[bluejak]

jdonn, on Dec 3 2009, 09:37 PM, said:

I agree, it's very easy. But difficulty is not the issue. Sitting there holding a flat 2 count picking my nose for an extra 30+ seconds because the auction went 2NT p 4NT p 6NT all to solve a problem that is extremely unlikely to exist to begin with is not my idea of a good time.

I do not suppose passing on such hands, or even holding such hands, is your idea of a good time either. But once you get into the habit you do not notice it anyway.

There can be problems on many sequences - notably 1NT p 3NT, where the pause is definitely necessary, because every so often you have a solid suit type of hand and were expecting RHO to pass or transfer, and 3NT is a definite surprise.

The suggestion that players will know when to pause and when it is not necessary is ludicrous. The average player cannot even understand why you alert Puppet Stayman - twice this week a player has had to be convinced - and everyone would have different views. For example, how many people realise that 1NT p 3NT is one time you must pause?

[paulg]

nige1, on Dec 4 2009, 03:06 AM, said:

If the ACBL player really disregarded the simple no-brainer skip-bid regulation then the director should ignore his complaint that his LHO took 5-7 seconds to act. He could argue, on the contrary, that he may have passed with undue haste since he had at least 3 seconds to spare. Such excellent regulations are specifically designed to prevent this kind of avoidable problem. I feel, however, that this prior infraction is a salient fact that should be specified to those asked to comment on a ruling.

The bid immediately before the hesitation was not a skip bid.

[nige1]

nige1, on Dec 4 2009, 03:06 AM, said:

If the ACBL player really disregarded the simple no-brainer skip-bid regulation then the director should ignore his complaint that his LHO took 5-7 seconds to act. He could argue, on the contrary, that he may have passed with undue haste since he had at least 3 seconds to spare. Such excellent regulations are specifically designed to prevent this kind of avoidable problem. I feel, however, that this prior infraction is a salient fact that should be specified to those asked to comment on a ruling.

cardsharp, on Dec 4 2009, 05:19 AM, said:

The bid immediately before the hesitation was not a skip bid.

I understood Blackshoe's post. I still feel that it's reasonable for the skip-bidder's partner to rely on his RHO complying with a simple basic regulation. But nobody has yet confirmed that this earlier infraction occurred and if so, why it wasn't considered relevant.

[helene_t]

bluejak, on Dec 4 2009, 06:19 AM, said:

The average player cannot even understand why you alert Puppet Stayman

lol neither can I

[aguahombre]

helene_t, on Dec 4 2009, 05:31 AM, said:

bluejak, on Dec 4 2009, 06:19 AM, said:

The average player cannot even understand why you alert Puppet Stayman

lol neither can I

Nor I. It can only be helpful to remind pard of what your answer will be. But as has been pointed out in the past by David --u alert it because you have to alert it, so there.

[cherdanno]

bluejak, on Dec 4 2009, 12:19 AM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 3 2009, 09:37 PM, said:

I agree, it's very easy. But difficulty is not the issue. Sitting there holding a flat 2 count picking my nose for an extra 30+ seconds because the auction went 2NT p 4NT p 6NT all to solve a problem that is extremely unlikely to exist to begin with is not my idea of a good time.

I do not suppose passing on such hands, or even holding such hands, is your idea of a good time either. But once you get into the habit you do not notice it anyway.

There can be problems on many sequences - notably 1NT p 3NT, where the pause is definitely necessary, because every so often you have a solid suit type of hand and were expecting RHO to pass or transfer, and 3NT is a definite surprise.

The suggestion that players will know when to pause and when it is not necessary is ludicrous. The average player cannot even understand why you alert Puppet Stayman - twice this week a player has had to be convinced - and everyone would have different views. For example, how many people realise that 1NT p 3NT is one time you must pause?

I agree, the pause after 1N p 3N is DEFINITELY necessary. Similarly, a pause after 1S (2H) is DEFINITELY necessary. EVEN MORE so. Even more important is the pause after (1D).

