[TimG]

barmar, on Dec 11 2009, 03:50 AM, said:

Even with such a clear instruction, most players just ignore it and make their call in normal tempo.

Normal tempo after a skip bid should involve a pause whether or not there has been a skip bid warning or stop card used.

I think one problem with the stop card is that by using it only after skip bids there is an implication that only those auctions are tempo sensitive.

[nige1]

barmar, on Dec 11 2009, 03:50 AM, said:

Even with such a clear instruction, most players just ignore it and make their call in normal tempo.

TimG, on Dec 11 2009, 07:29 AM, said:

Normal tempo after a skip bid should involve a pause whether or not there has been a skip bid warning or stop card used. I think one problem with the stop card is that by using it only after skip bids there is an implication that only those auctions are tempo sensitive.

It is hard to define all bidding and play situations where you may want to think, because some of them also depend on your hand; but I understand normal tempo to be uniform tempo, whatever the context. For example, before the introduction of stop regulations, we presented opponents with a "Compulsory pause over pre-empts" card to warn them that we always broke normal tempo over a jump bid, whatever hand we held. Also, I remember a controversy as to whether, as a defender, if declarer played quickly from dummy, it was always OK to pause to plan the defence at trick one.

[blackshoe]

The major difference between the ACBL's Stop Card regulation and other countries' (in particular England's, as that's the one I'm familiar with) is that the latter requires that the Stop Card be left out for about ten seconds, and the skip bidder's LHO cannot call until it is removed. That relieves the LHO of trying to determine when ten seconds have passed while he is also, in theory, trying to determine what to call. And it probably leads to fewer arguments about whether LHO broke tempo.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Dec 11 2009, 06:15 PM, said:

The major difference between the ACBL's Stop Card regulation and other countries' (in particular England's, as that's the one I'm familiar with) is that the latter requires that the Stop Card be left out for about ten seconds, and the skip bidder's LHO cannot call until it is removed. That relieves the LHO of trying to determine when ten seconds have passed while he is also, in theory, trying to determine what to call. And it probably leads to fewer arguments about whether LHO broke tempo.

It sure does.

This is the regulation in Norway as well, and when we get summoned because of an alleged BIT after a skip bid (or in a competitive auction) the first thing we ask is if STOP was used (properly).

If the answer is "no" then that player will remember to use it whenever needed in the future because then only in very extreme situations do we do anything further with the allegation.

[blackshoe]

Here's an interesting thought: it is a given that giving UI to partner is not, or at least not necessarily, an infraction of law. Yet there is nothing in law about preventing or avoiding such giving. In fact, if the choice is between not giving partner UI and not misinforming opponents about partnership agreements, you are required to give correct information, and if that gives partner UI, tough. Now here we have two regulations directed at avoiding giving a player UI, and one of them puts the onus the player's partner to avoid it, and the other (in practice at least) puts the onus on the player's opponent. While Norway (and other places) will of course do what they like, I don't see how it can be right to put the onus on an opponent to prevent a player causing problems for his (the player's own) side.

[suokko]

Problem here is that nothing else except Norwegian style seems like working to make people understand that 5+ second thinking break should be standard in many biding sequences.

It is hard to get rid of bad habits. People only learn if they are forced to learn with some regulations.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Dec 11 2009, 09:18 PM, said:

Here's an interesting thought: it is a given that giving UI to partner is not, or at least not necessarily, an infraction of law. Yet there is nothing in law about preventing or avoiding such giving. In fact, if the choice is between not giving partner UI and not misinforming opponents about partnership agreements, you are required to give correct information, and if that gives partner UI, tough. Now here we have two regulations directed at avoiding giving a player UI, and one of them puts the onus the player's partner to avoid it, and the other (in practice at least) puts the onus on the player's opponent. While Norway (and other places) will of course do what they like, I don't see how it can be right to put the onus on an opponent to prevent a player causing problems for his (the player's own) side.

I cannot see how our regulation can have any relevance on the question of giving correct information to opponents?

The key element is that in situations where the auction has reached a point where a caller should be aware that his LHO can likely need some time to consider his next call, i.e. in skip bid situations and in competitive auctions, then LHO shall be given such time without any obligation to also take care of measuring out a specified delay.

I understand that ACBL requires the skip bidder to warn his LHO that such a call is forthcoming, but then places the duty on LHO to make sure that his call will be made ten seconds (give or take a second or two?) later. This is an impossible mix of duties on LHO, and I can very well understand why this ACBL regulation is so often disobeyed if that is a fact.

LHO can be expected to concentrate on figuring out his next call or on delaying this call the required ten seconds, but he cannot be expected (withouot some aid) to know how much of these ten seconds are left when he eventually has figured out what call to make.

That is why we place the onus on timing on the player making either a skip bid or a call other than pass in a competitive auction, as he after making his call has nothing else to take care of until his next turn to call.

