[nige1]

bluejak, on Dec 2 2009, 10:00 AM, said:

Even with the most ordinary of hands it is my view that you will take a little time because the auction is a shock and will jostle you out of your normal environment.

gordontd, on Dec 2 2009, 11:35 AM, said:

Only if you were about to bid - not if you were going to pass. So the UI from the slow pass may well suggest that the player was intending to bid, not pass.

I agree with GordonTD that South's 5-7 sec pause would normally deny a hand that would have passed 2N. Axman points out that he'd already had 10 secs to make up his mind. Hence the hesitation suggests that North keep the bidding open. The North-South claim that the sequence 2N (3♠) (_P) (_P) is forcing by agreement is credible but only if corroborated by system notes. Like GordonTD I wonder why North chose to reopen with 3N rather than _X but that doesn't really affect the ruling.
On the facts presented, I feel that the committee should have upheld the director's decision and seriously considered whether the appeal had any merit.

[bluejak]

gordontd, on Dec 2 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

bluejak, on Dec 2 2009, 10:00 AM, said:

Even with the most ordinary of hands it is my view that you will take a little time because the auction is a shock and will jostle you out of your normal environment.

Only if you were about to bid - not if you were going to pass. So the UI from the slow pass may well suggest that the player was intending to bid, not pass.

I think even hands that intend to pass will think for a little while. Double, for example, hardly takes game values in this situation - if it is penalties. But is it? By the time you have thought all that you have probably taken five seconds despite your two count.

[bluejak]

Phil, on Dec 2 2009, 09:10 PM, said:

I wonder how Levin let in 3N? Doesn't it look ridiculously easy to beat?

Switched to a heart, I understand. When chatting about the case to Adam Wildavsky, who runs th ACBL appeals these days, he said in a fairly growly voice "My opponents took me five off!".

[gordontd]

Quote

I think even hands that intend to pass will think for a little while.  Double, for example, hardly takes game values in this situation - if it is penalties.  But is it?  By the time you have thought all that you have probably taken five seconds despite your two count.

I'm not persuaded, but I'll pay attention to what happens next time I'm in this situation.

[Codo]

I would not be able to bid within 2 seconds after 2NT (3 ♠) and I really cannot construct any hand where I would be. (As David wrote: Shall I show x,Qxxx,Jxxx,xxxx with a double or Jxxx,xx,Qxxx,xxx? Are these hands passes?

And I disagree with the statement that you take you seconds after partner 2 NT opening to remember what you will do after interferences. They are too seldom to care about it. It is much different to an opening at the 1. level. So in the given situation I would need some time to remember my agreements.

So I really agree with the descission and with the idea to change the Law and use a skip bid warning after such a bid.

[blackshoe]

The problem with the whole skip bid thing is that it doesn't really work. Take this last auction. Dealer, opens 2NT. That's a skip bid. Nobody gives a skip bid warning (well, I try to remember to do it, but I forget, too). Nobody worries about the mandated pause after such a bid. So responder does not get the mandatory pause he's supposed to get - and then he gets done for "hesitation" when it takes him six seconds to figure out what to do. TDs should, I think, rule in this position that a "hesitation" of up to about 12 or 13 seconds from the time 2NT was bid is not "undue" and so conveys no UI. But they don't. Nor do ACs. But I don't think adding a mandatory pause after a 3♠ overcall is any solution. People don't follow the existing rule, they won't follow this new one. And then what if we did impose it? Is responder now entitled to 20 seconds to decide what to do? I think we should either enforce the existing regulation, or find some completely different way to handle the problem. I confess that I have no idea what that way should be.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on Dec 3 2009, 03:53 PM, said:

Nobody gives a skip bid warning (well, I try to remember to do it, but I forget, too). Nobody worries about the mandated pause after such a bid.

I'm told this is true (though a bit of an exaggeration) in North America, but it's not in other places where the regulation applies.

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on Dec 3 2009, 10:11 AM, said:

I'm told this is true (though a bit of an exaggeration) in North America, but it's not in other places where the regulation applies.

Oh, it's true in NA. A bit of an exaggeration? Well, maybe, if you look at the whole continent. Not so much in my little corner of it.

[jdonn]

Um, it might have helped solve a problem in this instance (or might not have) but I don't want to play in a bridge game where I have to wait 12 seconds to pass over every 2NT opening bid on my right. Sorry!

With all due respect, this south (I also know this pair) wouldn't have used that time to consider what to do over interference anyway. She would have waited to see what RHO would do, then started thinking. Trust me.

[aguahombre]

With all due respect? Ouch.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Dec 3 2009, 10:22 AM, said:

gordontd, on Dec 3 2009, 10:11 AM, said:

I'm told this is true (though a bit of an exaggeration) in North America, but it's not in other places where the regulation applies.

Oh, it's true in NA. A bit of an exaggeration? Well, maybe, if you look at the whole continent. Not so much in my little corner of it.

It's definitely true in NA. I can count on my hands (maybe just one hand) the number of players I've encountered who pause after a skip bid. I try to do it, although I suspect my pause is closer to 5 seconds than the mandated 10 seconds -- 10 seconds is a really long time. I don't think there's any regulation ignored more than this one, it's a total failure in ACBL territory.

