[jdonn]

bluejak, on Oct 12 2009, 07:40 AM, said:

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, Australia is the only place I know with no Stop card regulations at all.

Mark me down as a big time stop card hater. We shouldn't need a reminder, handled by the opponents, of a regulation that we are already required to follow. Meanwhile then we have to deal with things from players using the card in an obnoxious manner, to using it in an inconsistent manner from each time to the next, to sometimes using it and sometimes not, to ignorring when it is used, to misusing it when there hasn't been a jump.

I equate the stop card to when I reach an intersection, the driver coming at me from the left shouting "please stop at the upcoming red light so you don't hit me!" Well I already knew to stop, I didn't need you to shout it at me. Especially when there is no assurance you are any better of a driver than I am.

[Jlall]

Yeah it sucks

[bluejak]

When I play bridge in England, nearly everyone at tournament level and well over half at club level use the Stop card. I cannot ever remember anyone using it in an obnoxious manner, and I know of no-one who uses it in an inconsistent manner.

When I play in the ACBL, far fewer players actually pause over skip bids. So I do not agree that a reminder is unnecessary.

The problem in the ACBL is simple: there was no serious effort made to get them used correctly. If Stop card rules were made so that players had to use them and the abuses you mention driven out then you would not find the problems.

Sure, there are some Stop card problems here. But not the ones you mention. They have been created by a regulation that was not enforced and has now been watered down so it is not mandatory. Make it mandatory, throw in a few DPs for obnoxious use, and after a year or two the problems will disappear.

[TylerE]

At least in ACBL games, I strongly prefer that opponents do NOT use the stop card...I know my requirements and I've seen it wake up partner far more often than I'm happy with.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Oct 12 2009, 09:29 PM, said:

Make it mandatory, throw in a few DPs for obnoxious use, and after a year or two the problems will disappear.

Why not make appropriate pausing over skip bids mandatory, throw in a few penalties for not doing so, and after a year or two that problem will disappear and we won't need stop cards?

I think some more of where we differ is definitely different experiences, and probably a different idea of what constitutes obnoxious use. Also the correlation between "players often don't pause properly" and "opponents should tell players when to pause" does not follow. By that logic, we should definitely have play-faster cards too. The punishment should be adequate to influence behavior in the desired direction, ergo my above comment.

[jeremy69]

In an ideal world I agree that stop cards would not be necessary as players would fulfil their obligation to pause when they should do. In the less than ideal world we inhabit I don't think they work particularly well mich of the time and would not mind if they disappeared as long as there was also a concerted effort to get players to meet their obligations in this area. The problem remains in some clubs that players just don't see why they should use up good drinking time pausing and occasionally holding up the card in front of a known non stopper can have some temporary effect. If they still ignore you then throwing it on the floor with the comment "Well, I don't need that then" probably counts as obnoxious use.

In the set of bidding boxes that appeared in England some years ago when smoking was still possible at the table there was a no smoking card but it wasn't clear what one was supposed to do with it! . Possibly roll it up and light it?

A play faster card is a wonderful idea with perhaps a special "play faster for god's sake" card when especially frustrated.

[gordontd]

jdonn, on Oct 13 2009, 05:35 AM, said:

Also the correlation between "players often don't pause properly" and "opponents should tell players when to pause" does not follow.

You see it as other players telling you what to do. To me it seems more like the opponents offering me the ability to think for a while without limiting my partner's options.

[pran]

A player not using STOP when required by regulation should forfeit his right to rectification because of an alleged hesitation by his LHO, but should not otherwise be "penalized" in any way.

The regulation should be written so that LHO, who in such cases usually needs some time to consider his next call, is not burdened with also keeping track on the time he spends.

The purpose of STOP is to provide him with ample time for consideration without creating UI to his partner. This is best achieved by having the player making a call that requires STOP responsible for "measuring" out the pause.

Sven

[gnasher]

Most English tournament players will properly pause over a jump bid even when the Stop Card isn't used, so I don't think that the difference between the English and America experience has much to do with the use of Stop Cards. It's mainly because of better promulgation and enforcement, and perhaps also because of a greater propensity for English people to obey the rules, even in situations where the rule might be considered annoying and irrelevant.

The main benefit of a Stop Card, as used in England, is that it reduces disagreements about whether the pause was long enough. In the EBU the jump-bidder controls the minimum length of the pause by leaving the card face-up, during which time his opponent isn't allowed to bid. Whilst this isn't a perfect solution, it isn't a bad one.

