Laws & Rulings
Classes & Lessons
Emerald Bridge Club
Salem Bridge Club
Newport Bridge Club
Two Rivers Market (upstairs)
250 Broadalbin Street Suite 215
Albany Oregon 97321
phone (541) 990-4243 (Bob Peery)
or (541) 791-9518 (Myrna Evans)
(click for map)
1931 NW Circle Blvd (east of Dollar Tree)
Corvallis, OR 97330
phone (541) 740-1072
(click for map)
plays duplicate has heard the Director's admonition
tables speed up!". And yet, despite our most
efforts, we often find ourselves still playing a
hand while the Timer
Clock is in the dreaded Red Zone. Hopefully
some of the tips
below will help avoid what at times seem to be
Note that many of the solutions don't even involve
playing or bidding
ACBL Article on Slow Play
Slow Play – general expectations
Failure to finish on time can do a great deal to chase players away from the game and is extremely distressing to waiting players. Bridge is a timed event. If a pair takes more than their share of the allotted time for each round, they are inconveniencing their fellow competitors as well as gaining an unfair advantage over them. When a pair has fallen behind it is incumbent on them to make up the time lost as quickly as possible whether at fault or not.
The actively ethical player makes a concerted effort to catch up when they have fallen behind, regardless of the reason for their lateness. All players are expected to develop this good habit.
Remember: Slow play is subject to penalty, and the penalties are well earned when slow pairs disrupt the normal progression of the game. Additionally, players should be available to start each subsequent round promptly, avoiding wherever possible, being late to a table for non-bridge reasons.
At the discretion of the TD, slow play penalties will be deemed to be either disciplinary (and unappealable) or procedural. If the latter, appeals committees should tend strongly to reject all routine appeals against slow play penalties. When they do deny such an appeal, they should consider imposing an additional penalty for a frivolous appeal. The burden is on the appellant to demonstrate that some unusual circumstance makes the penalty inappropriate.
Slow play, especially habitual slow play, is a violation of law and subject to penalty. When a pair has fallen behind, it is incumbent on them to make up the time lost as quickly as possible whether at fault or not. All players are expected to make a concerted effort to catch up when they have fallen behind, regardless of the reason for their lateness.
In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, the director should presume that a pair finishing a round late by more than two or three minutes on more than one occasion during a session is responsible for the lateness. There is a strong expectation that the director will penalize such a pair. The size of a penalty will tend to increase for subsequent instances of slow play and for chronic or egregious slow play.
While warnings typically will be given before a penalty is assessed, failure to do so in no way limits the director’s authority to issue a penalty. Players are expected to be aware, in a general sense, of time used and remaining in a segment in which they are playing regardless of whether a clock is in use or a time announcement has been made. An excuse of “no announcement” or “no clock immediately visible” will not be considered persuasive.
In consultation with the DIC of the tournament, the TD may require that a particular pair not play in a specified segment, not play against a specified pair or not play together as a pair. The foregoing is expected to be applied only due to egregious circumstances or to unduly repetitious offenders. An appeal of an action taken by a TD with regard to time may be taken to the Director in Charge of the tournament, and no further. For NABC+ KO events, the TD is charged with the responsibility to ensure that each KO match segment finishes within the allotted time. While a time monitor may be employed, the lack of a monitor in no way limits the TD’s authority to apply one or more of the remedies listed below. The TD may choose to ignore an occasional minor late finish. The TD may remove one or more boards from a segment. The TD may award no score (when neither team is more at fault), an assigned score (when a result already exists at one table which the TD wishes to preserve) or an artificial score in IMPs. Every effort should be made to remove boards before they can be played at either table, but not having done so does not preclude removing one or more later.
Club Director’s Handbook
Bridge is a timed event. Games should start on time, and the director should keep them moving on schedule. A timing device is a major plus. There is nothing more frustrating for a pair than to follow two slow players all evening and never be able to begin a round on time.
