Slow play (again)
Scenario: As TD you finish the 3rd board of the round, mindful that as declarer you have been slightly slow as the clock you are using has counted down to zero. You look at the 6 table room and 4 other tables have finished and the 5th nearly. Meanwhile the 6th have only just taken the cards out and a couple of bids have been made.
Pragmatically you want to take that 3rd board away and get on with the movement, explaining that you know you shouldn't take away a board that has been started, but in the interest of pragmatism and to keep everyone else happy (the room is becoming agitated about some of the slow play) that is want you want to do, and to score it as "not played" (again, not EBU recommended approach but pragmatic in a club situation).
One of the players defiantly says that they have had no warning (as apparently required by EBU regulations - is it?) and insists on playing it much to annoyance of you (as undermined TD) and the rest of the room who want to get on and play the next round (and thence to the bar before it closes). Does the fact that you pointed out a few minutes previously that "you should be on your 3rd board", combined with a clock that by then has counted down, constitute an implied sufficient warning?
Any come back?
How can the situation be avoided?
Comments
There is no requirement that there be a warning though it's good practice to let them know, which you seem to have done with your announcement. The laws don't allow for removing a board once it has started, but you could move the rest of the room and take away a board from the next round for the two pairs, scoring them A-/A+
Thanks Gordon. Had the player objected on grounds that the board had already started I would have had more sympathy and little choice.
If possible, shortly after announcing that players should be on their last board, instruct players not to start a new board.
For example, “If you have not started the last board by now, you will have to take an average.”
You are now in a ‘belt and braces’ position to apply laws 90 to 93, if the players start the board contrary to your explicit instructions.
It sounds like you are playing to a clock, so no one should be surprised by this.
If the club has a clock that is visible to everyone, you might consider implementing a club rule that players cannot start a new board after the clock reaches 3:00 (say) without first asking permission from the TD. Maybe this is worth considering if slow play is becoming serious issue for the club. When I directed at the Cambridge club they had a stricter version of this (no new boards at all after 4:00) which I thought was excessive.
Otherwise you do have to just keep on top of things: either you spot the slow table and cancel their board before they get a chance to start it, or call "do not start new boards" at the appropriate time. If you've got distracted and they have started a board, you just have to let them get on with it. But do call the move as soon as the penultimate table has played their last card - there's no need for everyone else to be waiting.
So I agree with the player's objection. On the other hand, they should never have got away with ignoring the TD's instructions! I would have been telling them firmly that whether they agree with the decision or not, the decision is made and board is cancelled. I remember once having to tell someone, "No I'm sorry, you're not going to play this board. Even if you spend the next five minutes putting cards on the table, there will not be a score recorded on this board."
I remember being taught this, but I've never understood the basis for this in the laws.
I see in WB 8.81.4.1: "The TD should not cancel a board because the table is late, once the auction period has
commenced." But the use of the word should here suggests it is merely advice, not a law.
And I do think this is really awful advice for a club game. It's not uncommon that a playing TDs thinks all the tables are about to finish, but then spots players putting a new board into position which the TD didn't realise was still to play. In my opinion the TD needs to be able to cancel that board regardless of whether they get there in time to stop the players removing cards from it.
@davidcollier
WB8.81.4.1 draws a distinction between events were;
i) players have been warned in advance about the speed of play and the consequences of slow play, and
ii) players have not been given any instructions about speed of play and consequences of slow play.
It’s in the last 2 sentences of the first paragraph of WB8.81.4.1
The part you quote, from WB 8.81.4.1, relates to instances were no event instructions have been given regarding timings and consequences. Essentially, in such instances, it would be unfair to apply a penalty where the players were unaware that penalties applied as a consequence of their slow play.
So, strictly speaking, the laws don’t provide for cancelling a board for slow play (once the auction has commenced), but the event organiser’s can make such rules for their own event.
