[Vampyr]

ggwhiz, on 2011-July-09, 14:00, said:

I have never used the stop card, never called the Director on this issue and NEVER felt disadvantaged. BIT's are well handled by other means.

It sounds as if you are lucky that you live in a jurisdiction where this is permitted.

[ggwhiz]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-09, 15:57, said:

It sounds as if you are lucky that you live in a jurisdiction where this is permitted.

ACBL land and I'm not entirely sure this is legal but believe it is on the (non-enforcible) premise that you use it always or never, not sometimes as in for partners benefit.

Still, I've never had a problem with never.

[Free]

Imo the stop card is a method to avoid opps using UI when a player makes a jump bid. Therefore, when the player elects not to use the stop card, he shouldn't complain afterwards if opps use UI generated by a BIT imo.

However, this way can't be used in practice. Players wouldn't be obligated to use the stop card which is in one way a positive thing and in other ways a negative. The positives are pretty obvious: in uncontested auctions many times there's no need for a stop card (1NT-2♣-2♦-3NT for example), so you can win some time over the "obligated" stop-procedure. On the other hand, not obligating the usage of the stop card lets the door wide open for cheating. A pair could agree that they're willing to give up some rights in exchange for 2 ways of preempting (stop+jump is weaker than jump without stop for example). This would be unacceptable.

Several players waving with stop cards isn't a good solution imo. I think that the player taking away the stop card too soon should, again, not complain afterwards that his opps abuse UI. And again, there's a possibility of cheating (quick stop + jump vs long stop + jump for example). Btw, I'm pretty sure this way of cheating already occurs, but it's very hard to prove.

So perhaps the only 2 ways to avoid cheating are:
- obligate the usage of stop card, penalize if someone doesn't use it, penalize if they take it away too soon,...
- throw the whole stop-procedure away and handle UI cases the way they're described in the rules.
Personally, none of these looks attractive to me.

[helene_t]

mgoetze, on 2011-June-28, 15:43, said:

While we are on the subject of stop card regs... I once had the following situation: Partner pulls out the stop card and makes an unusual jump bid. RHO ignores the stop card and instabids. I now take about 15 seconds for my next call, and the same RHO has the nerve to call the TD on me. Now I have been told by two of Germany's top TDs that RHO had every right to do this, the stop card is only for the opponents' benefit, not for mine, and thus I had committed a BIT.

What do your local stop card regulations have to say about this?

You are not required to wait for ten seconds after your partner has made a skip bid and RHO calls instantly (contrary to stop card regulations). Therefore, your pause does convey information to your partner and that is UI.

But I agree with aquahombre, your RHO's gamemanship is not acceptable.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-09, 15:57, said:

It sounds as if you are lucky that you live in a jurisdiction where this is permitted.

ACBL "stop-regulations" may suit ggwhiz; but they seem unlucky for other members.

[aguahombre]

ggwhiz, on 2011-July-09, 14:00, said:

IMO the whole business sucks especially at the club level where white on red it goes 1nt - p - 3nt with a stop card prominently displayed as the round is called.

I have never used the stop card, never called the Director on this issue and NEVER felt disadvantaged. BIT's are well handled by other means.

Vampyr, on 2011-July-09, 15:57, said:

It sounds as if you are lucky that you live in a jurisdiction where this is permitted.

ggwhiz, on 2011-July-09, 20:47, said:

ACBL land and I'm not entirely sure this is legal but believe it is on the (non-enforcible) premise that you use it always or never, not sometimes as in for partners benefit.

Still, I've never had a problem with never.

nige1, on 2011-July-25, 15:51, said:

ACBL "stop-regulations" may suit ggwhiz; but they seem unlucky for other members.

I am with GGWhiz on these thoughts. I don't think the stop card regulations of the ACBL are clear or enforceable. They don't "suit" us; they just suck at what they are intended to accomplish.

I don't see him saying he doesn't honor the opponents' use of the card, he just says he doesn't use it himself.

Breaks in tempo are identifiable with Stop Card use, and also in many other situations where the Stop Card was not used or there was no skip bid involved. They should be, and usually are, handled by the players and/or TD without relying on whether the Stop Card was used properly as a primary crutch.

I really believe the main (though unintended) result of using the Stop Card is to alert players who might not have been paying attention that a skip bid has occurred.