The guideline for ACBL events is 15 minutes per two boards. The director has an obligation to players not to allow one or two persons to make the game unpleasant for the majority. First offenders should be warned, given one round to get back on schedule and informed that in addition to a late play (when allowed), procedural penalties (Law 90) may be assessed for future offenses. It is understood that the director will make every possible effort to determine who is “at fault” before assessing any penalties. When a player is late for the second time, the director may issue a procedural penalty (usually 25% of top on a board).
Before assessing a penalty for persistent slow play, sometimes it is better for the pair and the game, as a whole, to grant the problem pair a late play (hoping that by putting them back on schedule they can keep up). If this does not cure the problem, the director may then resort to penalties.
It is possible to run a duplicate game where late plays are not allowed. The director can award an adjusted score for boards that are not started before the round ends. The offenders receive Average minus and the non-offenders receive Average plus, or a percentage of their game. If neither pair is deemed to be at fault, the board is scored as No Play.
Principle of Full Disclosure – has nothing to do with slow-play!
The philosophy of active ethics tells us that winners should be determined solely by skill, flair and normal playing luck. Actively ethical partnerships take pains to ensure that their opponents are fully informed. A major tenet of active ethics is the principle of full disclosure. This means that all information available to your partnership must be made available to your opponents.
Let’s take a look at weak two bids from the point of view of full disclosure. When an established partnership opens a weak two bid, they have a great deal of information of which their opponents are not aware. The convention card discloses the point range, but little else. However, the partners are aware of the range of hands on which the bid can be made (discipline?, suit quality requirements?, five-or-seven card suits allowed?, side four-card major ok?, void ok?, positional variations?, etc.). Full disclosure requires that all these inferences, restrictions and tendencies be made known to any opponent who inquires about their style. If you are interested in knowing these things about your opponent’s bid, merely say to the bidder’s partner, “Would you tell me more about your style?” You may use the style inquiry’ to ask about any call your opponent makes.
The actively ethical player will often go beyond what is technically required in volunteering information to the opponents. Quite often, the declaring side in an actively ethical partnership will volunteer such information before the opening lead is made. (But remember, when there has been misinformation given, such as a failure to alert or a mis-alert, there is a LEGAL obligation on the player whose partner misinformed the opponents. He, the bidder, must give the opponents the correct information at the end of the auction if his side is the declaring side or at the end of the play if his side is defending.)
New players or infrequent partnerships usually will not have understandings about the items discussed here and, of course, it will be perfectly proper for them to reply, “We have no agreement as to style.”
MENTORSHIP PROGRAM 2018
The Corvallis Club is starting a new mentorship program in March, and if you are an advancing player (i.e., a player with 20‑300 masterpoints) you may be interested in playing with a mentor.
You may wonder how to make a particular game or set a contract. You might like to know what to bid in an auction. You may also wonder, “What do experienced players think about at the table?” Playing with a mentor allows you to ask an experienced player in the context of a real, practical game setting. This can improve your bidding and help develop defensive and declarer skills. We are fortunate to have many experienced members in our club who want to pass on their love of duplicate bridge to players who want to advance their game. The mentorship program is designed to bring you together.
The program has a new flexible format this year:
Here’s how it will work:
At the end of your mentorship experience, check back in with the mentorship coordination team. You can elect to take a break from being mentored or continue in the program, with the same mentor or with a new mentor to aid your learning! Feel free to respond to this message or contact any mentorship coordination team member with any questions,
The mentorship coordination team:
Allison Evans (email@example.com or 541-231-5766)
Linda Smith (Lindaburkesmith622@gmail.com or 541-754-3543)
Gayanne Alexander (firstname.lastname@example.org or 541-740-2863)
Tournament Quick List
|Mar 20-31, 2019||Memphis||TN||Info||99||0||NABC||Open|
|Jul 17-28, 2019||Las Vegas||NV||Info||99||0||NABC||Open|
|Nov 28-Dec 8, 2019||San Francisco||CA||Info||99||0||NABC||Open|