[jallerton]

Most bridge events have a time allocation for a the round, whether it be a 2-board MP pairs, 8-board Swiss or 16- or 20-boards per match teams round robin.

The longer the set, the more potential exists for playing the "routine" boards quickly, thus allowing more time for all four players on difficult/interesting boards. If the earlier boards in the set are played quickly, then no time problems arise, and I have no objection to players taking advantage of the extra time available on later boards.

However, suppose that an opponent takes a disproportionate amount of time on early board(s) in the set. What is the best approach for dealing with this?

Specific examples:

1. Playing a 16-board match scored by VPs in which the CoC apply automatic slow play penalties. Declarer is in a cold 3NT and spends 15 minutes playing out the hand in search for an unlikely second overtrick. Is this acceptable behaviour? If not, should the defenders call the TD; and if so at what point?

2. Playing an 8-board Swiss match contested by four very experienced tournament players with 55 minutes allowed per round. On the first board the auction starts Pass-Pass-3♦-4♠. Now the dealer thinks for 10 minutes. Is this acceptable behaviour? If not, should the opponents call the TD; and if so at what point?

[Trinidad]

In my opinion and experience, it is best to call the TD as early as possible... and in as neutral/objective way as possible. This means:

1) After the board is over, you call the TD. You state that declarer took 15 mninutes for a 3NT contract where you couldn't see any problems and overtricks were unlikely.

2) After about 30 seconds of thinking by dealer you ask whether he is aware that it is his turn to bid. After about 2-3 minutes you call the TD and say that the dealer has been thinking for 2-3 minutes and still didn't make a bid.

There are two likely outcomes:
1) The fact that you called makes the opponents speed up: Problem solved.
2) The opponents remain slow. Call the TD again. It is unlikely that slow play penalties will be assessed against you.

And calling immediately after the opponents' slow play makes it harder for them to deny this.

Rik

[nige1]

Agree with Trinidad. Ask opponents, in a friendly way, "Do you agree a 2+ minute hesitation?"

• If they answer "Yes", then report the BIT at the end of the hand.
• Otherwise, call the director, forthwith.

In any case, call the director early, rather than later, to nip the problem in the bud. Don't bottle up your frustration. Don't try to sort out such problems, on your own. The director can establish facts, cite appropriate rules, monitor time-keeping, and save everybody hassle in such contexts.

WWII poster said:

Keep calm and call the director

[Vampyr]

I found it difficult too in the Swiss Pairs when an opponent was painfully slow. He was even slow to pass in auctions when he had nothing to say, and is declarer play was painful. I was reluctant to call the director because it seems a bit aggressive to do that for slow play "this guy just took 15 minutes to play a hand" and the slow player's partner was a friend of mine. Also, having summoned the director for the opponents' slowness puts pressure on you, in a strange way, not to take any time to think yourself; if you take even a reasonable time to think about a legitimate problem, the opponents may now claim that you contributed to the slow play. Summonmg the director to report the problem is better than rushing to catch up, I guess.

Also, it is different, I think, when the opponent is inexperienced. Then the director should, I think, allow a little leeway, but it seems like it is the notorious expert slowpokes that get favourable treatment. People have complained to me even about missing a short lunch break (e.g. in a Swiss Pairs final). Obviously the director's should never have allowed this.

One of these slow experts will play a card for a 2-way finesse and take ages to play a card from the dummy. This is really unethical. Why can he not, during the 3 minute tank before playing the trick, have decided what he would do if a small card show d up on his left?

[weejonnie]

nige1, on 2016-December-29, 08:06, said:

Agree with Trinidad. Ask opponents, in a friendly way, "Do you agree a 2+ minute hesitation".

• If they say "Yes", then report the BIT at the end of the hand.
• If they say "No" then call the director, forthwith.

In any case, call the director early, rather than later, to nip the problem in the bud. Don't bottle up your frustration. Don't try to sort out such problems, on your own. The director can establish facts, cite appropriate rules, monitor time-keeping, and save everybody hassle in such contexts.

I believe that it is the side that DISPUTES the hesitation that has to call the Director.......

[Trinidad]

weejonnie, on 2016-December-29, 11:39, said:

I believe that it is the side that DISPUTES the hesitation that has to call the Director.......