Seriously, you only think the pause after 1N p 3N is absolutely necessary because that's what you are used to. There are many other auctions where a mandatory pause would be much more frequently useful.

[TimG]

Isn't it the case that every call should be deliberate?

[aguahombre]

TimG, on Dec 4 2009, 10:48 AM, said:

Isn't it the case that every call should be deliberate?

Intentional, yes. Slow could get annoying.

[blackshoe]

It's also a matter of perception. What's slow to one person isn't necessarily slow to everyone. And in fact the laws suggest that it's not just okay, it's a good idea to maintain a consistent tempo, even if that tempo is considered slow by some (within reason, of course).

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Dec 3 2009, 09:14 PM, said:

While the skip bid warning works fairly well in other jurisdictions, part of the reason is the simplicity of the rule.  I wonder whether it would work as well if the times it was used were made more complex, and I doubt it.

Some European countries use a "Stop" warning for all competitive bids at the 3-level and above. My experience of this is limited, but I think that it works fairly well.

I have to agree that the use of the stop card is a very easy habit to get into. Some years ago I never used it, and now I always do. Yes, people often bid before I have taken away the card, but at least they virtually always pause for a little while.

Bluejak, if I were playing in North America I would certainly use the "Stop" card. If the opponents ignore it then you will have some protection if a ruling is needed.

[blackshoe]

You have protection anyway, since the skip bid regulation specifically puts the onus on the LHO of the skip-bidder, and says that making the warning is optional. Therefore, a ruling in the opponents' favor on the grounds that you did not make the warning is director error.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Dec 9 2009, 08:21 PM, said:

You have protection anyway, since the skip bid regulation specifically puts the onus on the LHO of the skip-bidder, and says that making the warning is optional. Therefore, a ruling in the opponents' favor on the grounds that you did not make the warning is director error.

I understand that this is strictly speaking only an ACBL regulation?

In Norway, like I believe in most of Europe the onus is on the skip bidder both to initiate the STOP period and also to control the duration of it. His LHO shall not be burdened with measuring out the time, he shall be allowed to concentrate on the call he eventually will make. If the skip bidder fails to "STOP", or retracts his STOP card (or say "continue") before ten seconds have elapsed his LHO is still entitled to the full ten seconds time for thinking.

[blackshoe]

pran, on Dec 9 2009, 03:12 PM, said:

I understand that this is strictly speaking only an ACBL regulation?

Well, I was referring to the ACBL regulation, yes. I have no idea if other jurisdictions do similarly (I know that much of Europe does not). IAC, I was replying to the statement that using the stop card in North America (my emphasis) would afford protection against an adverse ruling.

[bluejak]

cherdanno, on Dec 4 2009, 06:13 PM, said:

Seriously, you only think the pause after 1N p 3N is absolutely necessary because that's what you are used to. There are many other auctions where a mandatory pause would be much more frequently useful.

No, I think it definitely necessary because I have been involved in some cases where the pause or otherwise after that sequence has been relevant.

Furthermore, the fact that there are more important sequences is definitely correct, but is completely irrelevant to whether this sequence is important. This is one where many players think it not important.

Vampyr, on Dec 9 2009, 02:51 PM, said:

Bluejak, if I were playing in North America I would certainly use the "Stop" card. If the opponents ignore it then you will have some protection if a ruling is needed.

I was not suggesting anyone else should not use the Stop card over there, merely saying that very few do, and I do not.

pran, on Dec 9 2009, 09:12 PM, said:

I understand that this is strictly speaking only an ACBL regulation?

I do not know what you mean by "strictly speaking". We have been discussing a case from the American Nationals, and questions of Stop regulations in the ACBL. Of course there are different regulations elsewhere.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Dec 10 2009, 06:47 AM, said:

Furthermore, the fact that there are more important sequences is definitely correct, but is completely irrelevant to whether this sequence is important.