[bluejak]

jdonn, on Dec 3 2009, 05:29 PM, said:

Um, it might have helped solve a problem in this instance (or might not have) but I don't want to play in a bridge game where I have to wait 12 seconds to pass over every 2NT opening bid on my right. Sorry!

It is a very easy habit to get into, and works well around the world, excluding North American and Australia. It is no more difficult than leading face down.

blackshoe, on Dec 3 2009, 03:53 PM, said:

The problem with the whole skip bid thing is that it doesn't really work. Take this last auction. Dealer, opens 2NT. That's a skip bid. Nobody gives a skip bid warning (well, I try to remember to do it, but I forget, too). Nobody worries about the mandated pause after such a bid.

In the Nationals, one player in thirty gives a skip bid warning - and I do not, since I do not see the point in giving a warning which seems ignored. But a fair proportion pause over skip bids, and I certainly do.

TylerE, on Dec 1 2009, 10:25 PM, said:

Tangent: Does any one else wish that overcalls of NT bids or strong forcing bids  were treated as skip bids for stop card/hesitation purposes.

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.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Dec 3 2009, 03:14 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 3 2009, 05:29 PM, said:

Um, it might have helped solve a problem in this instance (or might not have) but I don't want to play in a bridge game where I have to wait 12 seconds to pass over every 2NT opening bid on my right. Sorry!

It is a very easy habit to get into, and works well around the world, excluding North American and Australia. It is no more difficult than leading face down.

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.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps so, Josh, but allowing a player to ignore the rules just because he doesn't want to be bored, or for whatever other reason he decides the rules are "silly," isn't the right way to go either.

[lamford]

gordontd, on Dec 2 2009, 11:35 AM, said:

bluejak, on Dec 2 2009, 10:00 AM, said:

Even with the most ordinary of hands it is my view that you will take a little time because the auction is a shock and will jostle you out of your normal environment.

Only if you were about to bid - not if you were going to pass. So the UI from the slow pass may well suggest that the player was intending to bid, not pass.

And the UI from a quick pass would be that you have balanced garbage. Just as bad. This time bluejak is spot on; the average amount of time taken by third hand in the unusual situation where someone calls over a 20-22 (I presume) 2NT might well be 5-7 seconds. And I would play that pass is forcing, and double is penalties, but those methods will no doubt be described as ridiculous. I don't think one can tell partner to pass it out - except by passing instantly.

So, taking 5-7 seconds to bid in this situation does not DEMONSTRABLY suggest one action over another; it is usually just an indication that one has not discussed whether pass is forcing and what double means. Come to think of it, I have not discussed this with any of my regular partners (and don't be mean by asking "how come you have any regular partners?") ...

[lamford]

gnasher, on Dec 2 2009, 07:45 AM, said:

If a 5-7 second pause isn't a break in tempo, is there a corollary that after a fast pass opener is obliged to bid 3NT with a hand of this type? And would I have much success with a director or committee in arguing that?

I know that you would bend over backwards to select the LA that was not suggested by the VARIATION in tempo over what you expected from the given situation. It would not reach a director or committee as I would never have substantial reason to believe you had not fulfilled your obligations under 16B3 - even if you had had to scour the White Book and the EBU site to find out what they actually were.

[helene_t]

I have sorta lukewarm feelings for the stop card myself although in UK and NL almost everyone use it correctly.

In practice, people will not pause ten secs after 1NT-(pass)-3NT. I think that most understand that while the rule has been made to apply to all skip bids for simplicity, it is really intended for situations in which one is likely to have something to think about and that a fast action therefore transmits information.

Maybe for less experienced players it is good to have a simple rule for when you have to avoid calling too fast to create UI to your partner. On the other hand, in an ideal World players would know in which situations the tempo is likely to create problems, and understand that this is not related to skip bids per se.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on Dec 3 2009, 09:53 AM, said:

The problem with the whole skip bid thing is that it doesn't really work. Take this last auction. Dealer, opens 2NT. That's a skip bid. Nobody gives a skip bid warning (well, I try to remember to do it, but I forget, too). Nobody worries about the mandated pause after such a bid. So responder does not get the mandatory pause he's supposed to get - and then he gets done for "hesitation" when it takes him six seconds to figure out what to do.

Weird. If Blackshoe is correct in his claim that there was a stop-card violation, then why did the director, committee, and reporter fail to mention such a relevant infraction?

[blackshoe]

In the ACBL, Nigel, the skip bid (or stop card) warning is optional. Players are not required to give the warning. Failure on the part of skip bidder's LHO to pause for approximately ten seconds, while at least appearing to consider his hand, is a violation of regulation, with or without a warning. So if you're asking why no one brought up the "infraction" of failing to give the warning, the answer is that it isn't one. If you're asking, though, why neither the table TD nor the AC in the instant case pointed out a "failure to pause" infraction, I don't know, I wasn't there. Ask them.

[nige1]

If the 3H overcaller 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. The director might argue, on the contrary, that the player 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.