It appears from the OP that instructions were given with regards to timings, but it is also suggested that no consequences were announced for slow play, otherwise the TD would have quoted them to the player (and us). That leans us towards not cancelling the board, because the timings could be described as a guide, not a constraint, IMO.
Still, I would have supported all the arguments you advanced for cancelling it in the circumstances described.
I think that the logic behind not cancelling the hand is that if you obviously find yourself in a mess over the bidding in a hand... just go into the tank while 'thinking' about what to do next. Eventually the director removes the board from play and you get (probably) 50% or at worst 40% for a board you were certain was going to be a bottom.
Thanks folks. Some helpful suggestions which I shall discuss with the club's Chief TD so as to tighten up club policy and provide greater clarity for all.
Meanwhile In my sessions I will try a tweak on David's suggestion and tell players that if they fail to start the final board of a round with less than a few (3?) minutes remaining on the clock, or finish the last board after the clock reaches zero then they risk being penalised, such as an adjusted score or having a board removed.
One point we'll have to decide is the amount of discretion TDs have to take pragmatic decisions that might not strictly adhere to EBU regulations but keep the session moving for the room as a whole, thereby benefiting everybody's enjoyment of the game. I would hope the answer would depend on where it sits on the scale of formality from "Assisted Play" to "Social Session" to "Formal Club Competition".
For example I have never worked out is why, in a social game, a TD should not simply remove a board and score it as "not played". Granted it is open to abuse by weaker pairs playing deliberately slowly against stronger ones. But in an ordinary club session are they really that cunning? And if they are it becomes pretty obvious if it is going on.
We also need to sort out how to handle acts of defiance when TD discretion is exercised for the greater good of the room.
Good stuff. I'd just like to say in case it's not already clear:
I think you probably understood this already, but just want to spell it out.
Must admit I didn't, although fuller phrasing of my original to say "..may risk having that or another board cancelled", as was my intention may have been a better phrasing, but not as good as yours. (So it's not only Software Engineers that worry so much about the differences between could, should and must).
I am however loathe to remove boards for reasons already mentioned. I vaguely remember early days in lockdown with various competitions on BBO where if you got into a mess you could either play slowly of "accidentally" lose connection and get the board voided. That has now been substantially fixed by the awarding of adjusted scores.
On the occasion in question I did point out to the players that I realised the board had been started, and would have accepted a request not to cancel for that reason (one pair may have already gone wrong). But they objected for a different reason.
Thank you. My intention was that "they risk ...having a board removed" would imply the possibility or cancelling the board in play, but your suggestion phrases it more clearly and removes the doubt (and another argument).
Having said that very loathe to remove boards already in play for reasons already mentioned such as one pair having already gone awry. However I'd still argue that the scenario I had is an exception. I vaguely remember early pandemic days on BBO where players could readily play slowly or "lose connection" in an attempt to get a "not played". That is now pretty much fixed by the awarding of adjusted scores.
The reason is because that's not how the laws tell you to score unplayed boards. Law 12 tells you to give Av+/Av/Av- according to fault but you want to give them something else entirely.
That is of course a very good reason....
But what's the thinking behind the law being that? Scoring it as "not played" is admittedly a cop out, but for a playing TD in a club situation, it seems reasonable.
For someone who has been doing well, you are giving them Av+ when they are likely to have some responsibility for the board not being able to be played. That's not fair. If they really aren't responsible, then give them Av+ as you should and they will get at least 60% and may well be more than the NP you want to give them.
A further point - how is it easier to give NP than Av-/Av-? And which one will encourage people to play to time?
The angle I coming from is pragmatism during a CLUB social session with a playing TD. Primary objectives are surely to ensure fairness and transparency. I would however also add enjoyment for the majority, and a desire to obtain scores by playing bridge whenever possible.
Assigning AV- to pairs that are slow to finish should only be done when you are certain who is culpable. Is it one pair or both? Or indeed is the problem due to a slow table in a previous round holding up this table? Assigning the penalty erroneously can cause significant discontent.
