[zasanya]

My suggestion to use timing devices is not for making it better for spectators.It is based on the assumption that in any mind game the ability to work out a problem faster than the opponent should be rewarded.If it helps to make the game more marketable then its a bonus.
Apropos some of the issues raised by some of the knowledgeable posters
1) Introducing the clocks does not make it a new game.
2)Even in India, players bring their own clocks for chess tournaments.Its an investment of may be 100 dollars for a lifetime.So there need not be monetary difficulties.
3)If 3 minutes per deal is more reasonable .OK.The authorities may even make it 4-5 minute per person per deal ;OK.But all players must have equal time to start with.
4)The player who is to bid or to play a card simply does so and presses a button.The chess clock measures the time taken by a player to make his move.Here it will mean time taken to bid or play a card.For example suppose I am sitting east .North Calls and presses his button on the clock.My clock which was hitherto not ticking now starts .I call and after completing my call press the button to stop both clocks (so that time taken by me to ponder over my call is recorded) and push the tray .The volunteer starts South clock and so on. Seems workable.If a better measuring device is available it can be used.Easier done than said.
5)With chess clocks it is possible to use a large chunk of time in certain situations provided you judiciously use the total time at your disposal.I once thought for 1 hour on a single move and my total thinking time was 1 hour 20 minutes for making 36 moves.In bridge its different I agree which is why i suggest time at your disposal increases by a few seconds every time you make a move.
6)If the devices are to be used then they must be used at all major international/ national tournaments.However somebody has to make a start.
7)While a question is asked or being answered the clock is stopped.So nobody loses or gains time.I do not believe players at the highest level resort to cheating. If they do they will be caught.It will be easy to see if a player is asking frivolous questions or deliberately answering slowly to buy some time or not.
8)The penalty for overstepping the time limit should be imps or mps or whatever is the scoring method being used.
Let us discuss and not argue or ridicule.

[MrAce]

 zasanya, on 2011-May-21, 00:28, said:

My suggestion to use timing devices is not for making it better for spectators.It is based on the assumption that in any mind game the ability to work out a problem faster than the opponent should be rewarded.If it helps to make the game more marketable then its a bonus.
Apropos some of the issues raised by some of the knowledgeable posters
1) Introducing the clocks does not make it a new game.
2)Even in India, players bring their own clocks for chess tournaments.Its an investment of may be 100 dollars for a lifetime.So there need not be monetary difficulties.
3)If 3 minutes per deal is more reasonable .OK.The authorities may even make it 4-5 minute per person per deal ;OK.But all players must have equal time to start with.
4)The player who is to bid or to play a card simply does so and presses a button.The chess clock measures the time taken by a player to make his move.Here it will mean time taken to bid or play a card.For example suppose I am sitting east .North Calls and presses his button on the clock.My clock which was hitherto not ticking now starts .I call and after completing my call press the button to stop both clocks (so that time taken by me to ponder over my call is recorded) and push the tray .The volunteer starts South clock and so on. Seems workable.If a better measuring device is available it can be used.Easier done than said.
5)With chess clocks it is possible to use a large chunk of time in certain situations provided you judiciously use the total time at your disposal.I once thought for 1 hour on a single move and my total thinking time was 1 hour 20 minutes for making 36 moves.In bridge its different I agree which is why i suggest time at your disposal increases by a few seconds every time you make a move.
6)If the devices are to be used then they must be used at all major international/ national tournaments.However somebody has to make a start.
7)While a question is asked or being answered the clock is stopped.So nobody loses or gains time.I do not believe players at the highest level resort to cheating. If they do they will be caught.It will be easy to see if a player is asking frivolous questions or deliberately answering slowly to buy some time or not.
8)The penalty for overstepping the time limit should be imps or mps or whatever is the scoring method being used.
Let us discuss and not argue or ridicule.

With all due respect, i have to disagree, and my reasons are;

- I already know and see players, who believes thinking more than 5 seconds will make them look bad, so they play a card without a plan. Sadly these same people take more time thinking after they already messed it up. As a bridge fan, I find this very frustrating already without the time restrictions.

-High level players already have a stress on them due to the stakes. Now it is even more because they all know every little mistake they do is being watched and commented online in front of thousands. And you wanna add a time stress on these players.

-Again, this is not chess where first 10-15 or so moves are made auto. One table can play a simple 4♥ where they have a claim, while at the other table the player can be in 6♥ trying to perform a Stripdoublecrisscross (or whatever name u wanna call) squeeze. On the other hand defenders will (usually) have faster game vs a slam or grandslam than those who are defending 1 nt or 2 ♦.

-People play different systems, and different styles. Same board at one table goes 1NT-6NT while at the other table it may take very long due to relays, or one table recieves no competition by opps while it can be very difficult or easy for the other table when they are contested during the bidding.

- You can not reward a player, just because he made the same contract earlier than the other player, You would be killing bridge. Why ? Because the guy who played and also made the same contract but late may actually have taken a much better and superior line than the fast guy. You want to reward a player just because he doesnt have enough knowledge, talent, experience and took his finesse and made the game in 3 seconds while other one made it 3-4 mins later but against any dist. This must be a joke !

