[blackshoe]

Siegmund, on 2012-January-22, 09:44, said:

Welcome to the ACBL. I have never given a "no play" for this reason, ever ... but when I first became a director, all I had was the Laws and the Bridge Laws Mailing List, and bluejak and other European directors pounded into my head very young that I must never give NPs for bad reasons, must never give A+/A- if a 'real' adjusted score can be had, etc etc. The local club directors who studied with me before their tests got that same approach passed on to them. But one of our members took a training course and directors test at IIRC the Gatlinburg regional -- and came back preaching that nobody should ever get a late play and NPs were the preferred solution. The conflict forced our unit board to take up the matter -- and we got a policy of one late play per pair, A- for any additional late plays for the same pair. But I have since been to a few "Q&A for club directors" sessions at tournaments, and the official advice from the ACBL to club directors really IS to give NPs and not late plays. It's going to become more common, not less, as fewer old-fashioned directors are around.

One of the directors here called Butch Campbell a while back to ask him about using "not played" for a late board. He said "that's what it's for". I don't know who started this BS at HQ, but he ought to be shot.

Siegmund, on 2012-January-22, 09:44, said:

Are late plays optional? Absolutely not. They aren't a punishment or even much of a delay for you, they are a convenience to the other non-offending players in the room to let them leave early without waiting for you. If the delay was clearly caused by one pair, and the other pair doesn't want to stay, I am sympathetic enough to give A- without a PP. If the pair responsible for the delay doesn't want to stay, or someone just leaves without speaking to me first, A- and PPs just like you would get if you walked out of the middle of any other game.
I kind of gaped in shock, the first time I had two pairs come to me and tell me "we've decided to take an average instead of staying." Apparently some club directors actually do ask people if they want to stay to play the board, and habitually give either NP or A/A if both pairs agree not to stay.

Those directors need re-education. And those players would be shocked if they said that to me, because both pairs would be getting A-.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-22, 10:35, said:

And those players would be shocked if they said that to me, because both pairs would be getting A-.

I assume you said that to make a point about your feelings on the idea itself, and would probably educate the players about their lack of authority to decide what they get on a board ---then make your ruling (as a club director, in this case) based on fault, special problems of the pairs involved, etc.

[Siegmund]

Yes, but some of us think if both pairs refuse to play the board late, both pairs are directly at fault for it not getting played, and have limited themselves to A- at most, absent some very odd extenuating circumstances.

[pran]

Many astonishing statements on this thread.

I feel like first of all adding a fact, not on ACBL regulations (which I don't know) but on Bridgemate which I believe is used also (at least somewhere) in ACBL clubs?

"NP" is implemented on Bridgemate for one single reason: To inform the scoring program that a board has not been played as scheduled and that the intention is to play that board at a later time (with normal scoring).

Such late plays are (almost) unheard of in Norway (in fact I believe in all of Scandinavia) where the standard is barometer with each round scored immediately as the round is finished. So if a table is late our standard is to impose PP as appropriate to one or both sides. And if a board is not played then (at least my) standard is to award A- to both sides unless it is clear that one side alone is responsible for the delay.

[blackshoe]

1. The ACBL covers a huge area, both geographically and in population. While I don't doubt that a few of the more progressive clubs have Bridgemates, I saw my first one at a Sectional last month. AFAIK, no club around here has them.
2. Barometer is unheard of around here. I don't know about the rest of the continent.
3. North America is not going to adopt Scandinavian hardware, movements, or methods any time soon.

[Vampyr]

Siegmund, on 2012-January-22, 12:52, said:

Yes, but some of us think if both pairs refuse to play the board late, both pairs are directly at fault for it not getting played, and have limited themselves to A- at most, absent some very odd extenuating circumstances.

"Odd"? What if the not-at-fault pair need to catch a train?

