[jillybean]

I would like to compile some material regarding slow play and tips aimed at helping players speed up a little.

There's McBruces famous article Hurry Up and Think!

Gavin Wolpert wrote this for BW Respecting the Duplicate Bridge Clock

As expected, there is some good material from the EBU on Dealing with Slow Play


I like these points from the EBU, this addresses most of the problems at our club.

When you’re simply not sure what to do, please try not to take too long over making a call or when playing a card. You have to make a decision at some point!

Please keep conversation to a minimum until you have finished playing all the hands for each round. Don’t analyse each hand as it finishes. If there is still time at the end of the round, when all the scoring has been done, then by all means have a post-mortem, but in a low voice so that neighbouring tables can’t hear.

When you’re on lead, please make your lead before putting your bidding cards away or writing the contract on your score card. Similarly, when you’re dummy, put your hand down first, then put away the bidding cards and write down the contract. If you see someone beginning to write down the contract before making the opening lead, remind them politely that they should lead first so that everyone else can be getting on with the hand.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-September-07, 11:34, said:

Don’t analyse each hand as it finishes. If there is still time at the end of the round, when all the scoring has been done, then by all means have a post-mortem, but in a low voice so that neighbouring tables can’t hear.

Amen, but near impossible in practice, especially if the players can see the hand diagram, the scores and leads so far and even the double dummy analysis.
I think they shouldn't until the they have played the last board of the round, but my RA seems blind to the problem and the club president disagrees.

jillybean, on 2024-September-07, 11:34, said:

When you’re on lead, please make your lead before putting your bidding cards away or writing the contract on your score card. Similarly, when you’re dummy, put your hand down first, then put away the bidding cards and write down the contract. If you see someone beginning to write down the contract before making the opening lead, remind them politely that they should lead first so that everyone else can be getting on with the hand.

I'm not happy with this.
In 2024 there should be electronic entry of contract and lead verified by opponents, so there is no real need for individual written records.
If I see someone beginning to write down anything before or after making the opening lead, I remind them politely that memory aids are not allowed.

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2024-September-07, 15:15, said:

Amen, but near impossible in practice, especially if the players can see the hand diagram, the scores and leads so far and even the double dummy analysis.
I think they shouldn't until the they have played the last board of the round, but my RA seems blind to the problem and the club president disagrees.


I'm not happy with this.
In 2024 there should be electronic entry of contract and lead verified by opponents, so there is no real need for individual written records.
If I see someone beginning to write down anything before or after making the opening lead, I remind them politely that memory aids are not allowed.

We do use bridgemates here (I'm in Rochester NY, across the continent from Jilly) but it is unheard of to put the opening lead in them. I'll talk to our two main directors these days and try to change that, but I doubt it will happen. Also, f2f you can't see all that stuff during the session. At least not here. :-)

[jillybean]

We have some keen players asking for the opening lead to be entered in the BM but many will find it a burden.
The keeners say now that we don't have to enter the boards on the first round, no one will grumble. They don't realize how much Bridge players grumble.
I'd like to see the lead entered, some data would be better than none.


We are going to try an abbreviated version of the EBU Slow Play Tips

When you’re simply not sure what to do, please try not to take too long over making a call or when playing a card. You have to make a decision at some point!

Please keep conversation to a minimum until you have finished playing all the hands for each round.

Don’t analyse each hand as it finishes. If there is still time at the end of the round, when all the scoring has been done, then by all means have a post-mortem, but in a low voice so that neighbouring tables can’t hear.

If the TD calls the move, please move promptly, even if you haven’t had time for a discussion.

When you’re on lead, please make your lead before putting your bidding cards away or writing the contract on your score card.

Similarly, when you’re dummy, put your hand down first, then put away the bidding cards and write down the contract. If you see someone beginning to write down the contract before making the opening lead, remind them politely that they should lead first so that everyone else can be getting on with the hand.

[paulg]

It is normal in the UK to put the opening lead into the BridgeMate.

The main reason we do it at the club is to prevent a misboarding being repeated around the room.

The first session that we enabled checking the opening lead there were frustrations at people entering the opening lead incorrectly, but after a couple of weeks the complaining stopped and now it is just part of the veening.

It also means we have a far better chance of identifying who misboarded, typically putting hands back into the wrong slots.

But it is more common that they have rotated a board without noticing.

[jillybean]

Hi, Paul.

How does entering the opening lead prevent a misboard continuing around the room?

Change of topic to PP, do you use PP for misboards?

[paulg]

jillybean, on 2024-September-14, 04:56, said:

Hi, Paul.

How does entering the opening lead prevent a misboard continuing around the room?

It helps as you often discover that the opening lead is not accepted, as the card led should be in another hand. For example, you sometimes find that the board has been removed from the table and put back rotated by 180 degrees: the next time it is played the opening lead will not be accepted and the TD will be called.

Or the North and East hands are put back into the wrong slots.

jillybean, on 2024-September-14, 04:56, said:

Change of topic to PP, do you use PP for misboards?

We give a PP any time that a board is spoiled for other players.

