[euclidz]

Slow play.

Here’s the problem.

We have one member who is painfully slow, nothing said or done can speed him up. He simply can’t make a decision on any aspect of the game without giving it lengthy thought. I get complaints all the time and I know if I gave him the ‘x, y, z or else’ speech he’d leave and as we are a small Club which purports to be friendly I don’t want to force him out. I have been averaging their hands not played (timed out). I have been considering awarding an adjusted score but I can’t think of a way of penalising them with advantaging their opponents; is there a way of penalising their slow play without advantaging others? I know the rules of the game but this is not the world championships and I am not looking simply to apply the law I am looking for a pragmatic solution, some form of equity with some form of penalty that would encourage to play quicker - any suggestions?

[gordontd]

 euclidz, on 2016-November-26, 09:47, said:

Slow play.

Here’s the problem.

We have one member who is painfully slow, nothing said or done can speed him up. He simply can’t make a decision on any aspect of the game without giving it lengthy thought. I get complaints all the time and I know if I gave him the ‘x, y, z or else’ speech he’d leave and as we are a small Club which purports to be friendly I don’t want to force him out. I have been averaging their hands not played (timed out). I have been considering awarding an adjusted score but I can’t think of a way of penalising them with advantaging their opponents; is there a way of penalising their slow play without advantaging others? I know the rules of the game but this is not the world championships and I am not looking simply to apply the law I am looking for a pragmatic solution, some form of equity with some form of penalty that would encourage to play quicker - any suggestions?

I don't see why you wouldn't award Av+/Av-. Why do you want to award a score to their opponents that suggests they are partly to blame when it seems they are not? In what way is that friendly?

Whatever score you give for the unplayed boards, you could still award a PP to the slow pair.

[weejonnie]

I think that all you can do is to remind everyone at the start of the evening that hands that have not commenced the (auction/play) period when the move is called will be cancelled and an artifical adjusted score based on the reason why the hand couldn't be played given. (law 12).

There is no problem awarding AV+, AV- for hand not played. (AV+, AV should only be awarded if there are external factors)

And you are not advantaging the other players - they have been denied the opportunity to get a good score on the hand through no fault of their own - and the laws specifically state how you award an artificial adjusted score.

If you don't want to go so far as AV+, AV- then you could award AV,AV but with a procedural penalty for unduly slow play - see law 90B2. However I would stress that this is in breach of the laws of bridge.

Finally - you may get more people attending the bridge club if they know that slow play will not be tolerated. Your slow player may be inhibiting membership as players may not wish to play against him.

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2016-November-26, 10:37, said:

I don't see why you wouldn't award Av+/Av-. Why do you want to award a score to their opponents that suggests they are partly to blame when it seems they are not? In what way is that friendly?

Whatever score you give for the unplayed boards, you could still award a PP to the slow pair.

I think you overlook what seems to be his main problem: Does he want to keep that slow player as a member of the club in spite of his deficiencies?

I believe handing out PPs for slow play is one certain way of getting rid of him. Constantly importune on him to speed up is another.

A better way could be to just regularly award AVE-/AVE+ on one of his boards each round so that he can complete the round on time with one less board played. No ideal solution, but if he can get this player understand and accept it as a "compromise" to keep him in the club rather than loose him, it might work?

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2016-November-26, 10:55, said:

I think you overlook what seems to be his main problem: Does he want to keep that slow player as a member of the club in spite of his deficiencies?

I believe handing out PPs for slow play is one certain way of getting rid of him. Constantly importune on him to speed up is another.

A better way could be to just regularly award AVE-/AVE+ on one of his boards each round so that he can complete the round on time with one less board played. No ideal solution, but if he can get this player understand and accept it as a "compromise" to keep him in the club rather than loose him, it might work?

You seem to have missed that he is reluctant to give Av+/Av-, even though by giving Av/Av he is telling the other pair that they are partly responsible for the board not being played. I didn't recommend giving a PP, but I pointed out its legality since he specifically asked for a way of penalising the one pair without advantaging the other.

[Vampyr]

 gordontd, on 2016-November-26, 10:37, said:

I don't see why you wouldn't award Av+/Av-. Why do you want to award a score to their opponents that suggests they are partly to blame when it seems they are not? In what way is that friendly?

Because time and again on these forums "friendly" seems to be a shorthand for "not following or enforcing the laws of the game".

[Vampyr]

 weejonnie, on 2016-November-26, 10:51, said:

Finally - you may get more people attending the bridge club if they know that slow play will not be tolerated. Your slow player may be inhibiting membership as players may not wish to play against him.

This seems fairly likely, since you say you get complaints all the time. After a few instances of this I think I would play at another club.

[euclidz]

 gordontd, on 2016-November-26, 10:37, said:

I don't see why you wouldn't award Av+/Av-. Why do you want to award a score to their opponents that suggests they are partly to blame when it seems they are not? In what way is that friendly?

Whatever score you give for the unplayed boards, you could still award a PP to the slow pair.