- We are living in 21st century, time and speed has been part of our life as well as source of the stress which it comes with. Bridge is a great game and has its natural stress level already, why try to add more stress to the game where it actually takes us away from daily life's stress and worries?

WHERE IS THE FIRE ?

EDIT: In order to reward time, u need to equal all the other variables, such as system, opponent contest, defense, lead etc etc, which is not possible, unless u make the tourney just like in GIB Duplicate events in BBO.

[chudecek]

 mtvesuvius, on 2011-May-20, 21:07, said:

That (48 to 54 min per plater per 32 boards) is simply absurd.

Allowing each INDIVIDUAL player anything less than 3 minutes per board is crazy....snip... Sometimes there is one player in a partnership that is very slow, and one player that is very fast. Together, they make a perfectly normal and on-time partnership, however if timing is done by side of the screen or by player, the slow one would now go over their time limit, and the fast one would have plenty of time remaining.....snip....

Timing would also present cheating issues as well, asking to use the restroom or calling the director could simply be used as excuses to buy an extra few minutes to think.

Using time constraints for high-level bridge just to make it a bit better for spectators I'm sure would be extremely unpopular amongst the players.

If the goal is to make bridge more marketable and interesting to kibitz, these should be separate plans.

Any player averaging 3 minutes per board is not a GOOD bridge player. Who is the better crossword puzzle solver? Solver A who solves ten puzzles in 20 minutes with 99.5% accuracy, or Solver B, who takes four days to solve the ten puzzles perfectly, using his Thesaurus and Google?

Awarding bonus points to a player using less time than the limit, and penalizing the slowpoke would have the benefit of the faster player getting on the case of the slowpoke: "Look, Homer: Speed up- you are killing us!" and the slowpoke would then learn to be a BRIDGE PLAYER or he would be replaced in the partnership.

Players are excused to go pee when they are dummy. If that doesn't work, Depends will do.

Applying time constraints is not for the benefit of kibitzers. They are applied to benefit THE GAME. And I am equally sure that speeding up the game would be favored by the majority.

[mtvesuvius]

Crosswords and Bridge ARE NOT THE SAME THING

Bridge is completely different from any other mind game because it has an infinite amount more layers. There is no reason why bridge should be treated the same way as many of the other mind games, because there are a lot more situations and possibilities to be considered.

Use the bathroom while you are dummy? Depends?! You seem to be delusional.

[chudecek]

 mtvesuvius, on 2011-May-21, 12:14, said:

Crosswords and Bridge ARE NOT THE SAME THING

Bridge is completely different from any other mind game because it has an infinite amount more layers. There is no reason why bridge should be treated the same way as many of the other mind games, because there are a lot more situations and possibilities to be considered.

Use the bathroom while you are dummy? Depends?! You seem to be delusional.

Bridge is (was) popular for exactly the opposite reason. In one (at most two) pages of text a bridge hand can form a complete short story, with a beginning, a story line, and an understandable conclusion.

And the hand will be bid and played exactly the same way by four true experts whose mind has not been poisoned by mind-deadening slow play, and varieties of bastardized systems in misbegotten efforts to "improve" a naturally beautiful game.

[TylerE]

Making the same completely dumb arguments over and over again is the mark of insanity, not being right.

[mgoetze]

 mtvesuvius, on 2011-May-21, 12:14, said:

Bridge is completely different from any other mind game because it has an infinite amount more layers.

Not it's not. I'm not talking about crossword here, though.

[barmar]

 chudecek, on 2011-May-21, 14:09, said:

And the hand will be bid and played exactly the same way by four true experts whose mind has not been poisoned by mind-deadening slow play, and varieties of bastardized systems in misbegotten efforts to "improve" a naturally beautiful game.

Any player whose mind is "deadened" because an opponent takes an extra minute to think about a complicated hand is hardly an expert, IMHO.

[chudecek]

 barmar, on 2011-May-21, 17:56, said:

Any player whose mind is "deadened" because an opponent takes an extra minute to think about a complicated hand is hardly an expert, IMHO.

One MINUTE? Some of these characters take TEN minutes on every other hand. That's why I gave up the game.

[Phil]

 chudecek, on 2011-May-21, 19:34, said:

One MINUTE? Some of these characters take TEN minutes on every other hand. That's why I gave up the game.

Promises, promises.

[MrAce]

 chudecek, on 2011-May-21, 11:28, said:

Any player averaging 3 minutes per board is not a GOOD bridge player.

Like M. Rossenberg ? K.Woolsey ? M. Granovetter ? Brad Moss ? Sundelin ? Wooldridge ? F.Steward ? Karen Mc Callum ?

I am sure other people may come up with more names but I think these are great players.

 chudecek, on 2011-May-21, 19:34, said:

One MINUTE? Some of these characters take TEN minutes on every other hand. That's why I gave up the game.

Who are those characters taking 10 minutes every other board Carl ? I am afraid that statement is not even close to the facts.