[jillybean]

paulg, on 2024-September-14, 06:30, said:

It helps as you often discover that the opening lead is not accepted, as the card led should be in another hand. For example, you sometimes find that the board has been removed from the table and put back rotated by 180 degrees: the next time it is played the opening lead will not be accepted and the TD will be called.

Or the North and East hands are put back into the wrong slots.

Thanks, this would be beneficial.

paulg, on 2024-September-14, 06:30, said:

We give a PP any time that a board is spoiled for other players.

ACBL'ers would be shocked playing in the EBU, we so rarely see PP's. I have never seen or heard of one being given in a Club Game.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2024-September-14, 10:04, said:

Thanks, this would be beneficial.


ACBL'ers would be shocked playing in the EBU, we so rarely see PP's. I have never seen or heard of one being given in a Club Game.

Remember that the opening lead won't pick up all fouled/rotated/wrong number boards, but only 75% of such (37% for a board with only two hands swapped). But it's still a great help.

Fouling is an automatic PP in our regulations, no Director judgement required (for better or worse). Fairly symbolic (10% of a top) but they still don't take it lightly.

[jillybean]

It seems that the BM wont accept an impossible opening lead. The Director will be called, or the players will sit there pressing buttons on the BM. The default 2C opening lead may not work.

PP, I’m speechless that this is the norm elsewhere. We are not given PP for even more serious offences.

[mycroft]

We were asked last year to turn on the lead. It was put to discussion, and (as I expected), it was voted down. If the lead was guaranteed to at least be from the player's hand, I think people would have gone with the frustration - and most of the complaints were about the frustration. But the added "I guarantee that there are three times as many ♣2 opening leads as actually happened, and many more [suit]2 leads in general" factor (which I know from the clubs in the other country that do require the lead), that damages the use of the lead for all reasons, was the tipping point.

Of course, turning on the "verify opening lead" would be yet more frustration, and we'd be hearing about it. And, I bet, the grumbling would go down in a few months, too. But that's the view - from the players - this side of the pond.

[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2024-September-13, 19:55, said:

We have some keen players asking for the opening lead to be entered in the BM but many will find it a burden.
The keeners say now that we don't have to enter the boards on the first round, no one will grumble. They don't realize how much Bridge players grumble.
I'd like to see the lead entered, some data would be better than none.


We are going to try an abbreviated version of the EBU Slow Play Tips

When you’re simply not sure what to do, please try not to take too long over making a call or when playing a card. You have to make a decision at some point!

Please keep conversation to a minimum until you have finished playing all the hands for each round.

Don’t analyse each hand as it finishes. If there is still time at the end of the round, when all the scoring has been done, then by all means have a post-mortem, but in a low voice so that neighbouring tables can’t hear.

If the TD calls the move, please move promptly, even if you haven’t had time for a discussion.

When you’re on lead, please make your lead before putting your bidding cards away or writing the contract on your score card.

Similarly, when you’re dummy, put your hand down first, then put away the bidding cards and write down the contract. If you see someone beginning to write down the contract before making the opening lead, remind them politely that they should lead first so that everyone else can be getting on with the hand.

I like these, but here, well, "if the TD calls the move" translates to "never". I've said before, since Covid, if I waited for the TD to call the move I'd still be in the first round of the first f2f game I played after Covid. As for the rest, ever tried to herd cats?

[paulg]

jillybean, on 2024-September-14, 10:04, said:

paulg, on 2024-September-14, 06:30, said:

We give a PP any time that a board is spoiled for other players.

ACBL'ers would be shocked playing in the EBU, we so rarely see PP's. I have never seen or heard of one being given in a Club Game.

I the director just needs to explain what is happening.

You have spoiled the board and these four people are no longer able to play the hand. You have robbed them of a board, so you are being fined 10% of a top. It's a nominal fine for being careless, try not to do it again.

[jillybean]

paulg, on 2024-September-15, 07:02, said:

I the director just needs to explain what is happening.

You have spoiled the board and these four people are no longer able to play the hand. You have robbed them of a board, so you are being fined 10% of a top. It's a nominal fine for being careless, try not to do it again.

It makes sense to me
Last time I received a fouled board, the previous table was told to be more careful and our result was adjusted to A=.

I did wonder about shuffling the cards after our slam at the next table.

[mycroft]

I have admitted in the past that you are much more likely to get a PP from me for damaging the movement than for any other reason. Exactly for Paul's reason (you are removing the ability for others to play the board - i.e. it's to protect the other players.) Yes, that may look like "make life hard for the director == PP"; I try to make it clear that I don't have a problem with the work, it's the damage to their fellow contestants.

Despite my statement on the other thread, I do think I specifically should issue MP PPs more often than I do. Not as often as others want, I still think that's counterproductive, but more than I do, for personal failing reasons. I'll see if my frustration can supersede over time.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2024-September-07, 15:15, said:

In 2024 there should be electronic entry of contract and lead verified by opponents, so there is no real need for individual written records.
If I see someone beginning to write down anything before or after making the opening lead, I remind them politely that memory aids are not allowed.

Even with opponent verification, sometimes scores get recorded wrong. Personal scores are important as an additional check.

