[barmar]

pran, on 2017-December-07, 09:26, said:

My suggestion is that BIT allegations should just be dismissed in environments where players do not respect the STOP regulations.

Forget about the STOP regulations, what matters is the Law that says you should try to maintain consistent tempo, and partner must carefully avoid taking advantage of UI conveyed by variations in tempo.

If someone usually does not hesitate over a skip bid, but hesitates this time, there is UI from that hesitation, despite the fact that it's required by the STOP regulation. You may not be able to penalize the player for obeying the STOP regulation, but you should still be able to adjust if his partner chose an LA suggested by the variation.

The whole point of the STOP regulation is to get players to be consistent. If they routinely ignore it, the purpose is not served, and there's UI from the tempo breaks.

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-December-07, 10:08, said:

Forget about the STOP regulations, what matters is the Law that says you should try to maintain consistent tempo, and partner must carefully avoid taking advantage of UI conveyed by variations in tempo.

If someone usually does not hesitate over a skip bid, but hesitates this time, there is UI from that hesitation, despite the fact that it's required by the STOP regulation. You may not be able to penalize the player for obeying the STOP regulation, but you should still be able to adjust if his partner chose an LA suggested by the variation.

The whole point of the STOP regulation is to get players to be consistent. If they routinely ignore it, the purpose is not served, and there's UI from the tempo breaks.

Unless a regulation is in conflict with the laws it has the same "power" as the laws. Violation of a regulation should be ruled upon exactly as violations of a law.

Variation in tempo from abiding by the STOP regulation should never be considered violation of Law 73D.

(Note that a player who has absolutely nothing to think about during an auction does not legally vary his tempo by calling without pause except after a STOP from his RHO. His "tempo" then of course typically varies between 0 seconds and 10 seconds.)

[blackshoe]

Tempo varies with circumstance. "Normal tempo" is an average or a small range, say two or three seconds, or three to five, or whatever. A player whose normal tempo is three seconds might take two seconds on one call, three seconds on the next, four seconds on the next, and so on. So long as the variance is not great, he has not broken tempo.

"Normal tempo" changes by regulation after a skip bid. Same principles apply. "Normal tempo" might also vary in other circumstances, such as in a complex or competitive auction, but nobody talks about that. Perhaps we should.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-December-07, 19:17, said:

Tempo varies with circumstance. "Normal tempo" is an average or a small range, say two or three seconds, or three to five, or whatever. A player whose normal tempo is three seconds might take two seconds on one call, three seconds on the next, four seconds on the next, and so on. So long as the variance is not great, he has not broken tempo.

"Normal tempo" changes by regulation after a skip bid. Same principles apply. "Normal tempo" might also vary in other circumstances, such as in a complex or competitive auction, but nobody talks about that. Perhaps we should.

Some NBOs require the use of the stop card for bids at the three level and above in a competitive auction. I think that this is correct.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2017-December-07, 21:50, said:

Some NBOs require the use of the stop card for bids at the three level and above in a competitive auction. I think that this is correct.

I know. My take: maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I haven't thought about it much. I will say that my NBO doesn't do this, and would probably resist doing it.

[sanst]

I gather that you were N and the only TD available. You see this happening, your partner drawing attention to the BIT and W bidding clubs after both E and W have bid hearts. Here you see the, sometimes frustrating, problem of the playing director. You can't act at your table, certainly not in your side's favour, there is no one who can direct in this case and the BIT can only be checked by someone present. Well, frustrating as it is, you have to swallow, maybe hard, and move on. None of us were there, we don't know the first thing about these players from an independent source and should therefore remain neutral.

[nige1]

pran, on 2017-December-07, 09:26, said:

My suggestion is that BIT allegations should just be dismissed in environments where players do not respect the STOP regulations.

The ACBL used STOP-card regulations, which were over-complex, ill-thought-out, misunderstood, rarely enforced and widely flouted. Rather than admit their mistake by adopting simpler better regulations (e.g. those devised by European regulators), the ACBL decided to scrap its STOP-card regulations, instead.