Suppose for example all but one table has finished (or nearly finished a round). Then in order to keep the room moving it makes sense to remove the unplayed board and get on with the next round. But how to score that board in you do not know who is culpable? One option is to let them play it at the end; but what if that is not possible? I suggest that in the interest of peace and harmony simply score it as not played (after all, it wasn't played, so affected players get an average over say 24 boards instead of 23 - no arbitrary scores) and ask them to get on with the next round. But also tell both pairs that if it happens again there will be a penalty. To misquote Lady Bracknell, to be slow once is unfortunate, but twice is carelessness.
If however you are a non-playing TD, as is the case in more serious competitions, it is easier to be on top of this and you more likely top get the decision right, and hence certain of awarding the AV- correctly. But to mandate that a club TD cannot award "not played" under Law 12 is painting well intentioned club TDs into a bit of a corner.
Let's come at this from the viewpoints of transparency and fairness within a club session, as well as getting scores obtained by actually playing bridge.
Consider a situation like I had last week (and have had many times before). All but one table has finished (or almost finished) the round, but one slow table has not started their final board. It makes sense to remove that board and allow everyone to carry on with the game that they have come to play. But how to score that removed board? One option is to let them play it at the end - but what if that is not possible? How do we assign culpability and risk upsetting someone with a possibly arbitrary AV-? Who is to to blame? One pair? Both? Or even a pair on the previous round that were slow to finish and held them up? If a penalty is to be awarded decent evidence is required to justify the decision.
So why not just score is as "not played"? After all, it wasn't played, and so a "fair" bridge score is obtained by calculating their average over one fewer boards. Or indeed, assign an average of their session score? (Most scorers I know when assigning an average get that translated to 50%, which depending on the room you are in can be very generous or very harsh, but in both cases somewhat arbitrary).
But also, when removing the board, give both pairs a warning. The subsequent penalty may fail my "arbitrary-ness" criteria, but to misquote Lady Bracknell, to have one slow round is unfortunate, but two is carelessness.
In a more serious competition the TD is likely to be non-playing and hence more on top of slow play and able to assign an accurate and fair penalty. But in a typical club session the TD is also playing. So why paint well intentioned TDs into a corner by mandating under rule 12 that they must assign a score?
Either you play by the rules or you don't. Why do you want to disregard this one but not all the others? There are plenty of people who think you shouldn't apply the revoke laws if the revoke doesn't damage the NOS.
Just trying to make life as a TD easier, whilst maintaining transparency, fairness and keeping the game moving.
Maybe I'm in need of simple guidance of assigning such scores.
'cos I don't think it as simple as AV- (or AV or AV+). And if it is an AV of some sort, then an average of what?
When talking about cancelling a board, I had thought you meant, giving them an average: cancel the board so they don’t play it, but score the board with an appropriate average.
The main problem with removing a board in the manner suggested is that it is an inherently unfair practice.
Whether or not a pair is better off with an average score is secondary to the point that giving them an average influences their score one way or the other. Removing the board means there is no impact on their score for having not played a particular board.
For example, if a player has 55.0% on 23 boards, because a board was removed, but would have scored 54.4 with an Av- for slow play, the better reflection of their ability is the lower score. Club bridge isn’t just about bidding and playing cards, there actually is a timed element.
Removing the board in the manner suggested, simply removes the timed element, for those pairs, so they are no longer being graded on a like-for-like basis with everyone else: They are actually being given undeserved preferential treatment.
If the event is awarding Master Points, you shouldn’t be removing boards for slow play, in the manner suggested, because there is no way for you to justify it under the rules.
The original scenario I was considering was the legitimacy on stopping (remove / cancel?) a board that had already been started to which a player objected. Consensus seemed to be that given the clock had zeroed then on balance it shouldn't have been started and hence could be stopped / removed / cancelled.