A problem with both EBU and ACBL regulations is that the auctions where a pause is mandated aren't the right ones. There's no point in requiring a pause after
  1♠ pass 3♠ pass
  4NT
but there is benefit in requiring one after
  1♠ pass 2♠ 3♥

I realise that it's not easy to formulate a regulation that covers the right sequences and is easy to understand. I seem to remember that in Norway competitive bids at the three level require a stop. Is that correct, and if so how well does it work?

[pran]

gnasher, on Oct 13 2009, 03:47 AM, said:

A problem with both EBU and ACBL regulations is that the auctions where a pause is mandated aren't the right ones.  There's no point in requiring a pause after
  1♠ pass 3♠ pass
  4NT
but there is benefit in requiring one after
  1♠ pass 2♠ 3♥

I realise that it's not easy to formulate a regulation that covers the right sequences and is easy to understand.  I seem to remember that in Norway competitive bids at the three level require a stop.  Is that correct, and if so how well does it work?

It works so well that we avoid a lot of discussion about BIT in such cases.

The actual regulation reads:
STOP is required with:
- any opening bid at the two level or higher
- any skip bid
- any call except pass at the three level or higher in competitive auctions.

A competitive auction is one where both sides have contributed to the auction with a call other than pass during the last previous round of the auction.

When we are summoned to a table because of some alleged hesitation we always clarify whether STOP was required and used, and if not used when required we regularly deny any rectification due to hesitation.

Be aware also that in Norway it is the STOP caller and not his LHO who has the full responsibility for "timing" the duration of the STOP (except that LHO is always entitled to 10 seconds even when STOP is retracted earlier).

Regards Sven

[Jlall]

gnasher, on Oct 13 2009, 03:47 AM, said:

A problem with both EBU and ACBL regulations is that the auctions where a pause is mandated aren't the right ones.

I think at least if it's expert vs expert the players themselves can fix this by not pausing a full 10 seconds over the stupid ones (say 2 seconds), and pausing normally over the ones they should. In fact I think this is generally what happens.

I also think that the regulation stating that you must pause 10 seconds over a skip should be done away with to say you must keep an even tempo over a skip. Tempo is different for everyone, and 10 seconds is a lot different to player A and player B.

A regulation that you must pause for 10 seconds over all skips is definitely really stupid though, maybe that's why I hate the stop card because it eliminates the self-correcting behavior.

[jdonn]

gordontd, on Oct 13 2009, 03:27 AM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 13 2009, 05:35 AM, said:

Also the correlation between "players often don't pause properly" and "opponents should tell players when to pause" does not follow.

You see it as other players telling you what to do. To me it seems more like the opponents offering me the ability to think for a while without limiting my partner's options.

Yes I agree that's the main place we differ. I have the opportunity (I assume that's what you meant rather than ability) to think for a while without limiting partner's options whether they use the stop card or not, so on that basis I definitely don't like being told what to do by the opponents.

[nigel_k]

We use stop cards in New Zealand. I have mixed feelings about them but on balance I think they're ok.

Most people use them but some do so randomly and some just don't use them at all. I have never seen anyone get a procedural penalty for it. I do think you need to penalize people who don't stop when the card is put in front of them because it's just too easy to pass UI otherwise. But when the card is not used, the fact that the next player's tempo is no longer UI should be penalty enough.

The actual time people leave the stop card out varies a lot and is usually less than ten seconds. Since I am naturally impatient I don't put it out if I expect an automatic pass and I also sometimes pull the card back before ten seconds if it's an auction where they are likely to pass but it's not automatic.

I think the main reason for stop cards is that you are never going to have people taking ten seconds every time there is a skip bid if stop cards are not used. Well maybe you could eventually penalize people into submission but even then I think some would still forget. So when the opponent calls quickly (or slowly) after a skip you really don't know if he has transmitted UI or not, which is not a good situation. If someone forgets the stop card, they may lose out as they have no redress if the next player takes ten seconds and passes with a marginal hand, but usually it will be no problem.

My biggest problem with stop cards is that my calls generally take either less than one second or more than ten seconds. So the stop card uses up time with no benefit (did I mention I am impatient?) Obviously it may be different for other players.

[bluejak]

One of the problems with alerting in England that always ticks me off is the complaints about it are nearly always one particular sequence by someone who has not looked at the overall effect.

To my mind some of the comments in this thread are similar. The only way to get people to follow skip bid regulations is to make them simple, easy to follow, and consistent, and let people get into the groove. I really dislike the idea that some skip bids should have mandatory pauses and not others, because then no-one will agree which - and another useful regulation has been killed by the impractical triumphing over the pragmatic.

