[Miron]

What is the proper time per board with screens?

We played czech league with screens and time for 8 boards was 64 minutes. If you play longer you'll receive penalty for time (warning, -1 VP each next violation).
The list of time penalties has about 60 lines (30 teams, 5 rounds). I think that there is something wrong (and I don't think the players). What is the time limit in your country? Have you problems with that time limit?

I'm going to ask for longer time, but before this I want to be sure it is not an non-sence.

(And as well to have some argument. Last year my team was disqualified from czech league - this resulted in change of propositions; I was bit angry last year )

[Free]

In competition, we have time from 14h till 20h to finish 32 boards and have a pause. This is more than 10 minutes a board which is more than enough. However in tourneys you only get around 8 minutes as well (but screens aren't used much for tourneys). Usually this doesn't cause that much problems...

[FrancesHinden]

The English trials gives

7 boards 1 hr 5 minutes
8 boards 1 hr 13 minutes
10 boards 1 hr 30 minutes
12 boards 1 hr 47 minutes
16 boards 2 hours 20

This is usually more than enough for the 16 board rounds - it was quite common for all 8 tables to finish early.

[Gerben42]

European championships (junior, open, ladies, etc.) give 2h50 for 20 boards.

So something like 8.5 minutes / board.

Anyway, 64 minutes seems too short. I'd give 70 or maybe 72 minutes for 8 board rounds with screens.

[hotShot]

Somewhere in the general Condition of Contest of the WBL there is an 8 min/board limit that is usually copied to then national general condition of contest.
Usually you add a minute per round in a pairs event for the "movement".
If cards have to be shuffeld it is usual to add some time for that.

So if you are playing a team event and there are prepared boards 64 min. should be ok.

[PeterE]

and here are the votes from the German jury ...

# Bds w/o screens with screens
   8           65 min.        70 min.
10           80                  85
12         100                105
14        115                 125
16         130                 140 = normal league's segment distance
20        160                  170 = same as the EBL

OT: anyone, who knows a more comfortable way of making a table ?

[MickyB]

In a recent event we were given 1hr45 for 12 board rounds, and came under a *lot* of time pressure a couple of times - but then I play slowly, my partner played slower, and the opps weren't exactly quick either

[Walddk]

No matter what you decide, you need to impose a penalty for time violation - also in a knockout event with 4 or 2 teams left. In the recent Vanderbilt Teams in Dallas, they seemed to spend all the time they wanted to.

It was excruciatingly slow at times.

How to go about it? Let a person monitor the players. With modern technology it's quite simple to figure out which side spends more time than the other. Deduct IMPs accordingly if they don't finish within the stipulated time.

Time is part of tournament bridge, like it or not. No-one can be interested in letting it go on forever.

Roland

[geller]

In Japan the top flight of our "Japan League" (8 teams, double round robin over two wekends) uses screens throughout. Each match is 16 boards with 2hr20min (140 min), meaning 8.75 min per board. Almost all tables finish within the limit. There are slow play penalties in some relatively infrequent cases, but the pair that used to be the most notoriously slow has now split up, so lately there haven't been too many problems.

[geller]

Quote

In a recent event we were given 1hr45 for 12 board rounds, and came under a *lot* of time pressure a couple of times - but then I play slowly, my partner played slower, and the opps weren't exactly quick either

105 minutes for 12 boards is 8.75 minutes/board, the same as we use in Japan.

[Miron]

Walddk, on Apr 11 2006, 05:53 PM, said:

No matter what you decide, you need to impose a penalty for time violation - also in a knockout event with 4 or 2 teams left. In the recent Vanderbilt Teams in Dallas, they seemed to spend all the time they wanted to.

It was excruciatingly slow at times.

How to go about it? Let a person monitor the players. With modern technology it's quite simple to figure out which side spends more time than the other. Deduct IMPs accordingly if they don't finish within the stipulated time.

Time is part of tournament bridge, like it or not. No-one can be interested in letting it go on forever.

Roland

Not that easy. The time is not divided 50-50 between players. If one side has difficult boards and the other not, the first one will need more time. Maybe add EW from table one with NS from 2 and vice versa and compare it, but this is probably against law this time.

[Walddk]

Miron, on Apr 12 2006, 08:10 AM, said:

Walddk, on Apr 11 2006, 05:53 PM, said:

No matter what you decide, you need to impose a penalty for time violation - also in a knockout event with 4 or 2 teams left. In the recent Vanderbilt Teams in Dallas, they seemed to spend all the time they wanted to.

It was excruciatingly slow at times.

How to go about it? Let a person monitor the players. With modern technology it's quite simple to figure out which side spends more time than the other. Deduct IMPs accordingly if they don't finish within the stipulated time.

Time is part of tournament bridge, like it or not. No-one can be interested in letting it go on forever.

Roland

Not that easy. The time is not divided 50-50 between players. If one side has difficult boards and the other not, the first one will need more time. Maybe add EW from table one with NS from 2 and vice versa and compare it, but this is probably against law this time.

Why isn't that easy? Have the players monitored at both tables. I am talking about major events of course.

A few years back the Danish Team Championship was decided by a time penalty in the final segment of the final. Unfair? I don't think so. The players know about the time restrictions before they sit down and must therefore be prepared for penalties if they violate the rules.

