[axman]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-30, 05:43, said:

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

I am the world's worst guesser. Ive been proven to be a lousy mind reader. I have no inclination to read the minds of they that do the things of imbeciles.

[barmar]

Sometimes regulations are enacted because there's an actual problem that needs to be solved -- screens are a good example, as there were some cheating scandals involving subtle visual signals between partners.

Other times, regulations are created preemptively because of potential problems. For instance, I don't think there have been any examples of bridge players cheating with cellphones, to prompt the draconian cellphone prohibition at NABC+ events.

The STOP card regulation could be either of these. Although the fact that it's been around so long, and is used in one form or another in so many jurisdictions, leads me to think it's the first type. Stupid rules don't tend to be so widespread.

[aguahombre]

Exceedingly harsh (Draconian) prohibition of cellphones?

At the risk of perpetuating the off-topic reference:

In addition to preventing a method of possible improper communication, the prohibition also eliminates a source of irritation and distraction to the other players.

Even if it is on "silent", the mere fumbling with the phone during play is a source of distraction and doubt among others. Text shows up on the screen.

I would bet that the people who have no problem with the prohibition are the same ones who were always polite enough to not use them in the playing area before. Anyone who is old enough to remember when we only had landlines, remembers he/she could live without external communication while playing Bridge.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2011-July-30, 10:47, said:

Exceedingly harsh (Draconian) prohibition of cellphones?

At the risk of perpetuating the off-topic reference:

In addition to preventing a method of possible improper communication, the prohibition also eliminates a source of irritation and distraction to the other players.

Even if it is on "silent", the mere fumbling with the phone during play is a source of distraction and doubt among others. Text shows up on the screen.

I would bet that the people who have no problem with the prohibition are the same ones who were always polite enough to not use them in the playing area before. Anyone who is old enough to remember when we only had landlines, remembers he/she could live without external communication while playing Bridge.

In regular events they allow cellphones, but require that they be turned off. In NABC+ events, they aren't even allowed to be in the room, even if they're turned off. How does a device that's turned off create irritation and distraction to the other players? If a phone goes off during a regular event, there's supposed to be a penalty, but I don't know how diligent they are about enforcing it. They could certainly be more severe in national events (an immediate full board penalty in pair games, for instance), that should be sufficient deterrant to having the phone turned on. But the complete prohibition has always been claimed to be for security reasons, not comfort, despite the lack of any evidence of use of cell phones for cheating.

The reason the prohibition is considered onerous is not because they need to use the phone during the game, but because leaving it somewhere else is inconvenient or requires paying a fee.

It doesn't bother me personally, but surely you've seen the threads about it in other forums where people complain that it's unnecessary and bothersome.

[bluejak]

Players take advantage of long pauses from partner, possibly unintentionally: the Stop card regulations, which are followed some of the time, have reduced this problem.



There is a case where a teenage player was found in the toilet texting details of a hand he had played to a friend who had not played the board yet.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2011-August-01, 06:23, said:

Players take advantage of long pauses from partner, possibly unintentionally: the Stop card regulations, which are followed some of the time, have reduced this problem.

Yes, players occasionally take inferences from hesitations. But 99% of the time I think this occurs in complicated auctions. I haven't noticed any particular correlation with skip bids.

Quote

There is a case where a teenage player was found in the toilet texting details of a hand he had played to a friend who had not played the board yet.

If the friend's cellphone were turned off, he couldn't get the text. Maybe the concern is that the receiver could go to the toilet and turn his phone on while out of the room to get the message. But in cold weather he could also do that by leaving his phone in his jacket outside the room.

There actually was a cellphone scandal in the chess world earlier this year, where a cohort was using a computer and sending messages to the player. But turned-off phones can't be used in such a scheme.

[bluejak]

I don't think it is complicated auctions at all: typically it is something like 3H slow pass pass ???

Or 1S dbl 3S slow pass pass ???

