each pair would be responsible for submitting a card in FD format that would then be used during the play. Each bid would automatically be alerted and the opponents would not have to ask for an explanation as that is already provided. I understand that it takes significantly more time to fill out an FD card as opposed to a normal convention card or system summary or advanced summary form, but that time would be at least mostly be made up by the lack of pauses for questions. Sure, there may still be some questions regarding style, but the style is usually covered in a general style in the system summary form.

[Zelandakh]

@olien, a small issue with that is that the FD card is quite limited in size. Even my incomplete system hit the limit without filling out control-showing relays or most competitive bidding. For any expert pair FD is just not good enough and that is not even starting on the many many hours inputtng a complex system takes. There is also a practical problem, let's say I open a strong club and the opponents overcall 1S. If 1S is natural then my bids mean this, if it shows blacks then this, any 13 cards something else again, and so on. How are you going to bundle all of that into an FD description? And this is a simple situation...

[billw55]

Regarding time: of course there can be special events with very limited/strictly enforced time limits. But the top level events should stay as they are. Building a legacy of the very best bridge is more important than keeping spectators engaged during the actual event. We have seen this trend in chess and Go; ever-shortening time limits leading to lower quality play. Let's keep it out of bridge.

About systems: system restrictions are for lol players. Sure, there are enough of them out there to gather interest in club level "one-system" events. But I really don't think there are many lols in the USA trials, or the Spingold, etc. I doubt you could find one player actually entered in these events that would want this.

[FrancesHinden]

 mrdct, on 2011-May-17, 22:03, said:

Although I guess you could have GIB determine the point where declarer has the rest of the tricks on all layouts and then all time from there until the claim gets ascribed to declarer.

This is a great idea. Just think of it, you are sitting there trying to work out if you can guarantee the contract, and suddenly the computer beeps at you. Now you know that (i) you are too stupid to see the 100% line, and (ii) for every second you think, another matchpoint is taken away....

[AlexJonson]

Of course your GIB won't do very well at all without sight of all hands,
(unlike, for example, Chess computers that crunch the whole position).

[cherdano]

 mrdct, on 2011-May-17, 22:03, said:

Although I guess you could have GIB determine the point where declarer has the rest of the tricks on all layouts and then all time from there until the claim gets ascribed to declarer.

I really like this idea. However, I don't think you are taking this quite far enough. If GIB knows there is a 95% line, and all other lines are less than 50%, surely the declarer at this level will eventually find that line anyway, and GIB should also claim and award tricks according the actual layout.
Once GIB gets better, you can move the thresholds closer and closer together.
Once GIB is really good, GIB could just play the hand and stop at close decisions asking for input from declarer, e.g. asking him "Does LHO look like someone having the ♥Q?" etc. - it would REALLY speed up the game while giving the players the fun of solving interesting and psychological problems rather than doing the boring part of avoiding mistakes on easy hands...

[hrothgar]

 cherdano, on 2011-May-19, 13:51, said:

Once GIB is really good, GIB could just play the hand and stop at close decisions asking for input from declarer, e.g. asking him "Does LHO look like someone having the ♥Q?" etc. - it would REALLY speed up the game while giving the players the fun of solving interesting and psychological problems rather than doing the boring part of avoiding mistakes on easy hands...

It worked for Poker...

Why do you think everone switched over to Hold 'Em?

[benlessard]

Quote

Why do you think everone switched over to Hold 'Em

For the pros hold em is great since there is more betting/per hour, its a more positionnal game (more opponents behind you) less split pots (vs hi-low games) its simply the best form for making money against amateurs. As a side bonus hold em is the easiest to multi table on the net.

[A2003]

It is possible that players might not have picked the cards for next hand for bid after the hand is played. They may be chatting or discussing over previous hand.
Whereas in the vugraph, next hand is shown right away after the first hand play is over. so, there may not be slow play in some cases.
Is the players complaining about the slow play?

[apjames]

 chudecek, on 2011-May-18, 07:04, said:

This system SAVES money by preventing revokes

Never knew that revokes cost money