There's also a player at our club who likes to write down the entire auction on his personal score sheet. I don't think it's a coincidence that he's also one of the slowest players.

I don't think it's common in the US to enable the option of recording the opening lead on the scoring device. Only 1 of the 4 clubs I go to does it, and I've never seen it done at a tournament.

[mycroft]

This is just a long "+1" to barmar.

With electronic entry of contract and result (and sometimes lead), I expect to have to check 5-6 results in an average 12-table game. Sure, 80% of them are either "it's NT, it could take anywhere between 6 and 12 tricks depending on the play" or "yeah, clearly this is 4♠= by the pair with 10 spades, not the one with 3", but there are the days where it is "is that 4♥E-1 or 4♠N-1?" and "yeah, okay, but how do you get there?" or...

And once a tournament at least - and probably once a month directing one game a week at the club - I get "we scored 140 on that board, but it was put in as 100" after the game. And have to check...

It is clear from years of evidence that while it *should be* sufficient to electronic score, the players aren't careful enough, and never will be.

On "writing the contract" - sure memory aids are not allowed. But I can ask the contract at my turn to play, 13 times; and if writing it down means that I don't, that saves time and isn't a "memory aid" that means anything. I, too, used to write the entire auction in (in my Precision partnership). I *wasn't* the slow pair, and wouldn't do it if I were. And that too isn't a "memory aid" that meant anything, because at the time I wrote it down, I could ask for it; and it was always unavailable during the hand after the point where I was not allowed a review of the auction.

There's one here who does this (and he's not the slowest, but he's not the fastest either. He's a C player and he plays at C speed). I reminded him once that it can not be visible during the play, and it has never since been. Ah well.

[mycroft]

We've got someone in town this week all gung ho about the "Bridge+more" devices (which I think are great in theory, with several practical execution decisions that (whether intended or not) are enduser-hostile).

The ability for the machine to determine the play and the result from the cards-as-put-back is one of those great things. It does mean that the contract has to be put in correctly (or the tablet used to bid. I guess Aussies will be fine with that, as they're used to written bidding. I'm sure I'd be able to deal with it in time, but right now, I have a concern about not being able to see the auction while I'm thinking on their time).

But it, too, will not overcome the requirement for a personal trusted score. After all, all it takes is one shuffled, or dropped, hand and the play (and result) is gone.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-September-16, 10:22, said:

This is just a long "+1" to barmar.

With electronic entry of contract and result (and sometimes lead), I expect to have to check 5-6 results in an average 12-table game. Sure, 80% of them are either "it's NT, it could take anywhere between 6 and 12 tricks depending on the play" or "yeah, clearly this is 4♠= by the pair with 10 spades, not the one with 3", but there are the days where it is "is that 4♥E-1 or 4♠N-1?" and "yeah, okay, but how do you get there?" or...

And once a tournament at least - and probably once a month directing one game a week at the club - I get "we scored 140 on that board, but it was put in as 100" after the game. And have to check...

It is clear from years of evidence that while it *should be* sufficient to electronic score, the players aren't careful enough, and never will be.

On "writing the contract" - sure memory aids are not allowed. But I can ask the contract at my turn to play, 13 times; and if writing it down means that I don't, that saves time and isn't a "memory aid" that means anything. I, too, used to write the entire auction in (in my Precision partnership). I *wasn't* the slow pair, and wouldn't do it if I were. And that too isn't a "memory aid" that meant anything, because at the time I wrote it down, I could ask for it; and it was always unavailable during the hand after the point where I was not allowed a review of the auction.

There's one here who does this (and he's not the slowest, but he's not the fastest either. He's a C player and he plays at C speed). I reminded him once that it can not be visible during the play, and it has never since been. Ah well.

Well I give a '-1' to both, and I am surprised to disagree so wholly with you for once... it looks to me (frankly) that you both have a knee jerk reaction to something you never actually tried, or can only imagine in the blinkered world of BM. And I am speaking as someone who has used score entry with checking turned on for two years now, and not encountered any of the problems you seem to retain inevitable: in particular, the players are very happy with it and had no problems getting used to it, and the idea that they will frequently make mistakes which the system does not point out is... mistaken. Now that's on a cell phone, but my experience in other people's tournaments using BM are pretty much in line, except for the much greater difficulty of use for players.

Now I do agree that it is not a great idea to enter the lead without enabling checking too, even if that is what the WBF had me use as a scorer at BB. But once checking is enabled it all works fine, and the advantages are obvious, many but not all mentioned earlier in this thread.

As for the need for written records: if you can't trust yourself (or partner) to actually read what you are about to confirm, then you can still check what you did confirm at the time you would have written it down (presumably hoping it turns out to be different from what you confirmed so you can have an interesting discussion with opponents and TD later).

[mycroft]

Maybe your scoring device is better than bridgemates. I believe you. All I am giving is my experience.

I would love it if I didn't have to trust people's scorecards to know what happened on board 15, because the score entered makes no sense. Because there are many who "don't keep score, and we shouldn't have to", or whose scorecards are written in some odd code that only they understand, or have worse handwriting than mine, or who missed the board this time.

But that ain't currently the case, with the tools I have available.