[olien]

 MrAce, on 2011-May-21, 22:16, said:

Like M. Rossenberg ? K.Woolsey ? M. Granovetter ? Brad Moss ? Sundelin ? Wooldridge ? F.Steward ? Karen Mc Callum ?

I am sure other people may come up with more names but I think these are great players.



Who are those characters taking 10 minutes every other board Carl ? I am afraid that statement is not even close to the facts.

Some of those players do take a lot of time but appropriate measures have been taken already and its not on "every other hand" as Mr Hudecek suggests. This whole idea is absurd and I am no longer going to waste my time with it. If a system resembling what Mr. Hudecek suggests ever comes into place in the ACBL, or whatever NBO that happens to be relevant to me at that time, I will find an alternative.

[Hanoi5]

I haven't read through all the posts but, aren't there already time constraints for matches, rounds, etc?

Even chess with a clock is a different game! I agree clocks could be used in bridge but it's so hard to measure, people comment the previous board, claim at the beginning, claim almost at the end, play till the last card.

Also, I didn't kibitz the whole American Trials but, wasn't one of the members of the Rodwell/Meckstroth pair one who usually took a lot of time and was constantly being sorry for taking so long? And they didn't win so, how did that affect the other teams?

[awm]

 chudecek, on 2011-May-21, 14:09, said:

And the hand will be bid and played exactly the same way by four true experts whose mind has not been poisoned by mind-deadening slow play, and varieties of bastardized systems in misbegotten efforts to "improve" a naturally beautiful game.

This is just factually untrue. There are many hands where experts will make different bids, different leads, and take different lines of play. Look at the discussion of bidding or opening lead problems in magazines like the bridge world or the acbl bulletin... they assume standardized methods (BWS or whatever) and you still get a huge range of answers from experts. To the degree that newspaper hands have a single "right answer" -- this is only because they are extremely carefully selected and presented (and even in these cases you sometimes see letters to the author suggesting very competitive alternatives).

Further, who would think that reducing the variety in the game to the point that experts would bid and play almost all hands in the same way is a good thing? The reason bridge is interesting is that there are so many reasonable ways (both in the bidding and the play) to approach the very same hands!

[NickRW]

 chudecek, on 2011-May-21, 14:09, said:

And the hand will be bid and played exactly the same way by four true experts whose mind has not been poisoned by mind-deadening slow play, and varieties of bastardized systems in misbegotten efforts to "improve" a naturally beautiful game.

I have refrained from being directly rude to you. But I find your opinions not only wrong, but wrong to the point where I [xxxxxxxx - material removed by administrator, point was tired of reading this stuff]

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2011-May-22, 09:23
Reason for edit: A bit too rude, and threatening Violence

[gordontd]

 chudecek, on 2011-May-21, 14:09, said:

And the hand will be bid and played exactly the same way by four true experts whose mind has not been poisoned by mind-deadening slow play, and varieties of bastardized systems in misbegotten efforts to "improve" a naturally beautiful game.

You say it as though you think it would, if true, be a good thing.

[chudecek]

 MrAce, on 2011-May-21, 22:16, said:

Like M. Rossenberg ? K.Woolsey ? M. Granovetter ? Brad Moss ? Sundelin ? Wooldridge ? F.Steward ? Karen Mc Callum ?

I am sure other people may come up with more names but I think these are great players.



Who are those characters taking 10 minutes every other board Carl ? I am afraid that statement is not even close to the facts.

They are great SLOW players. Wouldn't you prefer to play against a pair of Michael Seamon's and finish in time to eat and talk with your friends?

The "ten minutes every other board" was editorial license to make a point.
'

[FrancesHinden]

I've got a different suggestion.

If you want to play quickly with no complex systems allowed, play rubber bridge for money. That's a form of the game that's alive and well, and seems to give you everything you want.

[chudecek]

 awm, on 2011-May-22, 00:06, said:

This is just factually untrue. There are many hands where experts will make different bids, different leads, and take different lines of play. Look at the discussion of bidding or opening lead problems in magazines like the bridge world or the acbl bulletin... they assume standardized methods (BWS or whatever) and you still get a huge range of answers from experts. To the degree that newspaper hands have a single "right answer" -- this is only because they are extremely carefully selected and presented (and even in these cases you sometimes see letters to the author suggesting very competitive alternatives).

Further, who would think that reducing the variety in the game to the point that experts would bid and play almost all hands in the same way is a good thing? The reason bridge is interesting is that there are so many reasonable ways (both in the bidding and the play) to approach the very same hands!

Some hands are bid and played? differently by some experts, because

a) Some experts are not as expert as other experts;

b) Most experts have had their mind poisoned by "system and method development"

c) I submit that true "experts" would play a given hand the same way. That's why Par contests with strict time limits are the best way to determine playing and defending expertise.

**************************************************

Bridge World Standard and artificial club systems are complicated. I submit that if you used these systems in bridge columns for Joe Average (like those in NYT and most other newspapers), the readership would drop to near zero within a week, and they'd have room for Lil' Abner reruns.

[TylerE]

Well, SOMEONE has certainly had their mind poisoned.