We then moved on to the question of how to score such a board, or indeed any other boards in similar situations that do not get played due to running out of time, for which I advocated the merits of "NOT PLAYED" (and also in the original situation) and wished to understand (challenged?) the reasons for the laws not permitting that, as it would make life easier for club TDs.
So my question remains, if you do not know who is culpable and NP is not an option, how does the humble club TD decide what score to assign given that something must be? Because 40%, or even to some pairs in some rooms 50%, is surely not appropriate to a non-culpable pair.
You comment about gaining an advantage through slow play rather suggests that allowing a table to play the board at the end must not be permitted either.
That's a fair summary of the discussion.
The only thing that is ever required from a TD is that they do the best they can.
The question is, "who is the offender?" If you don't know, then you treat them both the same and give them 50%* - the board average.
If you know who the offender is, give them less. It's usual to score offenders 40% and the non-offending pair 60%.
Those scores can be further amended at the end of the session for reasons set out in Law 12C2c.
Regarding the question of playing the hand at the end, if there's time. If you and the players have the time available to accommodate that, then why not?
My experience is that if there's a pair who play slow, they are still playing slow at the end of the night, so the pair that were inconvenienced by slow play during the evening are likely to be inconvenienced further at the end of the evening.
Personally, I'd just take the average and go home, than hang about to play a board whilst everyone else was going home.
*if someone is taking excessive time in their bids and plays the opponents ought to call the TD at some point. Being a full board behind on a 3-board round is a serious amount of time lost in a short-period. If the pair weren't interested to protect their own interests, why should you have more interest than them?
Perhaps I'm less understanding about somethings :-)
Law 16 2. (a) When owing to an irregularity no result can be
obtained [see also C1(d)] 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.
Slow play is and always will be a problem at sometime for every club and every playing director. Trying to crack a nut with a sledgehammer never works. There is a good paper on this at
https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/slow-play.pdf
I have tried taking boards away (made me feel powerful but unhappy at the same time), giving out warnings for slow play (who did I warn two rounds ago?). Now I just let the room tell the slow players what they feel. They all talk and I hear the "tutting" from the slow players and ignore it. Then as they reach 4 cards to play I move the rest of the room. If it is the same pair the next time then I wait for them to have 6 cards remaining and move the rest of the room. I have reached 8 cards before the tea break (after the next round). Funnily enough they aren't last for the tea and biscuits.
Remember that some players are not slow but may have one or two hands that require thinking time so bear those people in mind when moving the room, give them a chance.
As Jaded has said the problem is who committed the irregularity "Law 16 2. (a) When owing to an irregularity". Also what is the interpretation of "Owing to"? Is it because an irregularity has been dealt with officially (revoke etc.) that has taken time? Or is it because someone is "perceived" to have delayed the game but not been dealt with officially (such as discussing each hand before replacing the cards in the board and scoring up).
As for Grahams' op well all I can suggest is to try different things until you are content with how the evening goes. I now announce either "no discussion of hands between board" or "don't read out the scores from the bridgemates". Occasionally "don't forget to claim when you know you have the remaining tricks". Recently we have started at 7pm and completed 27 boards (3 x 9) by 10.10pm with a 10 minute break. One pair were slow on the first round. So it can be done.
After all bridge is to be enjoyed not endured.
'once it has started' . . . . can I know which rule / where in the rule book it defines / the definition of - when it 'started' . . . thanks
LAW 17 - THE AUCTION PERIOD
A. Auction Period Starts
The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either
partner withdraws his cards from the board.
Slow play and the ‘Rules’
In this regard, the problem with the Rules is that the Rules presume that there is a TD stood at every table watching every hand played with a timer and able to identify the penalising the individual or pair that was slow and penalise him/them. The reality is that 99% of ordinary Bridge Clubs have a playing TD and a clock and that TD does not become aware of the slow play until the clock speaks “You have 4 minutes left - do not start a new Board” and (as they are slow) there is no way that they would bid and play that Board in 4 minutes.