[peachy]

pran, on Dec 12 2009, 03:51 AM, said:

I understand that ACBL requires the skip bidder to warn his LHO that such a call is forthcoming, but then places the duty on LHO to make sure that his call will be made ten seconds (give or take a second or two?) later.

Your understanding is not correct. ACBL does not require for the skip bidder to do anything.

The recommended ACBL procedure is to place a Stop card on the table, then make the bid, then take the Stop Card away, and the next in turn player should pause about 10 seconds while considering (or appearing as if considering) his call. The use of the Stop Card is not mandatory, nor is any sort of warning. But the next in turn player must pause for the required time REGARDLESS of whether the Stop Card was used or any warning given or not given.

[pran]

peachy, on Dec 12 2009, 01:08 PM, said:

pran, on Dec 12 2009, 03:51 AM, said:

I understand that ACBL requires the skip bidder to warn his LHO that such a call is forthcoming, but then places the duty on LHO to make sure that his call will be made ten seconds (give or take a second or two?) later.

Your understanding is not correct. ACBL does not require for the skip bidder to do anything.

The recommended ACBL procedure is to place a Stop card on the table, then make the bid, then take the Stop Card away, and the next in turn player should pause about 10 seconds while considering (or appearing as if considering) his call. The use of the Stop Card is not mandatory, nor is any sort of warning. But the next in turn player must pause for the required time REGARDLESS of whether the Stop Card was used or any warning given or not given.

Oh my oh my!

Then the ACBL regulation is even worse than I thought.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on Dec 11 2009, 03:18 PM, said:

Here's an interesting thought: it is a given that giving UI to partner is not, or at least not necessarily, an infraction of law. Yet there is nothing in law about preventing or avoiding such giving. In fact, if the choice is between not giving partner UI and not misinforming opponents about partnership agreements, you are required to give correct information, and if that gives partner UI, tough. Now here we have two regulations directed at avoiding giving a player UI, and one of them puts the onus the player's partner to avoid it, and the other (in practice at least) puts the onus on the player's opponent. While Norway (and other places) will of course do what they like, I don't see how it can be right to put the onus on an opponent to prevent a player causing problems for his (the player's own) side.

The WBFLC relinquished to local regulators responsibility for vast swathes of Bridge rules, including bidding box regulations. This is part of a depressing trend but you can sympathise with the committee, given the pressure of work under which they suffer, with less than ten years between each successive edition of the laws

Local rules are quite arbitrary and different regulators have devised different practices, some manifestly inferior to others. If a regulator insists that players make it harder for their opponents to exchange unauthorised information, why does Blackshoe object? IMO, in spite of other laws, unauthorised information still causes more problems for victims than offenders. The advantage of European versions of the stop-card rule is that they work reasonably well; whereas, manifestly, the ACBL version is not understood, doesn't work, and is widely resented

A simple solution, suggested many times before, that might placate Blackshoe, is to provide a simple timing device. An old-fashioned egg-timer with about ten seconds worth of sand would suffice.

[blackshoe]

Sven, you entirely missed my point. Let me put it simply: Why should a regulation require a player to help his opponents avoid a problem? It's kind of like requiring football (either variety) players to warn their opponents when they're about to step offside.

Nigel, if you want to spin everything so it fits your preconceptions, I can't stop you, but please leave my name out of it.

[peachy]

pran, on Dec 12 2009, 09:19 AM, said:

Then the ACBL regulation is even worse than I thought.

Since you have been a little critical of the ACBL regulation, maybe the first thing before doing so would be to actually read it first, eh
What makes it bad, and even worse than you thought? I find it just fine. The onus is on the player whose turn it is after the skip bid, to obey regulation and pause appropriately. How could it be bad to place the burden of compliance on the shoulders of the person who *is* the one responsible for following the regulation?

[pran]

blackshoe, on Dec 12 2009, 04:12 PM, said:

Sven, you entirely missed my point. Let me put it simply: Why should a regulation require a player to help his opponents avoid a problem? It's kind of like requiring football (either variety) players to warn their opponents when they're about to step offside.

I think it is considered self defence. You are protecting yourself against possible damage when opponents need time to figure out what calls to make. And I have a feeling that ACBL is rather strict on the duty for players in protecting themselves to the best of their ability from being damaged by opponents' irregularities?

Remember that it is not illegal to give UI to partner, only for partner to make use of that UI. And whether such use has been made is a matter of judgement for the Director who in a "stop" situation is likely to be lenient both on the fact that LHO needed some time and on the assumption that his partner made his call without illegal use of this fact (unless there are strong indications to the contrary).

How much simpler isn't it when the player knowing that he is probably creating a situation where his LHO will need some time to decide his call is given the opportunity (in Europe actually the duty) to control the time spent by his LHO so that RHO cannot infer anything from this delay.

