This site has been set up to allow players to suggest ways to improve the quality of Bridge Competitions. If you have any ideas that work well for your club, please e-mail them to me and I will post them here. Or, you can post comments on existing ideas.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Teams of Four-is it a good thing?
This week is one of our weeks in the year devoted to a Teams of Four competition.We play this only on our Wednesday sessions when there are 5 Wednesdays in the month. We never play 'teams' on Sunday. It occured to me to ask the question as to whether this is a good format or not? I can think of some advantages and disadvantages: Advantages 1. Many would argue that this is true Bridge where what is necessary to win is to make the contract. Overtricks are relatively unimportant. 2. There is more of an incentive to bid a variety of games and slams. The necessity to bid 3 no-trumps regardless is much reduced. 3. Feedback is instant. Each team scores up at the end and the winner is usually known on the night. Disadvantages 1. Organisation is more difficult. People forget that it is teams we and turn up without another pair (one local club reverts to 'pairs' if this happens-we don't). 2. Movements can be more complicated, especially with an even number of teams. 3. Players are unfamilar with the format and scoring and this can slow things down. How does your club organise 'teams' events? Are they popular or unpopular. Should they be a frequent occurrence or an occasional treat? Submit your opinion! This comment received from Tony M
Teams of 4 is the most popular event at the Yeovil Bridge Club. We play teams every 4th Thursday of the month and we get between 10 - 13 tables. We have produced movement cards so that players can see which table they should move to but the Director still calls the move on each round. We ask teams to agree scores with the opposition at the halfway point and again at the end. We have found that this reduces any scoring errors. So yes - we at Yeovil in Somerset think Teams of 4 is a good event.
I suspect that most people will agree with this as Teams events in Somerset are very well supported.
One reason for a club losing members or for low attendance is slow play. This can be a major cause of disaffection in clubs. Clicking on the link will take you to a list of suggestions for making improvements.
I think all the suggestions made by Bruce McIntyre are excellent and will do much to improve the situation, but there are others. Sometimes there are factors that are difficult to do anything about. I play in two clubs and there is a large overlap in the memberships. One is much slower than the other. No, it isn't really the Tournament Director it is mainly the fact that one club has a bar in the playing room and at the end of each round players queue up to buy drinks! I think though that if we are honest the main problems are none of the above. The real difficulty lies with one or two individuals in each club that are always much slower than everyone else. David Stevenson addresses the issue in this month's Bridge Magazine (UK). He states that players do not have the right to upset others by slow play and considers it to be a 'breach of proprieties' (law 74B). He suggests that it is easy to deal with! Players affected should keep on at the TD to deal with it and if that is not effective approach the club committee. He says that often no action is taken because it is believed that tackling the offender might cause them to leave. He suggests that those upset by the offending player should band together and threaten to leave the club as a group if no action is taken. I have several problems with this approach. Firstly, there are degrees of slow play. While everyone knows who the slowest players are there are often others who are only marginally quicker. After all, there must always be a slowest player in every session by definition. If the whole evening finishes on tiem should we say we have a problem. I think that maybe we should have some give and take on the matter but we really need a better system, Chess has got it sorted with time clocks for each player. Can someone please invent the equivalent for Bridge? PS I thought of one! How about the TD or his assistant keeps a record of which pairs finish last on each round? If a pair finishes last on (say) half the rounds then they would be penalised by a certain percentage! Perhaps the last word on the subject is this brilliant verse submitted by Peter Rowlett: SLOW PLAY "Won't you play a little faster?" the Director said to me - "It's a Congress, not a funeral - I was standing here to see You trance all through the bidding; now you're trancing as you play... Though it's Hesitation Mitchell, you can't hesitate all day! Your playing rate would not disgrace the average three-toed sloth: Don't think you're Tony Forrester or Raymond Brock, or both!"
But I was working out the hand (one can't afford to rush); The speaker was distracting me. I shook my head for hush. Now was that lead fourth-highest? No, I dare not play a card Until I'd planned my strategy, a task I find quite hard. Could it be third and fifth, perhaps? I stared out into space. The wisest course, it seemed to me, was not to force the pace.
"You're holding up the movement!" The Director had returned: His dewlaps danced with dudgeon and his eye with ire burned. "Unless you start to play this hand, and play it like a shot I'll send your name to Aylesbury - they'll give it to you hot! They'll know just what to do with you, who sit and think for ages: It's in the Laws and Ethics Book, or else the Yellow Pages!