It's not irrelevant to whether the stop card should exist.

I said I don't think it should exist essentially because it makes the game less fun and you replied that lots of things that make the game less fun are just part of the game. I also said it only helps a little bit of the time, but you believe those instances are enough to warrant its use. Now we are adding to that the realization that it doesn't deal with more important cases, so it doesn't even do anything near a comprehensive job at solving the UI problem!

What else has to be wrong with the stop card before you would agree we shouldn't have one?

[bluejak]

The Stop card makes the game more playable overall. Your argument that specific exceptions mean it is not as effective as it might be is not necessarily correct, since complicating rules is often counter-productive, and certainly does not mean that the Stop card is not the right way to go.

As for it making the game less fun, that is just BS.

[jdonn]

Well as long as you are being open minded about totally subjective matters...

Come to think of it, it's not subjective, you are clearly wrong. With stop cards in use there is more pausing than without them. Do you not find pausing less fun than bidding? Go ahead and argue that it's necessary, but don't pretend it's desirable, and don't call a completely true statement BS.

[nige1]

jdonn, on Dec 10 2009, 04:16 PM, said:

Well as long as you are being open minded about totally subjective matters... Come to think of it, it's not subjective, you are clearly wrong. With stop cards in use there is more pausing than without them. Do you not find pausing less fun than bidding? Go ahead and argue that it's necessary, but don't pretend it's desirable, and don't call a completely true statement BS.

The nett benefit of stop-card regulations is a matter of subjective opinion. FWIW, mine is:

• In the lawless ex-colonies, the regulations may be ineffectual.
  
• In Europe, the regulations are better designed. Bluejak is right that simple regulations are more acceptable. Players tend to comply with them. They reduce opportunities for unauthorised information. Hence there is more fun and less hassle in the resulting game.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Dec 10 2009, 10:16 PM, said:

Come to think of it, it's not subjective, you are clearly wrong. With stop cards in use there is more pausing than without them. Do you not find pausing less fun than bidding? Go ahead and argue that it's necessary, but don't pretend it's desirable, and don't call a completely true statement BS.

That may be a way in which stop cards make the game less fun, but there are other ways in which they make it more fun. Many people find that stop cards reduce the incidence of UI, together with attendant director calls, rulings and appeals. Most would agree that such a reduction makes the game more fun.

If, for a particular person, the latter effect is greater than the former, then it is indeed untrue that stop cards make the game less fun. I think your first thought was right: it's a subjective matter.

[barmar]

Of all the regulations we have, the Stop card regulation is about as simple as they come. When you make a skip bid, you take out the Stop card, make your bid, then put it away. When an opponent makes a skip bid, you wait about 10 seconds, trying to appear to be contemplating your action.

What could be simpler? My estimate is that 50-75% of ACBL players follow the first part (using the Stop card), and maybe 10% follow the second part (the mandatory hesitation). And I don't think the latter number changes much depending on whether the skip bidder uses the stop card. I use the stop card religiously, my regular partner doesn't, and I haven't noticed much difference between my LHOs and my RHOs. Even many players who USE the stop card don't pause when an opponent does.

With spoken bidding, some players say "Skip bid, please wait". Even with such a clear instruction, most players just ignore it and make their call in normal tempo. It's just noise to them.

It's not that the regulation is confusing, I think the reason is that people just don't understand the purpose of it. They think of simple auctions like 1NT-3NT -- no one ever comes in after that, right? But what about that one in a million hand where 4th chair has a freak? He may stop to think about bidding something. If he decides not to come in, his slow pass creates UI because of the million preceding times when he's passed quickly. Thus you have to pause every time, so that partner can't tell when you might have the freak.

Plus, old habits are simply hard to break. Many of the players who don't follow this rule are otherwise excellent, ethical players.

I don't know why this regulation works better in other countries. Maybe it's a cultural thing; Americans are often in a rush, while Europeans tend to be more laid back.