[gwnn]

In fact you will note that I specifically excluded jumps to slam But you make good points, definitely.

And even if I want to pretend that "my" stop card avoidance rules are perfectly judicious and optimal, there is the danger of setting the wrong example to my opponents, who will not know my perfectly judicious rules and/or apply them inconsistently, and we'll end up down the slippery slope you sketched.

[mycroft]

I had a colleague at work who, to work on one of his clients, had to take a banking ethics course (at their expense, including flight to New York and hotel on Wall Street. Yes, that kind of client).

It basically was a three day course in how to defraud the financial system. "You will follow the procedures to the letter, every time. We know they look inefficient; we're going to show you that those inefficiencies are there for a reason, and how each one, if bypassed, can allow some other kind of fraud. Note that almost all of the inefficiencies here were put in place *after* someone figured out how to do that kind of fraud and did it."

When it comes to the Laws and Regulations the WBF and NBOs have put in place for Bridge, I am frequently reminded of this story.

Oh, there was a part of the course that explained in great detail the process that occurs when someone defrauding the financial system is caught. I'm not reminded of that part of the story as often...

[barmar]

gwnn, on 2020-January-14, 04:42, said:

Once in 100 boards, my LHO will think about making a lead-directing double (if they're even on lead) and that will help them on defence, I'm fine with that and I realise I waived my rights. On the other 99 boards, we will have saved 10 seconds and will put it to better use.

The whole point of the STOP procedure is because of these "1 in 100" boards -- the idea is that they shouldn't seem any different from the normal situations where there's nothing to think about in a common auction.

If you normally insta-pass, and once in a blue moon you think before passing, partner has a significant amount of UI that time (there's something unusual).

And if you insta-double instead of hesitating before doubling, partner also has UI that the double was really clear-cut.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2020-January-14, 19:19, said:

Oh, there was a part of the course that explained in great detail the process that occurs when someone defrauding the financial system is caught. I'm not reminded of that part of the story as often...

Like the tiny handful of bankers (half from Iceland, only one in the US) who went to jail as a result of the 2008 financial crisis?

[mycroft]

Cynical mode ON:

It's a bad thing to take money from the financial industry. Defrauding your employer or the banks in general will cause much headache to you.

Defrauding society is what the financial industry is *for*. That's fair game - see all the criminal time paid by the people who played with LIBOR.

Note that being in charge of financial institutions when the current game goes Toes Up, even if the game itself isn't actually illegal, can cost you tens of millions of dollars and your job. It won't, however, affect much else - including the eventual stability of said financial institution.

Cynical mode OFF.

[gwnn]

barmar, on 2020-January-15, 11:14, said:

The whole point of the STOP procedure is because of these "1 in 100" boards -- the idea is that they shouldn't seem any different from the normal situations where there's nothing to think about in a common auction.

If you normally insta-pass, and once in a blue moon you think before passing, partner has a significant amount of UI that time (there's something unusual).

And if you insta-double instead of hesitating before doubling, partner also has UI that the double was really clear-cut.

No lol, the idea is that jump bids (as a rule) cause an unusual amount of tempo-sensitive situations. A normal auction would have (say) 20%, jump bids have 50% (say). However, these particular jump bids are unfortunate side effects, with much less tempo-sensitive potential than normal jump bids but even normal non-jump bids.

I have seen tanking after:
(1S)-?
1H-(2C)-?
1D-(X)-?
1D-(1S)-?
approximately 1000 times more often than after
1S-2S
4S-?
(I have seen 2S bidders tanking over 4S because they initially miscounted or because they are bad at bridge. But never opener's LHO.)

And this is not to mention all of the non-jump competitive bids such as
1H-(1S)-2H-(2S)
etc
which come in at about 100 million more common pauses than 1S-2S; 4S.
(numbers not exact)
And don't explain UI to me, I said it in the post already, I am 100% happy with opponents passing UI to each other through tanking over 4S those 1 of 100 hands. As a general rule, when a poster shows that they understand the implications, don't explain the implications to them. In fact, that can be generalised to if someone understands X, don't explain X to them. You'll just get them irritated.

There are good reasons to have a simple rule, and bending rules have good reasons against them, but the fact that 4S causes tanks less often than almost any other bid in bridge is not a reason for using the STOP card, lol. wow

Here are some good arguments for using the STOP card without exceptions:
1) slippery slope (either by me or by opponents) and sets a bad example
2) it can cause discomfort to LHO who could feel like I am rushing them
3) it makes rules easier
etc

But could you try to treat my position with at least a modicum of respect? Tell me with a straight face, is this more or less of a tempo-sensitive situation than, say,
1H-(1S)-?

This post reminds me why I stopped posting a while ago (and will probably stop posting soon).