But I was working out the hand (I've read a lot of books By Kelsey, Reese and Mollo) so I just ignored his looks. My gaze was fixed on dummy, and I viewed it with unease: What entry problems would there be if I essayed a squeeze? An injudicious card from me would quite destroy the play... So as I fell once more to thought I murmured "Go away..." "Get on with it!" he yelled at me. "What are you trying to prove? Like Earth, pre-Galileo, sir, we simply do not move! All these good folk have gathered here at twenty quid a head: Most think you're cataleptic; the remainder think you're dead! I just don't need this aggro: a Director's life is hard, So will you, won't you, will you, won't you play a ruddy card?"
The experts all advise a chap impulsive play to curb. I waved a hand dismissively and muttered: "Don't disturb, One cannot rush these matters..." The Director struck his brow And staggered and fell sideways, looking mad as any cow. Well this was bad! His rude display had quite derailed my train Of thought. There was no help for it: I'd have to start again.
He reached into his jacket then, and expertly withdrew A standard Aylesbury Magnum (issued by the EBU). "On fines or penalties," he growled, "I will not waste my breath! For slow play on this scale, my friend, the penalty is DEATH!" He fired the gun; and through the head (the hole was very neat) He plugged my patient partner, who'd been dozing in his seat! "You'll want an explanation," the Director calmly said. "You'll want to know just why I shot your partner through the head When you were the offender. Well, the whole thing is to do With legal complications, for your family might sue! I thought about it just in time - I had you in my sights - Then luckily remembered that a dummy has no rights!"
Does the movement used make a difference to the popularity of a duplicate pairs events? My impression is that it does. There are various pressures on a Tournament Director when a movement is being chosen. The first is obviously the number of tables. If there are 5, 6 or 7 full tables the obvious answer is a Mitchell Movement. This seems to me to be popular because it is so simple. Some pairs like to play N/S when possible -maybe as a result of a disabiity. The movement of the E/W pairs and of the boards is simple and predictable, cutting down the chance of mistakes. There is more of a problem with an even number of tables when we generally use a 'share and relay' rather than a 'skip' movement. The real problem arises when there is a half-table. For example five and a half tables is awkward and seems to happen quite often. One solution is to use a Howell but all pairs play only 20 boards and these movements are generlly unpopular because of all the moving around and they can be quite slow. Another option is the Mitchell. This gives a four board sit-out (too much), although 20 boards are still played. We do have our own alternative movement with a three board sit-out but this enables 21 boards to be played. It also requires everyone to move around quite a lot. When we have a competition that requires one winner, we tend to use our own movements rather than the simpler Mitchell. These have large numbers of 'arrow switches' since the theory is that the more of these there are, the fairer the result. I am not sure if this is true and I think the likelihood of mistakes is much greater. What seems to be true is ' the simpler the better!'. What is your experience?
1925 - Harold S. Vanderbilt, American multi-millionaire and three-time America's Cup winner, changed the course of bridge while on a cruise. He suggested that only tricks bid and made count toward game, with extra tricks counted as bonuses. These revised rules turned auction bridge into contract bridge. 1931 - The Culbertson Summary and Culbertson's Blue Book topped all book sales for the year, outselling such popular titles as Believe It or Not and Crossword Puzzles! "The Battle of the Century" was held in New York City. The team captained by Ely Culbertson won by 8980 points.
1953 - President Eisenhower played bridge regularly on Saturday night with top experts. He attended national bridge tournaments when possible. He enjoyed bridge as much as golf and he was considered an excellent player.
1958 - Charles Goren appeared on the cover of Time magazine and was dubbed "The King of Aces." The inside story explained the basic rules of bridge and proclaimed it the "United States' No. 1 card game." I mention them because they seem to recall a golden age for the game. What has changed? Firstly, Bridge seems to have been played by people with time on their hands. They had money and they didn't work 24/7 or anything like it. There were few alternatives for indoor entertainment. No television, computers etc. The rule change was obviously important and made the game more challenging. Is Bridge dying because of alternative attractions? There is certainly a perception that it is mostly played by older people who have more time on their hands and that, even now, they are from one sector of society. What is your view?