Another case of the ACBL tail wagging the WBF lap-dog to the detriment of the game.

As usual it would help if the WBF law-book incorporated a simple universal set of regulations and daft local variants were binned.

Also, there would be fewer timing-disputes if rules stipulated a 10-second timer (electronic or sand). A chess-clock application (implemented on a phone or laptop) might be even better.

[pran]

nige1, on 2017-December-08, 05:28, said:

The ACBL used STOP-card regulations, which were over-complex, ill-thought-out, misunderstood, and widely flouted or ignored. Rather than admit their mistake by adopting simpler better regulations (e.g. those devised by European regulators), the ACBL decided to scrap STOP-card regulations, instead.

Another case of the ACBL tail wagging the WBF lap-dog to the detriment of the game.

As usual it would help if the WBF law-book incorporated a sensible set of universal regulations and daft local variants were binned.

Also, there would be less of a timing-problem. if rules stipulated a 10-second timer (electronic or sand). A chess-clock application (implemented on a phone or laptop) might be even better.

Well, ACBL may have their difficulties.

I am in Norway, our STOP regulation is simple and well accepted: The main principle in any STOP situation is that it is the player causing a STOP who is responsible for announcing STOP, timing the delay and announcing when his LHO may (and should) continue. His LHO shall not be burdened with the timing, he is expected to concentrate on his own decisions.

Whenever we are called to a hesitation allegation our first question is whether correct STOP procedure was used, and the allegation is almost always dismissed immediately if not.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-December-07, 19:17, said:

"Normal tempo" changes by regulation after a skip bid. Same principles apply. "Normal tempo" might also vary in other circumstances, such as in a complex or competitive auction, but nobody talks about that. Perhaps we should.

This is nice in theory, but I don't think it works so well in practice. If someone routinely instabids over jumps, is it really their "normal tempo" on the rare occasions that they hesitate, just because the regulation says you must hesitate all the time in these situations? Does the regulation trump reality?

Perhaps we should penalize the instabids more, but that's unlikely to happen. And remember, it's not an infraction to pass UI, only to use it, so we'd have to determine that their partner took advantage of knowing they didn't have anything to think about after the jump.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2017-December-08, 05:28, said:

Another case of the ACBL tail wagging the WBF lap-dog to the detriment of the game.

What the Hell does an ACBL regulation valid only in ACBL events have to do with the WBF? You're way off base here, Nigel.

barmar, on 2017-December-08, 10:07, said:

This is nice in theory, but I don't think it works so well in practice. If someone routinely instabids over jumps, is it really their "normal tempo" on the rare occasions that they hesitate, just because the regulation says you must hesitate all the time in these situations? Does the regulation trump reality?

Perhaps we should penalize the instabids more, but that's unlikely to happen. And remember, it's not an infraction to pass UI, only to use it, so we'd have to determine that their partner took advantage of knowing they didn't have anything to think about after the jump.

Rules and regulations are written, usually, with the implicit assumption that people will actually follow them. Does a regulation "trump reality"? I don't know, because I don't know what "trump reality" means. To my mind, someone who routinely instabids over jumps ought to be first educated (by the director, not his opponents - or maybe by his partner, but not at the table) and if he doesn't change his ways first warned that he must do so, and if not, penalized for failing to follow the director's instructions and for instabidding (not suggesting two separate penalties, one penalty covering both offenses).

No, passing UI is not an infraction, but it is an irregularity, and it's one that's easily avoided if you stop and think about what you're doing. IAC I'm not proposing sanctions for "passing UI" I'm proposing them for not following correct procedure. See Law 74A3.

I understand "it's just not done", but I think that's a deplorable attitude at best.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2017-December-08, 10:53, said:

What the Hell does an ACBL regulation valid only in ACBL events have to do with the WBF? You're way off base here, Nigel.