Roland

[Miron]

Walddk, on Apr 12 2006, 09:49 AM, said:

Miron, on Apr 12 2006, 08:10 AM, said:

Walddk, on Apr 11 2006, 05:53 PM, said:

No matter what you decide, you need to impose a penalty for time violation - also in a knockout event with 4 or 2 teams left. In the recent Vanderbilt Teams in Dallas, they seemed to spend all the time they wanted to.

It was excruciatingly slow at times.

How to go about it? Let a person monitor the players. With modern technology it's quite simple to figure out which side spends more time than the other. Deduct IMPs accordingly if they don't finish within the stipulated time.

Time is part of tournament bridge, like it or not. No-one can be interested in letting it go on forever.

Roland

Not that easy. The time is not divided 50-50 between players. If one side has difficult boards and the other not, the first one will need more time. Maybe add EW from table one with NS from 2 and vice versa and compare it, but this is probably against law this time.

Why isn't that easy? Have the players monitored at both tables. I am talking about major events of course.

A few years back the Danish Team Championship was decided by a time penalty in the final segment of the final. Unfair? I don't think so. The players know about the time restrictions before they sit down and must therefore be prepared for penalties if they violate the rules.

Roland

90 min rounds

But I don't like the idea of:
You had 90 minutes,
you took 93, NS 42, EW 51. EW was the slow one and got penalty.
This is non-sence (TD should had been called or penalty to both).

To compare both tables is good, but:
NS@1:45,NS@2:55
EW@1:45,EW@2:35
Team1 has 80 min
Team2 has 100 min
Thus team2 took more time than he should. Will you penalize them, or is it OK because EW on table 2 gave them some spare time by playing quickly?

I don't think that some exact measuring of time will help you. Always it is up to the director and players (that call TD).

[Walddk]

You can't let the players decide which side spent more time than the other side. I do not accuse them of not telling the truth, but it can be very difficult to estimate how much time you consume when you are concentrated on other matters.

Let an impartial third party (monitor) do the job. And yes, I do believe in time penalties as perfectly legitimate. You get xxx minutes to complete yy boards, and if you are slower than that, you must be prepared to accept the penalty the TD will award you.

I would, however, much prefer that bridge games are decided at the table and not away from it, but sometimes that isn't possible. You have to live with that as the rules are now. Personally, I think they are fine as they are and that no changes are necessary. Playing with screens is no excuse for not finishing the boards within the stipulated time.

Roland

[Gerben42]

Time penalties are tricky things. If there is a hand where the bidding and declarer play is tough but defence is easy, it's normal that the declaring side takes more time. If it goes 1N 3N and it's up to the defenders to find the right way to beat it, it's the other way around.

Anyway, so you should look at the TOTAL time taken by both teams. Say your time limit is 100 minutes. Table 1 finished in 95 minutes and Table 2 in 105 minutes.

On T1 NS used 55 minutes, EW used 40 minutes. On T2 NS used 55 minutes, EW used 50 minutes. Whose fault is it?

Just looking at table 2 you'd say NS (visiting team), but if you look at BOTH tables you would say NS had more tough decisions than EW and the home team is at fault.

I think the second way is correct.

[hotShot]

If during play you notice that your opps are playing very slow, you call the TD. The TD will have a look from now on at your table, and if at the end of the round time, you happed to be late the TD knows who is to punish. This is the way it is done now and i think it is a fair.
Of cause this means that players should from check the time after a board or two.
Most experienced player will develope an 8 minute feeling. My impression both as player and TD is, that it is always the same pairs, that need more time .....

[PeterE]

No, Gerben

It's not the task for you and your teammates to finish in time.
Neither is a time penalty in individual tournaments assigned to a single player ...

You sit down at one table and the timelimit for the following boards to be played at that table before changing seats is fixed by the general regulations or by the CoC.

In your example where at table 2 NS took 55 and EW took 50 minutes of a total of 100 minutes, the total fault is with the NS pair (if those time facts are established) and the NS pair will 'get it all'

[Gerben42]

There has been a case about this in the Netherlands. I'm not sure what the outcome was, though.

During the playoffs in the top division (Meesterklasse) time monitors are used. Every segment of 10 seconds of thinking get recorded. You don't get any marks for the first minute after dummy tables, nor for time between boards.

At more than one time the winner of a KO match was decided by this method. One time there was much discussion because the situation was as I sketched before. At the slow table one pair took more time than the other, but in total their team took less time than the other team.

Another big discussion came when instead of bridge playing volunteers (I have done this in the past - it's much fun since if something happens they are not thinking and you can watch, and if nothing happens you count the time) some students were hired who did NOT play bridge, which led to some odd situations like giving time to the wrong players etc.

Oh well... It won't be the last discussion on this.

[Miron]

OK,
i'll return for my topic

What is wrong when there are 50 penalties (in 45 matches) for time?
a) players are slow
c) something with TD (no idea what)
d) the time is short

I think the d), but any other opinion is welcome.

BTW: b ) written together makes . Any idea how to avoid this? (Not the Enable emoticons check box)

[Limey_p]

I would guess that a lot of the players in this event have never played behind screens before? If this is the case, I can imagine the new procedures will be a major distraction to the players and will cause slow play.

So perhaps some sort of compromise? Allow extra time for the first few matches so that the "novices" can become comfortable?

Andy