[swanway]

EBU

Several months ago I submitted to this forum a question about'slow play' and how to deal with it. The response from directors around the world was very encouraging and much appreciated. Unfortunately there were so many different opinions that it was difficult to decide how to confidently rule. Our club,after consultation with all the members, has come up with the following club ruling regarding slow play. Please would you comment and make suggestions.

The club has a clock that warns players when there is only 3 minutes left to play the round. We have ruled that if players are still bidding they are not allowed to play the hand. The director is then called. If one pair is responsible for the slow play they will be awarded an Av- and the other pair an Av. If both pairs are responsible they are both awarded Av-. What happens if there has been a hold up at the table because the director had to make a ruling about an infraction? Do we make allowances for this? Giving them both an Av for instance.

Last time some directors said it was illegal and others said they had similar rulings. Who is right? We really need precise and legal instructions to deal with this common problem.

[ahydra]

Law 12C2a said:

When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained (and see C1(d) above), the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.

So it's a case of if both pairs are slow, are both "directly" at fault or "only partly" at fault? I'd say the latter, but one could argue the former, particularly if it will discourage slow play at your club. It is certainly legal to give A4040 or A4050.

If there's been a hold-up because of a director call I would say the fairest ruling is A5050.

At the end of the day the best thing to do is: 1) decide a set of rules 2) put them in the club's constitution (and probably on the website as well) 3) stick to them.

ahydra

[VixTD]

I hope I can answer this without starting the original arguments all over again.

I believe the consensus among the legal guys is that you should not stop a board once it has been legally started, so stopping a board in the middle of the auction because the three-minute limit has been reached is not a good idea (and possibly illegal). Let them finish it (exhort them to play quickly), and remove a board from the next round if they haven't caught up.

Identifying slow players is difficult, particularly for a playing director. When I try to warn players I get a chorus of "it's not our fault" and explanations why the other side or some third party is to blame. It's often difficult to work out who, if anyone, is telling the truth. At the club I don't penalise players for slow play unless they are obviously to blame, or if it is a second offence, so it's normally A/A first time, A-/A+ next time if the same players are involved.

I usually consider "directly at fault" to refer to the side that caused the problem, and "partially at fault" to refer to a side that didn't cause the problem, but could have done something to prevent it. So if one side takes ages to play a hand, and the other side makes no effort to catch up but insists on taking the usual minute or two studying the other scores and discussing what might have been, they are partially to blame.

If play is held up because the TD has to deal with a problem, I'm usually prepared to add a minute or two to the round if that will let them finish, but not more than this. Sometimes they have to lose a board, and it's no-one's fault, but that's too bad.

Our club used to use a two-minute time limit, which I thought was fair. In my absence the committee increased this to three minutes, which I think may be appropriate in more serious competitions, but inappropriate at a club evening where we're trying in encourage new players. Some of the faster players would go out of their way to point out to me which tables were falling behind and seemed to gain satisfaction from seeing a board removed, which I find rather distasteful. I've refused to use the clock since then, but I might reinstate it for the club championship pairs next week.

[pran]

VixTD, on 2012-November-02, 08:09, said:

I hope I can answer this without starting the original arguments all over again.

I believe the consensus among the legal guys is that you should not stop a board once it has been legally started, so stopping a board in the middle of the auction because the three-minute limit has been reached is not a good idea (and possibly illegal).
[...]

It is illegal:

Law 8B1 said:

In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players.

[Trinidad]

VixTD, on 2012-November-02, 08:09, said:

Identifying slow players is difficult, particularly for a playing director.

A tip that I got from an excellent TD: There is only so much investigating you can do. Just ask the players if one of them thinks that it was their own fault. If nobody speaks up, they are both at fault.

You will be surprised about the amount of players who will immediately, or at the end of the next round admit that they were responsible.

Rik

[bluejak]

swanway, on 2012-November-02, 06:16, said:

The club has a clock that warns players when there is only 3 minutes left to play the round. We have ruled that if players are still bidding they are not allowed to play the hand. The director is then called. If one pair is responsible for the slow play they will be awarded an Av- and the other pair an Av. If both pairs are responsible they are both awarded Av-. What happens if there has been a hold up at the table because the director had to make a ruling about an infraction? Do we make allowances for this? Giving them both an Av for instance.

This illegal. Show me any Law that permits a TD to stop the play.

[blackshoe]

swanway, on 2012-November-02, 06:16, said:

EBU

Several months ago I submitted to this forum a question about'slow play' and how to deal with it. The response from directors around the world was very encouraging and much appreciated. Unfortunately there were so many different opinions that it was difficult to decide how to confidently rule. Our club,after consultation with all the members, has come up with the following club ruling regarding slow play. Please would you comment and make suggestions.

The club has a clock that warns players when there is only 3 minutes left to play the round. We have ruled that if players are still bidding they are not allowed to play the hand. The director is then called. If one pair is responsible for the slow play they will be awarded an Av- and the other pair an Av. If both pairs are responsible they are both awarded Av-. What happens if there has been a hold up at the table because the director had to make a ruling about an infraction? Do we make allowances for this? Giving them both an Av for instance.