[blackshoe]

When I started playing here, 24 boards in three hours was the norm. Now clubs are trying to get 26 or 27 boards done in the same three hours. Folks now expect that when the session starts at noon, they're going to be out the door at 3:05, however many boards were scheduled. Couple this with players who will not sit down and shut up at noon (or better, at five minutes 'til) so the director can count tables and get the movement started, and you have a situation where people will show a definite lack of interest in late plays. Yet there is still an expectation, I think, that if you agree to play a session, you agree to play all the boards the director schedules for you in that session, and if that means taking a later train, so be it. Of course, if there is no later train, no doubt the pair will just assume that the club will accommodate them, even if they don't mention the need in advance. At least, I've rarely seen anyone around here say anything to the TD about a need to leave on time (or early) until the time comes.

It occurs to me that if a pair comes to me before the session starts and says "we have to leave in no more than three hours", I will at least be able to plan ahead a bit, and perhaps cancel the last round or part of it for them and their opponents because they need to leave when they do. Or use a movement that accommodates the need. I have had pairs ask for a last round sit out, when there's an odd number of pairs, and I would certainly accommodate that where possible too (I might get two or three pairs asking for that, I suppose, though it hasn't happened yet). But if they don't do that, I don't see why I should feel obligated (other than the standard club owner's fear they won't come back, to which I don't subscribe) to accommodate them in that way.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-23, 00:22, said:

if there is no later train, no doubt the pair will just assume that the club will accommodate them, even if they don't mention the need in advance. At least, I've rarely seen anyone around here say anything to the TD about a need to leave on time (or early) until the time comes.

When people are rushing to get a train it is usually the last one. There is no reason that they should be penalised when the slow play was no fault of theirs.

Quote

It occurs to me that if a pair comes to me before the session starts and says "we have to leave in no more than three hours", I will at least be able to plan ahead a bit, and perhaps cancel the last round or part of it for them and their opponents because they need to leave when they do. Or use a movement that accommodates the need.

I was not talking about a pair who have not made allowances for the normal duration of the session.

[blackshoe]

Just forget I said anything at all.

[joostb1]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-22, 14:41, said:

...
3. North America is not going to adopt Scandinavian hardware, movements, or methods any time soon.

The hardware is Dutch, at least in design, and probably produced somewhere in Asia. Not that that will make much of a difference.

[trevahound]

Bridgemates are awesome. However, we have one club that hilariously misuses them. This club has set them up to still show all the previous results on the board (traveler style), thus slowing the heck out of the game and polluting the room with UI about previous results.

I can't think of an analogy silly enough. It's using a wonderful solution to multiple problems, and then adding those problems right back on again.

Soon we'll even play pre-dupes during Swisses at Sectionals. Imagine that, duplicate bridge.

[pran]

trevahound, on 2012-January-24, 17:01, said:

Bridgemates are awesome. However, we have one club that hilariously misuses them. This club has set them up to still show all the previous results on the board (traveler style), thus slowing the heck out of the game and polluting the room with UI about previous results.

I can't think of an analogy silly enough. It's using a wonderful solution to multiple problems, and then adding those problems right back on again.

Soon we'll even play pre-dupes during Swisses at Sectionals. Imagine that, duplicate bridge.

Showing the previous results is a feature to make Bridgemate compatible with the old travellers available for everybody to study as the board progressed along the tables. This feature is there mainly to satisfy those who complained that they could no longer see what had happened on the board previously when the travellers disappeared. Such complaints are IMHO completely unjustified.

When configuring Bridgemates I always turn off any feature that may indicate how the currect result compares with other scores on a board.

My experience is that players love Bridgemate once they learn how to use it (which doesn't take long!). Bridgemate typically reduce scoring errors with a factor of at least ten, and as Director I refuse engangements if for whatever reason Bridgemate cannot be used. So far that has not been any problem.

[bluejak]

I think attempts to try to satisfy customers' desires are a good thing. My experience is that customers like seeing previous scores, and, so long as the scores are limited in number, the additional time is very small.

[ICEmachine]

Hanoi5, on 2011-August-11, 21:18, said:

Say a pair arrives late to a table and they can't finish all the boards for the round. The Director says it could be played at the end of the tournament. When the tournament finishes a pair from the late play can't stay to play the hand. How do you score that board for that table? Are late plays an obligation?

