From: spencer@flower.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: handling slow players
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun)
Organization: Live Organ Transplants
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:37:58 GMT

This probably belongs in e-mail, so I will take it to e-mail after
Jarek's next reply, if he chooses to do so.

In article <1992Dec13.162448.14088@Princeton.EDU>, wrblwski@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jaroslaw Tomasz Wroblewski) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.052113.15638@Princeton.EDU> spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) writes:
>>
>>The whole match took about 2 hrs 45 minutes.  Better than I expected,
>>but a bit on the slow side all the same.  After our table played boards
>>1 and 2, got 3 from them, and then finally 4, we spent more time waiting
>>for them to finish 1 and 2 than we did playing 1-4 ourselves.
>
>What kind of funny stuff is that?

Are you disputing the accuracy of my comments?  Otherwise I am unsure as
to what you mean by "funny" (besides the fact that you disagree).  I
seem to remember the match starting at 10:35, and the play not ending at
the second table until after 1 AM.  Also, after we played boards 1-2 and
your table played boards 3-4 and we exchanged boards, we finished 3-4
and then spent longer waiting for you to finish 1-2 than it took us to
play all four boards.

I can be certain of that because one of the other 3 at my table made
that remark, and I checked my watch as the other 2 people acknowledged
"yes."

>After your postings in r.g.b. we simply decided to have our slow
>players sit out and they did. I do not think we delayed the play.

I agree, I do not believe that either of the 8 players delayed the play
beyond reason.

>We did not play with clocks so where does the assumption that the delay is
>a fault of our team only come from? From the fact that our captain was honest
>enough to mention before match that we have 2 slow players? Fine, they
>were sitting out.

No.  I appreciated your captain's move.  He offered to make it.  I would
not really have cared unless the match were really taking too long.

I am sorry.  I did not mean to imply that the delay was only the fault
of your team.  Obviously I was not in your room so I can't make that
judgement.  However, your table was without question playing slower than
our table.

This is not necessarily a problem because in most cases the delay was
not significantly bad.  I only mention it because you asked.

>What does "our table" and "their table" mean? Oddly enough there were
>2 players from each team at both tables.
>
>So I guess I was playing at what you call "their table".

You have correctly interpreted my intended meanings.

>On one of the
>first 4 boards I was preempted 3H looking at 19HCP. Is there a standard
>bid to make in this situation or am I allowed to take some time thinking
>what to do?

Certainly, by all means, go ahead and think.  But since I played the
same boards, I know that you were not faced with this situation in every
hand.

I played against someone (I don't know who it was, it was a random
pickup game) about two weeks ago who, after I ruffed, fingered a card
and took well over two minutes (no exaggeration) to decide which card to
play, and HE FOLLOWED SUIT.  This was on the 8th trick of the hand.
I would be inclined to say that declarer was counting very carefully, if
there had not been similar delays on EVERY SINGLE TRICK.

As I told your captain in e-mail, reasonable delays occur, because you
get a tough hand, or something happens, or whatever, but it should NOT
happen consistently.

-----
sss/PU'94 Dept of CS (spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu)/JvNCnet (spencer@jvnc.net)
"Horror?  Steckle, it's ignorance we fear.  Since when did truth and
knowledge become a horror?"