[mike777]

I was at a smallish regional ACBl tournament.

Made the semi finals of the two day KO.
Starting day two I am about to play a slow pair. I noticed on day one their table was always late. 24 board match.

What should I do if anything before the start? I am asking not only what are my rights but to avoid unfriendliness..I had by far the least ACBL masterpoints

As it was nothing got done and we ended up at least 30 minutes behind the room each half. Over One hour in total..prepaid lunch was lost..
Director did nothing..

It was a miserable bridge experience..that I paid over a grand in expenses to experience
We lost by 3 which didn't help .

Edit

I will take my share of responsibilities as Patience has never been my strong suit

[jillybean]

I don't always handle this well. Chronic slow play tends to derail my game too, so I sympathize with the frustration.

That said, 30 minutes is excessive, assuming the other team(s) wasn't playing speedball. I would have spoken to the Director before the match about it — the Director should have been on top of this already, and it shouldn't be causing problems for the other players at the table.

Curious to hear what that tall Director will have to say about it.

edit: It's not unfriendly to expect players to play within the clock in a timed event.
WTH does Masterpoints have to do with maintaining a reasonable tempo?

[pescetom]

I struggle to imagine the situation, but bridge is a huge and varied business, no idea how your regionals work.
I really can't imagine a Director here doing nothing while a table is 30 minutes (??) late each half, particularly if the opponents complained, as I assume you did.

[mikeh]

My advice to anyone in Mike’s position is to call the director at the halfway point. I’m assuming that the offending pair was slow for the first half as well. You’re not getting those minutes back, but you have some chance of slow play penalties if the problem persists into the second half.

Of course, one sometimes encounters offenders who proclaim their innocence but chronically slow pairs often have a reputation that will severely your side well.

[a_user]

There are many bizarre things about competitive Bridge.
But the most baffling one is the absence of clocks.

Every pair should have a certain amount of time to play every hand or they lose.
The pair whose clock expires before they play their hand would get the same score as the lowest scoring pair for the hand.

A game without some kind of enforceable time pressure is not very interesting

[jillybean]

I agree, partially.

Some boards are over in two minutes; others genuinely need extended time to bid and play properly — a complex auction or a tricky end position can't always be rushed without ruining the game itself. A hard clock per board risks penalizing boards that deserve more thought, not just pairs that are slow for no good reason.

What we should be doing instead is clamping down on chronic slow play with procedural penalties, applied consistently. The problem isn't the absence of a clock — it's the absence of enforcement against the pairs who are habitually slow, regardless of board difficulty.

[mycroft]

• A quiet request the second hand things are slow (everybody's slow on one hand). For the problem pairs, that will usually be board 3 or 4.
  
• After the third hand - or upon disagreement about the issue - call the director and report.
  
• Sure, after the half, if you're clearly behind *the room* - not just your preferred speed - get the director over to note the time.
  
• If time isn't going normally in the second half, keep reporting. Especially if - again - you're sending 3 boards back when you get 6. (but again, expect the counter-argument to be "your/our teammates are just fast". But at this point, the cadence of caddy calls should clarify...)
  
• Absolutely expect the opponents to be on your case on your "that one hand", or a request to get water, or bathroom break - and use it as an excuse on the next interaction.

Sure, it's a lot of work - but there are way too many players who complain about "slow opponents" who magically finish their 24 boards in 2h50 because what they're upset about is that these opponents are *slower than they are*, not that they're actually *slow*.

Also, know that directors cost money. And directors responsible for 40-odd tables try to notice things like "you're three boards behind everybody else", but, you know, 40 tables...

I will say that long-form KOs emphasise players' peccadillios. The fast pairs get faster - and are out in 2h10. The slow pairs don't get reminded every 15 minutes and get slower. The post-mortemers - oh my (especially with shuffled boards). I will also say that despite that, the KO room is *empty* - like, maybe 3 to 5 tables in play - when the pairs are going into their last round. The Swiss, on the other hand...

[mikeh]

a_user, on 2026-August-03, 05:37, said:

There are many bizarre things about competitive Bridge.
But the most baffling one is the absence of clocks.

Every pair should have a certain amount of time to play every hand or they lose.
The pair whose clock expires before they play their hand would get the same score as the lowest scoring pair for the hand.

A game without some kind of enforceable time pressure is not very interesting

I once took (at least) 10 minutes before I played to trick one, in a 28 board Regional KO final. That led to my making a slam that a well known pro at the other table failed. It included having to tackle my trump suit of AKJxx opposite Q9x in dummy by ruffing in my hand with two top trump and playing LHO for 10x(x) in trump…I hooked the 9. Baze called it the hand of the tournament (he was kibitzing the other table).

We finished in plenty of time

Playing with clocks, as in chess, would have meant either incurring a penalty for the best hand I’ve ever played or not working out how to plan the play and going down. As it was, the slam swing won us the event.