[blackshoe]

I think the ACBL stop card regulation is very clear as regards the important part, which is, to my mind, that when a skip bid is made, the LHO of the skip bidder is obligated to pause approximately ten seconds, while giving ever appearance, at least, of contemplating his hand and considering what call to make. The regulation specifies that this obligation exists whether or not the stop card is used. Granted, it doesn't say specifically anything about "what if it's not?" or "what if it's used improperly?" Doesn't matter. The idea behind the regulation is to avoid transmission of UI via a BIT, whether it be a "too short" BIT or a "too long" one. I think that requiring the skip bidder to leave the card out for the required time would be a good addition to the ACBL reg, but I note that we have one very good (and very ethical) player here who does leave the card out for what she considers is an appropriate time, but that time is consistently closer to six seconds than ten. So most likely that wouldn't work too well here, either, even if we could convince people to do it.

The bottom line is that most American players don't like the regulation, either because they think it's "silly" in some particular cases, or because they don't understand it and can't be bothered to fix that little problem, or because they don't think it should apply to them. And those players, most of them, think it's quite okay to ignore a regulation they don't like. An impression that's given considerable weight by the fact that TDs rarely rule against them.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-25, 17:49, said:

The bottom line is that most American players don't like the regulation, either because they think it's "silly" in some particular cases, or because they don't understand it and can't be bothered to fix that little problem, or because they don't think it should apply to them. And those players, most of them, think it's quite okay to ignore a regulation they don't like. An impression that's given considerable weight by the fact that TDs rarely rule against them.

I think you might be mixing together two different things: not complying with the regulations about what to do if the opponent chooses to use the stop card, and choosing not to use the stop card.

The first applies to everyone and is subject to adverse rulings. The second is an ACBL option which should not affect adjudication for B.I.T.

[blackshoe]

Well, there are two parts to the regulation: how and when to give a "skip bid warning" (with or without bidding boxes), and how the LHO of a skip bidder is supposed to act. In fact, I've just read the actual regulation (ACBL BoD minute 953-102, in Appendix A to Chapter 12 of the "ACBL Codification"). It is commonly believed, and frequently ruled by directors (including me) that the warning is "optional". However what the regulation actually says is

Quote

The skip bid warning may not be used to alert partner that a strength-showing bid is being made or not being made. The warning should be used all the time. The tournament director may assess a procedural penalty (Law 90) for failure to comply.

(The emphasis is mine). That last sentence accords with the laws' usage of "should" - that failure to do what one "should" do is an infraction, although one rarely penalized. Nonetheless, TDs frequently rule that use of the stop card is "optional", and players have come to believe it, and some choose not to use it. I have been one. I'm going to have to go back to using it all the time, now.

The other part of the regulation is

Quote

When RHO has announced a skip bid, the player following the skip bidder must wait for a suitable interval (about 10 seconds). In waiting the player's manner must be one that suggests he is an active participant in the auction (the hand should be studied during pause). any obvious display of disinterest is most improper.

Note that this part says the player must wait. Under the current laws, if he must wait, and does not, he should receive a PP "more often than not". That doesn't happen, either.

The regulation also says

Quote

Experienced players expected to maintain proper temp whether a skip bid is announced or not.

Poorly edited, but that's what it says.

I've gotten a little sidetracked. What I was trying to say earlier was that a lot of people don't give the warning (which at the time I wrote that I thought was optional), and they don't pause the appropriate amount of time. I think both are down to either ignorance of the regulation, or "I don't care, I'll do what I want". Sometimes both.

If there is a BIT (either fast or slow) the regulation specifies

Quote

When a player acts with undue haste or hesitation, the tournament director may award an adjusted score (Law 16) and/or procedural penalty (Law 90).

There is one caveat in the regulation, applicable to clubs.

Quote

The warning is effective for all ACBL sanctioned events. For sanctioned games at clubs, the club may elect to discourage it's use and require no mandated pause.

(Why do people insist on sticking apostrophes in where they don't belong?)

[Mbodell]

I dislike the ACBL stop card regulations and never use the stop card. It is impossible to be consistent otherwise since a good 10+% of bidding boxes are missing the stop card (more in the clubs).

Even when our team mates used the stop card today in the 5000 spingold our opponents 3 times in 14 boards turbo bid, once doubling the skip before the bid had even landed on the table. This resulted in a director call, some reported abuse of the director and a decisive 3 IMP zero tolerance penalty.

But still, using the stop card, even against decently experienced opponents (let alone against the random club players) just doesn't work.

I do, however, always pause myself after a jump, and usually count the tempo after any jump at the table (assuming I'm not furiously thinking about my bid). 10 seconds is a very long time, even when an opponent has seemed to think forever it is often only a slow count to 8 or 9.