Last time some directors said it was illegal and others said they had similar rulings. Who is right? We really need precise and legal instructions to deal with this common problem.

Well. Let's look at some Laws.

Quote

Law 8B1: In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round, but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players.

Quote

Law 17A: The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner withdraws his cards from the board.

Quote

Law 22A: The auction ends when:
1. all four players pass, but see Law 25. The hands are returned to the board without play. There shall not be a redeal.
2. one or more players having bid, there are three consecutive passes in rotation subsequent to the last bid. The last bid becomes the contract, but see Law 19D.

19D is not relevant to this discussion. 25 may be, but if it is, it just means that 22A2 applies.

Quote

Law 22B: 1. The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2 above, either defender faces an opening lead. (If the lead is out of turn, then see Law 54.) The interval between the end of the auction and the end of the auction period is designated the clarification period.
2. If no player bids (see A1 above), the auction period ends when all four hands have been returned to the board.

Quote

Law 41C: Following this clarification period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins irrevocably, and dummy’s hand is spread (but see Law 54A for a faced opening lead out of turn).

There is no provision in law for the director to stop the play of a board once it has been started, i.e., once any player withdraws his cards from the board (Law 17A). If this is the last board of the round (usually the case when "slow play" rears its head) the round ends "when there has been a progression of players," that is, when the moving pair gets up and moves, which will not happen until after the play is completed and the score agreed. The fact that a clock alarm has rung, or the director has called the round, is irrelevant.

I agree with those who have said, in essence, that the club should establish clear and legal rules, and enforce them evenly.

[jh51]

Trinidad, on 2012-November-02, 13:34, said:

A tip that I got from an excellent TD: There is only so much investigating you can do. Just ask the players if one of them thinks that it was their own fault. If nobody speaks up, they are both at fault.

You will be surprised about the amount of players who will immediately, or at the end of the next round admit that they were responsible.

Rik

And them there are those pairs who have every excuse in the world why it it not their fault, and the directors let them get away with it. At last summer's NABC, I was playing in a 2 session regionally rated fast pairs event (3 boards in 15 minutes). In both sessions I was adjacent to a particularly slow pair. When we were N-S, we almost never got 3 boards when the move was called. (There was an oddity in the room layour in that there was a huge suppport column between us. By huge, I mean that it was square in shape and it took up an amount of space that a bridge table and chairs would nirmally occupy and still leave room to walk between the occupied tables. Thus I was not privy to what was going on in that session except for whe I received boards.) When we were EW, we were almost always waiting for them to finish so we could go to their table. The director was frequently at their table due to their slow play, and they always had an excuse. On one occassion, he stated that there woule be a penalty on the next occurrnace, but none was ever issued, despite the director having to come to their table at least two more times due to their slow play. FWIW - they finished 2nd in the event.

[Trinidad]

jh51, on 2012-November-09, 10:44, said:

Trinidad, on 2012-November-02, 13:34, said:

A tip that I got from an excellent TD: There is only so much investigating you can do. Just ask the players if one of them thinks that it was their own fault. If nobody speaks up, they are both at fault.

You will be surprised about the amount of players who will immediately, or at the end of the next round admit that they were responsible.

Rik

And them there are those pairs who have every excuse in the world why it it not their fault, and the directors let them get away with it. At last summer's NABC, I was playing in a 2 session regionally rated fast pairs event (3 boards in 15 minutes). In both sessions I was adjacent to a particularly slow pair. When we were N-S, we almost never got 3 boards when the move was called. (There was an oddity in the room layour in that there was a huge suppport column between us. By huge, I mean that it was square in shape and it took up an amount of space that a bridge table and chairs would nirmally occupy and still leave room to walk between the occupied tables. Thus I was not privy to what was going on in that session except for whe I received boards.) When we were EW, we were almost always waiting for them to finish so we could go to their table. The director was frequently at their table due to their slow play, and they always had an excuse. On one occassion, he stated that there woule be a penalty on the next occurrnace, but none was ever issued, despite the director having to come to their table at least two more times due to their slow play. FWIW - they finished 2nd in the event.

So, what the TD should have done is give both pairs a warning the first time (since the true slow pair that you were sitting next to didn't take the blame) and on every following occasion the slow pair should have gotten a PP for slow play (increasing it every round). After issuing the 2nd PP for this pair, I think the TD will have identified the pair that was causing the problem to begin with and he can retract the warnings for the other innocent pairs.

Rik

[jh51]

In my case, I think it was clear to the director who was at fault for the slow play. But all he ever did, at least in the second session, was warn. The excuses were amazing. 15 minutes after a hospitality break, one of the members had to go to the restroom. That's why they have hospitality breaks, but this pair had used the break to get caught back up. Near the end of the seoncd session they were about 5 minutes behind. Their excuse was that the oppoents had a complicated auction on the final hand of that set. This ignored the fact that they had arrived at that table 3 minutes after the move had been called. One should remember that this was a "Fast Pairs" event where one was expected to average about 5 minutes per board, so one would think that time was of the essence and that slow play should absolutely not have been tolerated.