Thanks Gordon . . . .we use ScoreBridge, I can award an Av which gives 50%/50% and I can adjust that to (e.g.) 40%/60% i.e. penalising the slow play by awarding 40% but in doing that I reward (advantage) their opponents by giving them 60% and that disadvantages all other players. How do I penalise the slow play pair without rewarding their opponents?

[Vampyr]

 euclidz, on 2016-November-26, 11:22, said:

Thanks Gordon . . . .we use ScoreBridge, I can award an Av which gives 50%/50% and I can adjust that to (e.g.) 40%/60% i.e. penalising the slow play by awarding 40% but in doing that I reward (advantage) their opponents by giving them 60% and that disadvantages all other players. How do I penalise the slow play pair without rewarding their opponents?

I think you have a somewhat the wrong way round. The opponents score 60% (or their score if it is higher) when they could have been headed for a top board. This is not the huge advantage you seem to think it is, especially as it seems that it is only applied for one board.

[gordontd]

 euclidz, on 2016-November-26, 11:22, said:

Thanks Gordon . . . .we use ScoreBridge, I can award an Av which gives 50%/50% and I can adjust that to (e.g.) 40%/60% i.e. penalising the slow play by awarding 40% but in doing that I reward (advantage) their opponents by giving them 60% and that disadvantages all other players. How do I penalise the slow play pair without rewarding their opponents?

Their opponents are entitled to 60% (or their session score if higher). It is what is mandated by Law 12 for a pair not at fault.

[euclidz]

 gordontd, on 2016-November-26, 11:50, said:

Their opponents are entitled to 60% (or their session score if higher). It is what is mandated by Law 12 for a pair not at fault.

The problem with that is, I am encouraging their opponents to encourage the slow player to speed up and if the opponents know that by doing nothing they will get 60% then people being people . . . .

[gordontd]

 euclidz, on 2016-November-26, 11:59, said:

The problem with that is, I am encouraging their opponents to encourage the slow player to speed up and if the opponents know that by doing nothing they will get 60% then people being people . . . .

Most players expect to have got at least 70% on any board they are deprived of playing

[blackshoe]

 euclidz, on 2016-November-26, 11:59, said:

The problem with that is, I am encouraging their opponents to encourage the slow player to speed up and if the opponents know that by doing nothing they will get 60% then people being people . . . .

Explain to them that if they sit back and do nothing because "they know they will get 60%" you will penalize them for that.

[euclidz]

Thanks for all the helpful replies

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2016-November-26, 13:26, said:

Explain to them that if they sit back and do nothing because "they know they will get 60%" you will penalize them for that.

But what he really wants is for them to encourage the slow-poke to speed up. But they have little incentive to do that if they know that they'll get a decent board by letting him play slowly.

But I'm not sure what the opponents could do, anyway. It's extremely rude to make any mention of the player's slowness during the hand.

I think you're really caught between a rock and a hard place. If you want to keep that player in the club, you have to put up with him. Some people can't change.

A player who needs to think on practically every bid or play is usually just a poor player. We have one of them in our club. They haven't learned the game well enough for common decisions to come naturally and intuitively, so they need to think everything through. No amount of cajoling can fix this.

[blackshoe]

In that case I suppose you might want to investigate why he's not learning from his time at the table. Note: I don't buy the old saw "you can't teach an old dog new tricks". You can, it's just harder, and he needs to be willing to learn them.

[mycroft]

"Slow play is the curse of the game." I would suggest getting a copy of McBruce's article and having it available to all.

It's not the people playing *against* the slow player that should be your concern, it's the ones following him, who consistently lose 3 minutes or so on average in their rounds and have to play "fast pairs" to catch everyone up. As I said in my little talk at the last sectional, if you don't know what that feels like, "you're the slow pair." Guess who won't come back if they have to do that again? I know that even in the "friendly game" I get to play in, I look to make sure I'm not following "that player"...

I rarely find players who are truly slow, they just waste a lot of time. There are slow players who *also* waste a lot of time, of course!

Yes, you can award A+/A- if the opponents are truly not at fault. You can do that repeatedly. It does not "damage the field"; unless he's Peter Weichsel, the slow player isn't the good player, and opponents should *expect* to get 60% *or better* at least half the time. And you're taking away the possibility of "or better". If it turns out that some players are now encouraging him in order to get an A+, then it magically becomes "A/A-" as they are "partially at fault". If they do too much, then "A/A" or even "A-/A-" - it's TDs discretion as to where on the "no fault/partially at fault/at fault" line each side lies.

Now if the player has a disability that makes him slow (difficulty playing/picking up cards, a bad stutter, have to have the cards called to him, ...) then you should be lenient and if they get to play a 22-board game, it happens. But it doesn't sound like that - it sounds like this is just a person who refuses to learn to play to time. Pay especial attention to the comments at the top of McBruce's article, about all the good players disappearing; it's not wrong, especially with BBO available. It certainly did a number to the games I was in Back East (though not for slow play in that game - there were other reasons why that game was unpleasant).

I can think of one player who I was told on Tuesday (when I started work) was told on Monday, before the game started: "we are supposed to give slow play penalties after an initial warning. This is your warning." But he is a very good (if very slow) player, and that works for them. It is likely not to work for this player.