[Zelandakh]

I like Nige's egg-timer idea too and wonder if this could be incorporated into Bridgemate. If there was a SKIP button a player could place their STOP card, make their bid, then press the button. When Bridgemate beeps they remove the card. I imagine that the company behind Bridgemate are always eager to hear about ideas to improve their product and this would be a very simple (and cheap) addition.

[bluejak]

The problem with the ACBL approach to Stop cards is that practice and theory often differ. Since I play annually in the Nationals [sometimes more often] and have occasionally played in North American clubs I have seen the skip bid regulation at work there. The basic difference between British and North American skip bids is caused by the card: if you make a skip bid in North America the average time before the next player calls is about three seconds: in England it is about six. My guess is that it is less than three seconds in clubs in North America.

The practice of the matter is that if you put out the Stop card and keep it out as per English regulation most people do not call before you put it away. In North America where keeping it out is wrong putting it out is so useless I have given up and far fewer people pause as required.

Sure, the basic regulation is the same: RHO skips, you are mandated to pause. But the effect of the British stop card use is that people do so much more.

[blackshoe]

Mbodell, on 2011-July-25, 23:09, said:

I dislike the ACBL stop card regulations and never use the stop card. It is impossible to be consistent otherwise since a good 10+% of bidding boxes are missing the stop card (more in the clubs).

Even when our team mates used the stop card today in the 5000 spingold our opponents 3 times in 14 boards turbo bid, once doubling the skip before the bid had even landed on the table. This resulted in a director call, some reported abuse of the director and a decisive 3 IMP zero tolerance penalty.

But still, using the stop card, even against decently experienced opponents (let alone against the random club players) just doesn't work.

I do, however, always pause myself after a jump, and usually count the tempo after any jump at the table (assuming I'm not furiously thinking about my bid). 10 seconds is a very long time, even when an opponent has seemed to think forever it is often only a slow count to 8 or 9.

I think that if the stop card is missing, one should call the director and ask for one. In the meantime, I'd give a verbal "skip bid warning".

That using the stop card "just doesn't work" is why, when I thought its use was optional, I stopped using it. As I said in my last post, though, having read the regulation, I've concluded the use is not optional, so I'm going back to using it. And I will apply Law 16B2 when LHO breaks tempo. And I think everyone should do so.

Yes, ten seconds is a long time, and also players are not very patient people. Too bad for them.

[barmar]

I suspect the assumption that use is optional comes from intepreting "The warning should be used all the time." as "The warning should be used consistently." I think this comes about because the sentence follows the one that specifically refers to using it to distinguish strong from weak jumps, it appears to be a reinforcement of that.

Note also that there are lots of "should"s in there, rather than "must"s. And the justification is for protecting one's own rights. Believers in personal responsibility tend not to believe that one cannot be REQUIRED to protect themselves. If you don't use the STOP card, you may forego some recticiation.

[AlexJonson]

My personal favourite is a stop card (EBU style) placed on the table and followed by a long pause during which the player:

reconnects with our world (not computer jargon)
decides which jump bid to make
decides whether to withdraw his stop card ... can he

I was persuaded a long time ago by a strong player that playing in strong company, you stick to the rhythm of stop cards (he was an idealist obviously). I like the rhythm and regularity argument.

In an average game I would never care one way or the other.

[mjj29]

AlexJonson, on 2011-July-26, 13:42, said:

My personal favourite is a stop card (EBU style) placed on the table and followed by a long pause during which the player:

reconnects with our world (not computer jargon)
decides which jump bid to make
decides whether to withdraw his stop card ... can he

The 'stop card then think' approach is particularly good when they've actually pulled out the other red card instead and then sit there making no sign that they've not completed their turn of bidding

(And the stop card isn't actually part of a call, so if you put the stop card out you aren't actually required to make a skip bid, it just might be UI)

[bill1157]

All this discussion tells me that we should do away with stop cards and forbid anyone saying: "skip bid please wait" or the like.
The stop card regulations (waiting 10 seconds,6 seconds,or whatever) is not followed and is unrealistic.

[blackshoe]

So we go back to the old situation, where people break tempo, partner takes advantage, and there's no redress?

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-29, 13:45, said:

So we go back to the old situation, where people break tempo, partner takes advantage, and there's no redress?

Please demmonstrate by a realistic example.

[blackshoe]

Oh, come on, axman. Why do you think the regulation was implemented in the first place?