IMO most local regulations should be scrapped. They should be replaced by distilled best practice and incorporated in the WBF law-book. Instead, as a matter of official policy, the WBF delegates its responsibilities to local regulating authorities and directors. For example the ACBL seems to have insisted on the WBF providing an election to allow a defender to ask his partner "Having none?". The WBF should not have allowed this unnecessary and pernicious regulation because it results in UI, unless a defender always asks. Many other RAs have masochistically adopted that ACBL election. I hope local STOP regulations are not changed for the worse, in a similar way.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2017-December-08, 19:56, said:

For example the ACBL seems to have insisted on the WBF providing an election to allow a defender to ask his partner "Having none?".

That election was there before. What the ACBL did was to cause the automatic penalty for doing this when the election was not in force to be scrapped. Presumably this was to protect ACBL member when that played in another NBO.

I personally would not have been bothered by the lack of an automatic penalty and would just have made it punishable by a PP. luckily the practice hasn't really caught on in the EBU. It is true that UI is created because a defender usually asks only when surprised. But normally there is no harm done.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-December-08, 10:53, said:

Rules and regulations are written, usually, with the implicit assumption that people will actually follow them. Does a regulation "trump reality"? I don't know, because I don't know what "trump reality" means. To my mind, someone who routinely instabids over jumps ought to be first educated (by the director, not his opponents - or maybe by his partner, but not at the table) and if he doesn't change his ways first warned that he must do so, and if not, penalized for failing to follow the director's instructions and for instabidding (not suggesting two separate penalties, one penalty covering both offenses).

Again, this is nice in theory, but how are you actually going to enforce it? Are you going to tell all players to call the TD whenever this player instabids, so you can penalize him every time? And it's not like he's the only one, in my experience about 90% of players fail to pause over skip bids (regardless of whether the Stop card is used). Do you really expect instabidders to call the TD about other instabidders?

Maybe things aren't so bad on your side of the pond, where you have a better Stop card procedure. We don't have that, and the Stop cards (but not the requirement to hesitate) are going away in a few weeks.

[blackshoe]

it's true that the TD can't do anything about such irregularities, or indeed any irregularities, if he's not called. It's also true that players often don't call the TD when they should. And it's true that many players, through ignorance, indifference, disregard for the rules of the game, or outright cheating (though that would be rare) "instabid" over a skip bid. Is there a solution? I don't know, but I submit the current situation is not optimal.

"My side of the pond"? I think you're laboring under a misapprehension — I'm in upstate New York.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-December-09, 19:10, said:

"My side of the pond"? I think you're laboring under a misapprehension — I'm in upstate New York.

Oops. For years I kept confusing you with bluejak.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2017-December-09, 19:25, said:

Oops. For years I kept confusing you with bluejak.

Understandable. Bluejak, blackshoe, we both started this forum — well, he did, but he brought me in very early in its life. :-)

[paulg]

barmar, on 2017-December-09, 19:25, said:

blackshoe, on 2017-December-09, 19:10, said:

"My side of the pond"? I think you're laboring under a misapprehension — I'm in upstate New York.

Oops. For years I kept confusing you with bluejak.

Bluejak is currently 'north of the border', as we say around here.

[nige1]

pran, on 2017-December-07, 09:26, said:

My suggestion is that BIT allegations should just be dismissed in environments where players do not respect the STOP regulation

What is GordonTDs opinion? A player often breaks a Bridge-rule These infractions are routinely condoned by the director. When that offender atypically complies with the rule, should the director treat that as potential UI?

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2017-December-10, 05:19, said:

What is GordonTDs opinion? A player often breaks a Bridge-rule These infractions are routinely condoned by the director. When that offender atypically complies with the rule, should the director treat that as potential UI?

I certainly think that when a player routinely fails to comply with stop card regulations, a rare compliance is a break in their tempo and can provide UI. The difficulty is in determining that to be the case.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2017-December-10, 06:10, said:

I certainly think that when a player routinely fails to comply with stop card regulations, a rare compliance is a break in their tempo and can provide UI. The difficulty is in determining that to be the case.

I agree.

It is unfortunate that a lot of people routinely do not comply with the regulation, I would position the Stop card so as to block access to LHO's bidding box if it weren't for the fact that it would offend people who obey the regulation.