Short of banning regular slow players I can see only one practical solution and notwithstanding that the Rules state that a board should not be cancelled ‘once the auction period has commenced’ Clubs make a Rule for their Club that the cut off point be at ‘once play has commenced’ i.e. if the man in the clock says don’t start and they are still bidding they stop, put those cards back in the board and average that hand.
The problem with that approach is that an unscrupulous pair that finds themselves in a mess in the bidding on the last board of a round, can just bid very slowly and get an average; whereas actually playing the hand would result in a poor score.
Just a suggestion…
The ‘slow play’ problem appears to persist in large part because of questions of ‘blame’. It sounds plausibly fair that only those to ‘blame’ for slow play should suffer a penalty.
I don’t see this as primarily a ‘blame issue’.
Both pairs have equal responsibility to ensure boards are played at an appropriate rate and both pairs are entitled to call for a TD if the opponents cause undue delay.
Consequently, both pairs share the responsibility for slow play. Whether or not they share the ‘blame’ in equal proportions is largely an unproductive distraction.
We know that once a board has been started it must be finished. Therefore, and this is what some people will have difficulty with, it is the next board for each pair that should be averaged.
The sitting pair should receive AV- for receiving the next pair late to their table. The moving pair should receive AV- for arriving late to the next table. If the TD is aware that mitigation applies to one or both pairs, then a straight average should be awarded. AV+ for the waiting pair.
The position could be influenced within the slow round if the table brings the slow play to the attention of the TD, before the last board is started. A TD might look more favourably on a table that “self-reports” its own slow play and apply straight averages, or tell them to ‘get on with it’…
If ‘blame’ continues to be seen as relevant, then slow play has no easy remedy. However, if we set aside blame and focus on resolving ‘tempo issues’, then we can keep the room moving more or less in a timely manner.
As has been mentioned, the TD might not be in a position to prevent a slow table starting* a new board, but they have capacity to ensure that slow pairs receive an appropriate penalty on the first board of the next round.
Though the purpose is to keep the room moving at a good tempo, there has to be an incentive for people to keep to time, hence AV-.
There is a counter argument that the time lost in a particular round could be made up by some pairs in the next round. Whilst this is true, it misses the point that all pairs have a responsibility to play ‘at tempo’, not at a tempo of their choosing, to the inconvenience of the TD and other players. It also misses the point that the time spent waiting by everybody else can’t be recovered if the TD made the room wait for them to finish.
*Trying to fix slow play at the end of a round has always proved to be problematic. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t fix it at the start of the next round. Indeed, it is not unusual for pairs to take an average on the last board of the next round as a consequence of their opponents being behind on the previous round because the TD is now watching more closely for slow play.
If we can approach the problem from a different perspective and see it as ‘delays in starting a round’, rather than “taking too long to finish a round’, then we can avoid questions of blame and the issues of a board having been started that prevent any remedy being applied.
…Views invited.
I agree, both that it would be better if the Laws said "responsibility" rather than "fault", which I have suggested to the WBF Laws Committee, and also that it's better to take away boards from the next round rather than those in progress in the current round.
So in the next round two pairs are denied the opportunity to score 100% on one board through no fault of their own. Yes you and I realise that over the evening that is likely to be only about 1 to 2% on their overall score.(even if they might get 100%) But now you have 4 pairs seriously upset that they were not given the chance to play the boards that they were expecting to play. Potential earache and the TD will most likely not finish the expected boards in the round either whilst sorting the problem out resulting in another two pairs unhappy with the situation. Could have a lot of unhappy pairs by the end of the evening.
Still not sure how to deal with slow play. I expect that it depends on the effect of slow play. Are there time constraints for the room? Are there time constraints for travel? Is there a concern of advantage being gained by the slow players? Are the set penalties and -AV/+AV really for the couple of extra minutes or were they introduced to deal with the odd half hour that has previously happened?