A question about the most appropriate way for Director to assess Penalty for slow Play. Just talking about Club Games here, but nevertheless aiming to get it right! I have not plowed through the Laws. Would like to hear your general thoughts and advice.

Seems to me, intuitively, that any Board played to completion, no matter how far behind, should be scored as-played at the Table; so any Penalty, to either pair should be done by a “fraction-of-a-top” deduction from Matchpoint total for the game. Does that make sense?

Once cards-in-hand and play commenced, can / should the Director ever intervene and stop play? If so, how to rule?

Considering broadest circumstances (e.g. players didn’t get cards-in-hand on time so Director pulled the Board; one underhanded Pair Pair judged to be deliberately slow to gain advantage, etc; then under what specific circumstances should the Director apply awarded score(s), such as Average Minus?

Thanks

Hi Clarksburg,

I used to take a slightly flippant attitude to discouraging slow play when I was TD at (relatively) relaxed club games. Apart from the usual statement of “You should all be on your 2nd board by now” after 1/3 of the time allotted to each round, discouraging post mortems and looking out for slow pairs and asking them to please catch up, I used to say something at the start of the session.4 “Remember that thinking often doesn’t result in better decisions, and isn’t it worse to do something daft slowly?”

Seriously, though, there are pairs in any club who can be a menace but who need chivvying in a tolerant way; if that isn’t an oxymoron, I don’t know what is. Any words of wisdom here fromm Bobby would be appreciated, but preventing the holdups in the first instance is ideal. There again I once slave drove a 4-table Howell through 28 boards in just under 3 hours, but that was too fast.

Regards,

Iain

Hi Clarksburg,

Before reading Iain’s response to you, I will relate to you my take on this difficult subject.

1. Most all players, from top drawer to almost beginners, become individualistic in their table behavior.

2. #1 is motivated by pride, fear of looking stupid, slower wit, lesser knowledge, therefore random attention spans, trying to remember earlier clues including the bidding, opening lead, significant hesitations, even what the final contract happens to be, but being too vein to ask and my guess others to be added.

3. Late finishes are sometimes caused by the lateness of EW to arrive, bathroom or other breaks, extraneous conversation which could be thought of as positive, combining together with real problems (mostly in the play). All the above then makes it more likely for slowness to result when a “tough” hand appears.

4. Tournament bridge in the US is now similar to old folks homes, with the average age skyrocketing. I suggest more patience except when done maliciously or more likely by selfish players who wrongly think that they own that table and at the same time are not physically cheating, but rather just causing inconveniency for the other three.

5. Conclusion-more patience by the TDs and the players also for older folk who mean well but think slowly and do not want to be disadvantaged by it.

6. Real answer-A TD (or committee) who are told exactly what happened and only then, from a mature bridge viewpoint decide (when the major delay occurs) if it had any relevance, and if so, tend to give much leeway, before penalties assessed.

7. Also extraneous conventions by modern players (especially to old opponents) tend to cause more delay since anything relatively new (the last 20 years) may cause slower play. The new conventioneers should accept them being part of the problem and if so, go to more extreme behavior to help their unknowing opponents understand what is happening. That behavior, though rare, is counter to what some think that their opponents are not entitled to that form of babying, but since bridge itself is slanted to not taking advantage, why shouldn’t that extend to TD rules on slow play. At least I think it should.

8. Finally fast players should be complimented whenever possible, which if overheard by others may create incentives to be thought to be in that category.

9. When someone suggests that they hate to win by being ruled in a favorable way is just not true, at least to the extent of them being chagrined if it happens. Enough nice words, but more actual not taking advantage, like National Politics is the answer to both our country and the bridge table.

Thanks for listening,, assuming you have made it this far, and now to answer Iain, but only after I take a necessary break.

Good luck!

Hi Iain,

Thanks for your experiences and, of course, your wisdom.

I certainly agree with not antagonizing relative slow players since we want them to think before acting, otherwise they will not learn from whatever their experiences dictate.

And, no doubt, I agree with your opinion that once a player goes through the initial thought, it is better to just do it, rather than convince oneself to start the whole process from the beginning. To do so is rarely, if ever, an improvement.

No doubt, since the answer is somewhere between learned talent, optimism and experience, by now checking back to see what one has missed is usually an exercise in futility.

However, just relating the above to almost anybody is not necessarily helpful since most think maintaining pride is the objective, since the game usually being a difficult one, doesn’t just hiccup the right actions.