Just play barometer all the time then the late play possibility, puff , goes away


Personally I have never been a fan of late play and I think organisers should try their best to let players follow the movement and play the boards according to the movement. Late play delays tournaments and its always irritating for players that finished on time and who are waiting for the final result.


I think every time there is a late play that delays the finish of a tournament you will have more unhappy pairs than happy.. so if you take that view it should be avoided!

[pran]

ICEmachine, on 2012-January-24, 21:27, said:

Just play barometer all the time then the late play possibility, puff , goes away


Personally I have never been a fan of late play and I think organisers should try their best to let players follow the movement and play the boards according to the movement. Late play delays tournaments and its always irritating for players that finished on time and who are waiting for the final result.


I think every time there is a late play that delays the finish of a tournament you will have more unhappy pairs than happy.. so if you take that view it should be avoided!

Indeed.

And I believe that is why late play hardly ever is any issue in our part of the world (barometer is the default)

[gordontd]

pran, on 2012-January-24, 17:20, said:

Bridgemate typically reduce scoring errors with a factor of at least ten,

On what do you base this? In my experience about as many errors are introduced by scores being entered with the wrong declarer as those that are avoided by incorrect arithmetic or illegible handwriting.

[gordontd]

ICEmachine, on 2012-January-24, 21:27, said:

Just play barometer all the time then the late play possibility, puff , goes away


Personally I have never been a fan of late play and I think organisers should try their best to let players follow the movement and play the boards according to the movement. Late play delays tournaments and its always irritating for players that finished on time and who are waiting for the final result.


I think every time there is a late play that delays the finish of a tournament you will have more unhappy pairs than happy.. so if you take that view it should be avoided!

I agree that they should be avoided if possible in large serious events, but when boards are played late I think it generally assists all the players at the other tables in finishing on time. In a club event, if there's a single late board outstanding when other players are leaving the club, they'll get the results online when they get home.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2012-January-25, 02:03, said:

pran said:

Bridgemate typically reduce scoring errors with a factor of at least ten,

On what do you base this? In my experience about as many errors are introduced by scores being entered with the wrong declarer as those that are avoided by incorrect arithmetic or illegible handwriting.

Plain, simple experience during 30 years (or even more).

But I also believe I know why:
We avoid incorrectly or illegible written reports and we avoid scorer errors when reading reports or entering results to the scoring program.

As North enters the result and East confirms it most errors are captured already at this time, but sometimes the players get second thooughts on what they entered and double check with the Director (me) before the round is completed so that an incorrectly entered result can easily be corrected on the Bridgemate.

My stated factor of ten represents the ratio between typical number of TD calls because of scoring errors before and after the introduction of Bridgemates in "my" tournaments.

One important note: A frequent reason for not detecting wrong declarer is to have the verification display show the result with respect of declaring side instead of North/South! If East or West makes a contract the result on "my" Bridgemates will always be a negative number.

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2012-January-25, 04:41, said:

My stated factor of ten represents the ratio between typical number of TD calls because of scoring errors before and after the introduction of Bridgemates in "my" tournaments.

My experience broadly confirms a ratio of perhaps ten, but the other way round - there are far more TD calls because of scoring errors with Bridgemates than there were before. That doesn't mean I am against using Bridgemates - far from it. But there do seem to be quite a lot of errors that are realised just too late for the players to do anything about it (I find it quite frustrating as a player when opponents will "confirm" a score on the Bridgemate without even looking at it, so that they can then see how their score compares with others). With travellers it was very easy for players to correct their own mistakes if they were realised quickly.

I suspect there are fewer errors in the final scores with Bridgemates, but that is largely because lots of players never bothered to check individual scores in pre-Bridgemate days, so if a scorer was confused by dire handwriting this might never be picked up.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2012-January-25, 04:41, said:

Plain, simple experience during 30 years (or even more).

I can't argue with someone who has 30 years experience working with Bridgemates.