Players often make quick decisions when someone produces a non-jump bid in front of them. But a jump tends to be more of a surprise. I think the Stop regulations have seriously cut down the number of UI problems.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2011-August-01, 08:51, said:

Players often make quick decisions when someone produces a non-jump bid in front of them. But a jump tends to be more of a surprise. I think the Stop regulations have seriously cut down the number of UI problems.

You are probably right, for the less experienced players, and the slow pass rather than the slow bid is by far the most frequent problem for that level.

At higher levels, IMO, the mere establishment of, and widespread publicizing of, the concept (however vague depending on the jurisdiction) that after a skip bid one is likely to have a reason to slow down and should do so even without a reason has cut down on these problems.

From what I see, the B.I.T problems coming to the attention of AC's and TD's are more often the result of complicated auctions and caused by the "offenders'" own doubt about what certain calls mean or meant. Sometimes this is a competitive auction, sometimes not; but rarely are Stop Cards or Stop Regulations a real factor.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-August-01, 10:17

[bluejak]

True: but that proves their worth: Stop card situations are less likely to create UI rulings because of the Stop card regulations.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2011-August-02, 06:50, said:

True: but that proves their worth: Stop card situations are less likely to create UI rulings because of the Stop card regulations.

We are coming from slightly different angles on this, and different jurisdictions. In your world the stop card seems to be taken seriously, and might well "create" a UI ruling.

In ACBL, it seems that the B.I.T. itself, and what it conveys or doesn't convey (UI) is the focus; and the use or failure to use the Stop Card doesn't significantly "alter" the rulings.

The original poster is in London, but the perspectives similar to mine seem to come from ACBL land.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-August-02, 09:35

[bluejak]

Of course I did not mean the ACBL, where the Stop card regulations are all but ignored.

[mycroft]

I'm surprised that David hasn't already put up the link: WeaSeL over Preemption. It works, and everybody knows somebody who plays it - "unintentionally", of course.

How many people have seen 4th seat invariably guess right after the auctions:

• 3♥-p-p
  
• 3♥-X-p
  
• 3♥-3♠-p

with a borderline balance/game hand? And how often does second hand "pause consistently" (whether the pause is zero seconds or 10) in pairs where 4th seat is so brilliant?

Yeah, me too.

David - if you Google the words "weasel over preempts" (without the quotes), you will find there are at least two sites that have stolen the article without attribution; you may wish to provide education.

[bluejak]

Such is life.

But I have changed the site many years ago, but cannot get the old one out of the search engines!

So the real link is Weasel over Pre-empts.

[kenberg]

I enthusiastically endorse stop cards.

If rho opens 1♦ and I bid 2♠, lho may well need a bit of time. Or he may not. The skip bid warning has him waiting the same ten seconds whether he needs it or not. This allows us to all go on with the game, bidding our values, without having to call the director and raise ugly questions.

Do I always use it? Well, the auction 1NT-pass-3NT was mentioned and it is true I don't usually bother. Same with 1♠-2♠-4♠. In theory this could be an issue, in practice it isn't.

True, skip bid warnings are not always heeded. How I deal with this depends on the setting. At, say, a regional tournament I expect rules to be followed. At the local club where the lho is a casual player who has trouble following suit, I may well let it slide.

[pran]

kenberg, on 2011-August-06, 14:10, said:

I enthusiastically endorse stop cards.

If rho opens 1♦ and I bid 2♠, lho may well need a bit of time. Or he may not. The skip bid warning has him waiting the same ten seconds whether he needs it or not. This allows us to all go on with the game, bidding our values, without having to call the director and raise ugly questions.

Do I always use it? Well, the auction 1NT-pass-3NT was mentioned and it is true I don't usually bother. Same with 1♠-2♠-4♠. In theory this could be an issue, in practice it isn't.

True, skip bid warnings are not always heeded. How I deal with this depends on the setting. At, say, a regional tournament I expect rules to be followed. At the local club where the lho is a casual player who has trouble following suit, I may well let it slide.