Incidentally, why do you think Law 9A3 contains the clause: However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity. Bridge is a game for Gentlemen (and fair ladies) - at least in Europe. (I would appreciate if I can remove these last four words.)

[pran]

peachy, on Dec 12 2009, 08:00 PM, said:

pran, on Dec 12 2009, 09:19 AM, said:

Then the ACBL regulation is even worse than I thought.

Since you have been a little critical of the ACBL regulation, maybe the first thing before doing so would be to actually read it first, eh
What makes it bad, and even worse than you thought? I find it just fine. The onus is on the player whose turn it is after the skip bid, to obey regulation and pause appropriately. How could it be bad to place the burden of compliance on the shoulders of the person who *is* the one responsible for following the regulation?

The undisputed reason for the delay is that LHO (in most cases) needs extra time to figure out what call he will make.

Why shall he, rather than the player causing this need for extra time, be the one that also controls the amount of time allotted?

I have heard about several calls for Director in ACBL territory with complaints like: "He delayed only eight seconds" or "he delayed eleven seconds". Are such tales correct?

It is true that I do not know the ACBL regulations other than that the "stop regulation" apparently places the responsibility for keeping correct timing on the skip bidder's LHO (who really needs the time to concentrate on what call to make) rather than on the skip bidder (who has nothing better to do during these approximately ten seconds). This is what I critisize.

Maybe this is also the real reason behind all the statements in this thread that the STOP regulation is seldom respected in ACBL events while in Europe we have little or no such problem?

[nige1]

blackshoe, on Dec 12 2009, 10:12 AM, said:

Nigel, if you want to spin everything so it fits your preconceptions, I can't stop you, but please leave my name out of it.

B****S***

Every player is allowed an opinion.
Directors may toil but they do also spin.
Reasoned argument isn't really spinning.
Even admitting when your antagonists win.
Preconceptions we all have at the beginning.
Perhaps, they're akin to original sin.
Erring is human but we learn from our sinning.
Revising our stance when black shoe kicks our shin.
The shoe is on the other foot? O.K. Give in!

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Dec 12 2009, 10:12 AM, said:

Sven, you entirely missed my point. Let me put it simply: Why should a regulation require a player to help his opponents avoid a problem? It's kind of like requiring football (either variety) players to warn their opponents when they're about to step offside.

Nigel, if you want to spin everything so it fits your preconceptions, I can't stop you, but please leave my name out of it.

I suspect the reason that many countries do it that way is simply because it tends to work better. The skip bidder doesn't usually have anything to do immediately after making his bid, it's easy for him to count out the time to keep the STOP card on the table. On the other hand, if the opponent actually has something to think about, it can be difficult for him to also count out the time so that he makes his bid at the required 10 second mark.

And we simply know from experience that when the opponent doesn't have anything to think about, they frequently bid too quickly. But if the skip bidder keeps the STOP card out, that serves as a better reminder not to bid.

In an ideal world we wouldn't even need the STOP card, but we don't live in an ideal world. As a practical matter, putting the onus on the skip bidder solves the problem best.

[aguahombre]

nice, barmar...but you didn't leave his name out of it

[blackshoe]

The English (European) solution is certainly expedient, and there's no law that specifically says that a player is responsible for his own tempo, but it still seems a bit much to make an opponent responsible for it.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Dec 14 2009, 06:15 AM, said:

The English (European) solution is certainly expedient, and there's no law that specifically says that a player is responsible for his own tempo, but it still seems a bit much to make an opponent responsible for it.

The opponent isn't responsible for the tempo, he is responsible for establishing a specific reference as to which tempo shall not be considered BIT with that particular call.

Is there anything in the laws that makes our regulation:

- Illegal?
- Unreasonable?
- Unsuitable?
- Unfair to either side?

[blackshoe]

Illegal? I don't know. It depends, I think, on how you interpret "not in conflict with these laws". I don't think your regulation as written is in conflict with the letter of the law.
Unreasonable? Unsuitable? Unfair to either side? Well, the laws say that if a player breaks tempo, and his side gains when his partner may have taken advantage of UI, the TD shall adjust the score. Your regulation, in practice, says that failure by the player's RHO to use the stop card lets the player off the hook. I think that's unfair to the side which didn't break tempo, unsuitable, and unreasonable.

I think it would be better in law, in most cases, to adjust the score if appropriate, but if the stop card wasn't used (and there is no "optional" about it as there is here) then issue a PP. BTW, what is the wording of the regulation? "Should" use the stop card? "Must" use it? It probably ought to say "must".

I think your regulation works better than ours, at least insofar as making it easy for the skip bidder's LHO to maintain proper tempo. I just don't think it's right to let LHO off the hook if the stop card isn't used.