It does no harm to pause over every skip bid, and it is a working method. I have no problem with adding to it as the Norwegians have done, but the idea of people deciding not to enforce the pause when it is not useful is anathema.

Take, for example, 1NT p 3NT. Now there is a sequence which definitely needs a mandatory pause but I am sure people will not do so if the rule is made so that individual players decide. If people pause over every skip bid it does no harm whatever [and some good]. Of course people will moan, but that is what bridge players do best.

[pran]

bluejak, on Oct 13 2009, 06:24 PM, said:

To my mind some of the comments in this thread are similar.  The only way to get people to follow skip bid regulations is to make them simple, easy to follow, and consistent, and let people get into the groove.  I really dislike the idea that some skip bids should have mandatory pauses and not others, because then no-one will agree which - and another useful regulation has been killed by the impractical triumphing over the pragmatic.

It does no harm to pause over every skip bid, and it is a working method.  I have no problem with adding to it as the Norwegians have done, but the idea of people deciding not to enforce the pause when it is not useful is anathema.

Take, for example, 1NT p 3NT.  Now there is a sequence which definitely needs a mandatory pause but I am sure people will not do so if the rule is made so that individual players decide. If people pause over every skip bid it does no harm whatever [and some good].  Of course people will moan, but that is what bridge players do best.

This raises the question: What should be the consequence of failure to use STOP when required?

If you are suggesting that some kind of a procedure penalty should be automatic then I disagree.

Take your example: 1NT - pass - 3NT - ?pass
In nine out of ten cases three passes are automatic without any need for consideration by any player and it is a situation where the skip bidder most often fails to produce a STOP. In the tenth case there will be some hesitation and either a double (no problem) or a pass (Director!)

If I should ever be called to a table in such cases (when an opponent had gone into the tank before passing) I should ask: Was STOP signalled? If not then no consequence of the hesitation and that is all.

It is the skip bidding side that may have reason for complaints on a BIT after a skip bid so it is in their interest to follow the regulation. If they don't then they have forfeited their rights, no need for any further penalty. End of story?

regards Sven

[gnasher]

pran, on Oct 14 2009, 08:53 AM, said:

If I should ever be called to a table in such cases (when an opponent had gone into the tank before passing) I should ask: Was STOP signalled? If not then no consequence of the hesitation and that is all.

It is the skip bidding side that may have reason for complaints on a BIT after a skip bid so it is in their interest to follow the regulation. If they don't then they have forfeited their rights, no need for any further penalty. End of story?

So if it goes

  1NT pass 3NT(1) pass(2)

(1) no stop card
(2) after a 10-second pause from a partner who doesn't usually pause unless the Stop Card is used

I may lead my singleton rather than my QJ10xx, without penalty?

[pran]

gnasher, on Oct 14 2009, 03:26 AM, said:

pran, on Oct 14 2009, 08:53 AM, said:

If I should ever be called to a table in such cases (when an opponent had gone into the tank before passing) I should ask: Was STOP signalled? If not then no consequence of the hesitation and that is all.

It is the skip bidding side that may have reason for complaints on a BIT after a skip bid so it is in their interest to follow the regulation. If they don't then they have forfeited their rights, no need for any further penalty. End of story?

So if it goes

  1NT pass 3NT(1) pass(2)

(1) no stop card
(2) after a 10-second pause from a partner who doesn't usually pause unless the Stop Card is used

I may lead my singleton rather than my QJ10xx, without penalty?

Yes, why not?

A ten second hesitation following a skip bid is no irregularity whether or not STOP was used.

However, the manner in which your partner acts with his hesitation can give you UI that it would be illegal for you to use, the hesitation itself is OK.

Sven

[bluejak]

The fact that 1NT p 3NT rarely leads to a problem is completely irrelevant. Forgetting to alert certain things rarely leads to a problem but that is no reason to encourage rule-breakers.

I never suggested automatic penalties for anything, did I?

But we need to teach people, and one of the things we teach people is that 1NT p 3NT needs a Stop. Here we just do it and grumble: I am talking of jurisdictions which do not have a 'make a simple rule and follow it' mentality.

[gnasher]

pran, on Oct 14 2009, 11:42 AM, said:

Yes, why not?

A ten second hesitation following a skip bid is no irregularity whether or not STOP was used.

My partner thought for ten seconds this time, but the last twenty times that it went

  1NT pass 3NT [no stop card]

he passed immediately. Hence I have the UI that this time he was probably thinking of taking some action. You can't just regulate that UI out of existence, and nor can you override what the Laws say about that UI.

[bluejak]

No, but if like me he hesitates for a time after 1NT p 3NT even if there is no Stop card then he has no UI.