I agree. But remember that the STOP procedure protects the skip bidder's side. If the 3NT or 4♠ bidder in your examples fails to use STOP then his side will not have any case if next player delays his pass (or other call) for up to approximately 10 seconds.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-August-06, 16:22, said:

I agree. But remember that the STOP procedure protects the skip bidder's side. If the 3NT or 4♠ bidder in your examples fails to use STOP then his side will not have any case if next player delays his pass (or other call) for up to approximately 10 seconds.

Why should the skip bidder's side "have a case" if the next player complies with the regulation, whether or not they've used the stop procedure?

Put it another way: if the skip bidder's LHO doesn't pause about 10 seconds, his side has no protection from the laws and regulations, because he didn't follow them. In the ACBL this is true whether the stop card was used or not.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-06, 20:41, said:

Why should the skip bidder's side "have a case" if the next player complies with the regulation, whether or not they've used the stop procedure?

Put it another way: if the skip bidder's LHO doesn't pause about 10 seconds, his side has no protection from the laws and regulations, because he didn't follow them. In the ACBL this is true whether the stop card was used or not.

True,
and that is one reason why I didn't like the ACBL regulation when I learned about it. In Norway (and several other countries) LHO is protected if he calls without (extra) pause as soon as the STOP card is retracted (or word like "continue" is spoken), but he is also protected if he spends up to approximately 10 seconds in any situation where STOP is required whether or not correct STOP procedure was followed by the skip bidder.

The purpose of STOP is to legitimate BIT (pause) for players in situations where they naturally might need extra time to decide their call. Consequently it seems more reasonable to place the burden of measuring out this extra time on the skip bidder who has nothing else to worry about at the time rather that on LHO who needs the time to consider his call.

My first question when called to a table because of hesitation in situations where STOP is required is if STOP had been used. If not I nearly always automatically dismiss the complaint unless the hesitation was indeed excessive.

[blackshoe]

The position in which I find myself as a player who makes a skip bid is most often that LHO bids quickly. I rarely bother to do anything, because trying to get agreement there was a bit is usually futile, and even if we get damaged the TDs seldom adjust the score. Frankly, I don't think giving my LHOs "protection" when they do this, just because I picked up the stop card, is the right way to go. OTOH, if the regulation puts me in charge of LHO's tempo, it won't be a problem, because that stop card ain't coming up before ten seconds have passed.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-07, 09:24, said:

The position in which I find myself as a player who makes a skip bid is most often that LHO bids quickly. I rarely bother to do anything, because trying to get agreement there was a bit is usually futile, and even if we get damaged the TDs seldom adjust the score. Frankly, I don't think giving my LHOs "protection" when they do this, just because I picked up the stop card, is the right way to go. OTOH, if the regulation puts me in charge of LHO's tempo, it won't be a problem, because that stop card ain't coming up before ten seconds have passed.

I am not quite sure if I understand you here, but let me sum up our regulation:

When STOP is required with a call the player making such call is responsible for declaring a stop period of 10 seconds. He does so by exposing the STOP card or saying "STOP", and marks the end of the stop period by taking back the STOP card or saying "continue" (or words to that effect).

His LHO may not call during this stop period but is supposed to call as soon as the stop period ends. However, if the stop period is shorter than 10 seconds then he is free to make his call at any time after the end of the stop period and before 10 seconds have elapsed. (If no stop period has been declared although required then LHO is free to call at any time within 10 seconds.)

I'd say that this regulation works very well with us.

[blackshoe]

Yes, I understand your regulation, Sven. Ours here is different. In other jurisdictions it may be something else again. We are not going to get the same regulation everywhere, nor (probably) should we strive for that (sorry, Nigel). I get a sense, though, that North Americans are unlike Norwegians in that it seems there's a lot more "I don't care what the regulation says, I'll do what I want" here. Given that attitude, I don't suppose it really matters what the regulation says.