[tabaresort]

North bid 1[spades, East 2♥ and South bid 3[spades]without using the stop card, West then bids 2N claiming that as no stop card was shown he assumed it was 2♠. His insufficient bid was not accepted and he replaced it with 3N going off. Does he have a point or should he just be more observant?

[Vampyr]

I think that he should be more observant, although all of my sympathy is with him. Definitely a PP for no Stop card to the opponents.

[aguahombre]

Jurisdiction, please.

[barmar]

He should be more observant. And I don't even have much sympathy for him. The purpose of the Stop card is as a reminder about tempo, and may affect BIT rulings, but not IB.

[fuburules3]

I'm sure this has been discussed, but is using the 'stop card' required in the ACBL? I never use it because I thought if you ever use it, you should always use it (and I was not using it in constructive auctions with no interference).

The fact that failure to use the stop card could get a procedural penalty in other jurisdictions makes me think maybe it is frowned upon in the ACBL too.

[jillybean]

fuburules3, on 2012-April-10, 11:07, said:

I'm sure this has been discussed, but is using the 'stop card' required in the ACBL? I never use it because I thought if you ever use it, you should always use it (and I was not using it in constructive auctions with no interference).

Many times, here's one discussion http://www.bridgebas...out-stop-cards/

fuburules3, on 2012-April-10, 11:07, said:

The fact that failure to use the stop card could get a procedural penalty in other jurisdictions makes me think maybe it is frowned upon in the ACBL too.

ACBL directors may do a lot of frowning but in my experience they never give PP's. Failing to use the stop card is standard practice.

[ArtK78]

2NT is an insufficient bid. It is not an excuse that RHO failed to use the stop card.

I have only a very small amount of sympathy for the 2NT bidder. He should be more observant.

In my circles, I am one of the few players who uses the STOP card as it was intended to be used. Dave Treadwell used to use it when he wanted the bidding or the conversation to stop.

[lalldonn]

My sympathy level for the insufficient bidder is hovering between 0 and negative.

[ddrankin]

jillybean, on 2012-April-10, 11:23, said:

ACBL directors may do a lot of frowning but in my experience they never give PP's. Failing to use the stop card is standard practice.

Use of the stop card is not mandatory in the ACBL, so it would be extremely rare to give a PP for non-use.

[jillybean]

ddrankin, on 2012-April-10, 18:05, said:

Use of the stop card is not mandatory in the ACBL, so it would be extremely rare to give a PP for non-use.

I'm not sure, apparently the laws say the stop card "should be" used. What does "should be" mean, is it an infraction not to use it?

My comment about PP's is that it that they are extremely rare in general, one would never be given for failing to use a stop card.

[sfi]

lalldonn, on 2012-April-10, 14:12, said:

My sympathy level for the insufficient bidder is hovering between 0 and negative.

Indeed. This is a clear case of schadenfreude.

[blackshoe]

When a player "should" do something, failure to do it is an infraction, and may subject the player to a PP, although that would be rare. The regulation is nonetheless widely interpreted (officially, I think, but IMO incorrectly) such that failure to use the stop card is not an infraction.

[Elianna]

If West was told "you must make 2NT sufficient" and West is inexperienced, then I have some sympathy for West (but not due to the non-usage of a stop card). If West was told to make a sufficient call and if he bids anything other than 3NT his partner is barred and he's not allowed to double, and West chose to bid 3NT and it was wrong and is upset then I'm with LOLdonn and have negative sympathy.

[ddrankin]

jillybean, on 2012-April-10, 19:08, said:

I'm not sure, apparently the laws say the stop card "should be" used. What does "should be" mean, is it an infraction not to use it?

My comment about PP's is that it that they are extremely rare in general, one would never be given for failing to use a stop card.

The laws don't say the stop card should be used - only that the RA may require mandatory pauses (law 73A2). The ACBl requires a pause, but not the use of the stop card.

[jillybean]

ddrankin, on 2012-April-11, 00:15, said:

The laws don't say the stop card should be used - only that the RA may require mandatory pauses (law 73A2). The ACBl requires a pause, but not the use of the stop card.

blackshoe, on 2011-December-03, 09:33, said:

I used to believe the "it's optional" myth myself, and hence not use the stop card. This went on for some time, until I realized that since the regulation says we "should" use the stop card, failure to use it is an infraction. So I'm back to people ignoring my use of it.

Suprise, there appears to be some confusion here. I don't know why I am discussing it, there are other serious infractions that warrant some attention. The requirement for skip bids warnings and the required pause is largely ignored by both players and the td's.

[mgoetze]

Once again, this thread proves that any question is suitable for igniting a discussion of ACBL policies, even if there is no indication whatsoever that the OP is from the ACBL.

[Cthulhu D]

mgoetze, on 2012-April-11, 00:57, said:

Once again, this thread proves that any question is suitable for igniting a discussion of ACBL policies, even if there is no indication whatsoever that the OP is from the ACBL.

It's better than that, the OP is from the UK based on their posting history. Not sure who else could be unfamiliar with 'American Systems' and refer people to the EBU TD Handbook. That said, the topic was probably legitimately changed.

[blackshoe]

I don't think I've ever seen a forum in which thread drift did not exist, and I've been doing this for damn near thirty years.

[Vampyr]

mgoetze, on 2012-April-11, 00:57, said:

Once again, this thread proves that any question is suitable for igniting a discussion of ACBL policies, even if there is no indication whatsoever that the OP is from the ACBL.

I am pretty sure that most ACBL members think that ACBL regulations and tournament director practice apply worldwide.

[jeffford76]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-10, 21:43, said:

The regulation is nonetheless widely interpreted (officially, I think, but IMO incorrectly) such that failure to use the stop card is not an infraction.

How can an official interpretation be incorrect? By definition if it's the official interpretation, then it's the correct way to apply the regulation. Now if only club directors could ever see these official interpretations...