It's simple: If you have a problem with the opponents, then you call the TD. If you don't call, then you don't have a problem.

Rik

[mycroft]

Law 9B1:
a. The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.
b. Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity.
c. Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled.
d. The fact that a player draws attention to an irregularity committed by his side does not affect the rights of the opponents.

Your belief is common, but incorrect. Once there is a dispute about a potential irregularity (slow play in violation of regulations is an irregularity), the TD should be summoned, and everybody is responsible for doing so - "should" having the force of "if it doesn't happen, then anyone able to is in the wrong".

The belief that it's one side or the other's responsibility is why TDs come to tables where everyone is arguing and *another table* calls the director to calm them down; the people that are aggrieved think "They have to call the TD if they think there's a problem, I'm just doing my thing here." At which point it's at least 4 times as hard to get the right ruling than if only one person is upset/aggrieved.

I can't count the number of times I've heard "If you have a problem, call the director" loudly enough that I come over to see what the issue is. Some people are doing it to be ornery/bullying/intimidating/whatever, but most have that Old Wives' Tale about "it's their job, not mine" stuck in their heads.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2016-December-29, 12:56, said:

Your belief is common, but incorrect.

That turns out not to be the case.

Quote

Law 16B2: When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the Director later. The opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed.

[mycroft]

In cases of hesitation transmitting UI, you are correct. Here, however, the concerns about the slow play here have nothing to do with UI - 15 minutes to play a hand trying to find the 1% chance of a second overtrick at IMPs, 10 minute thinks before a call (where even a bridge neophyte would not dispute that partner has a problem) - these are hesitations that may lead to a slow play penalty (for both sides!) if not curtailed. I do not believe that Law 16 applies here.

Having said that, thanks for the reminder.

[weejonnie]

mycroft, on 2016-December-29, 17:26, said:

In cases of hesitation transmitting UI, you are correct. Here, however, the concerns about the slow play here have nothing to do with UI - 15 minutes to play a hand trying to find the 1% chance of a second overtrick at IMPs, 10 minute thinks before a call (where even a bridge neophyte would not dispute that partner has a problem) - these are hesitations that may lead to a slow play penalty (for both sides!) if not curtailed. I do not believe that Law 16 applies here.

Having said that, thanks for the reminder.

Yes, you are correct, since I believe that breaches of CoC of the RA (of the event) will come under different irregularities than Law 16.

However the TD call should come, IMHO, at the end of the player's deliberation - after all you may not know the reason for the deliberation and it would be discourteous to interrupt.

[blackshoe]

I don't see how the slow play has nothing to do with UI. Are you saying that there's no way the slowness, during the auction at least, could possibly suggest some action over some other action by the partner of the slowpoke?

I will grant you that slowness on the part of declarer during the play is not a Law 16 issue.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-December-30, 07:44, said:

I don't see how the slow play has nothing to do with UI. Are you saying that there's no way the slowness, during the auction at least, could possibly suggest some action over some other action by the partner of the slowpoke?

Maybe the first 20 seconds of the hesitation would. It's probably less clear what 15 minutes would suggest.

That said, I can't imagine anyone disputing a hesitation of multiple minutes, so there's no need to call the TD regarding it at the time. Wait until the end of the hand, so the TD will know which side was responsible for the slowness if time penalties are assessed.

[mycroft]

I think that, in this situation, if someone is asked to keep to time, and continues to either waste time or take excessive time for their actions, the second request should be accompanied by the TD - to ensure that a record is there when slow play penalties are to be assessed. It also helps to defuse the "yeah, we took time on a couple of hands - they were difficult! But no more than the opponents did" arguments that occur when the penalties are assessed and the non-slow pair tries to dispute them.

And yes, I am upset that I missed winning an event due to an automatic slow play penalty I was not made aware of (district policy, but I was out-of-district and wasn't made aware) and would have pushed harder to keep to time if I had known (or could see a bloody clock - it was behind the pillar for our stationary table). But policies is policies, and I should have known about them.

The ones I want to remind people that everyone has the responsibility to call the TD on are the ones that start "Well, I could call the director on this one, but I'll be nice this time" or "disputed claims that eventually get to the point where three tables away knows the dispute" or "you didn't say it could be *that*"...where, as I said, by the time the TD is called - frequently by another table - four people are upset, rather than just one.