[pran]

bluejak, on Oct 14 2009, 07:21 AM, said:

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.

I wasn't sure how to understand when you wrote: let people get into the groove, that was why I asked if you really suggested automatic penalties for not using STOP.

Sure we need to teach people, and I believe the most efficient way of teaching them to use STOP is to deny them any rectification from opponents' hesitation if they didn't use STOP when required by regulation. They will then experience that there is a real reason for using STOP.

I see little reason for taking any action against a player who failed to use STOP allthough required by regulation when the missing STOP did not cause any problem at all. I don't believe players would understand nor accept a procedural penalty in such situations. They would instead probably think of the TD as a person that is more concerned about penalizing for technical errors than making the game of bridge a pleasant (and fair) experience for everyone.

Or do you encourage a skip-bidder's LHO to call the director and ask for a ruling because the skip-bidder failed to produce the required STOP?

Sven

[pran]

gnasher, on Oct 14 2009, 07:43 AM, said:

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.

So what?

That alleged UI was not caused by your partner's hesitation; it was caused by the skip-bidder's failure to produce STOP as required.

I don't consider information directly caused by opponents' irregularity to be unauthorized for my side.

Sven

[bluejak]

pran, on Oct 14 2009, 04:02 PM, said:

Or do you encourage a skip-bidder's LHO to call the director and ask for a ruling because the skip-bidder failed to produce the required STOP?

Not particularly, but it does no harm. Of course he gets an explanation, not a PP, unless it is an oft repeated infraction.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Oct 14 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

pran, on Oct 14 2009, 04:02 PM, said:

Or do you encourage a skip-bidder's LHO to call the director and ask for a ruling because the skip-bidder failed to produce the required STOP?

Not particularly, but it does no harm. Of course he gets an explanation, not a PP, unless it is an oft repeated infraction.

It will do great harm to LHO's social life. I seriously mean that. Which of course may not bother the LHO at all, and that is fine.

[blackshoe]

That may work in Norway, Sven. In North America, the ten second pause is mandated whether or not the stop card is used and the use of the stop card is optional. So you cannot fault a player who does or does not use the stop card, so long as he is consistent.

[Jlall]

bluejak, on Oct 14 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

pran, on Oct 14 2009, 04:02 PM, said:

Or do you encourage a skip-bidder's LHO to call the director and ask for a ruling because the skip-bidder failed to produce the required STOP?

Not particularly, but it does no harm. Of course he gets an explanation, not a PP, unless it is an oft repeated infraction.

Lol, what? Bridge is a timed game, when you use all of your time on nonsense like this you have no time to play the game. Or, as usually happens, people who use all their time on stuff like this take all the time they want playing the game also, and everyone else is screwed. Yeah yeah they get a penalty on a really good day, I'm sure it's really fun to play against them or to be following them or whatever.

Why is it so clear to you that pausing TEN seconds over 1N p 3N is the best approach? Why not 20 seconds? Every top player I know will give this one a couple of seconds, and that's that.

Maybe the 1 in every 200 times this auction comes up and you have a marginal double you only get a couple of seconds to think. Just make up your mind in that time, or hesitate as long as you want and realize that partner won't be able to heroically find your major suit. He probably wouldn't have anyways, and you probably can make up your mind in a couple of seconds anyways.

The solution on every bid to the problem that you might have a bidding problem, and might transmit UI if you break tempo could be to think for 10 seconds on every bid. Why limit it to skips? Since you don't seem to care that bridge already takes a long time and is less fun if you have to deal with nonsense like this, and care only about minimizing the chance of giving UI, I'm sure you would be all for this. And what about hands that take more than 10 seconds? We should just make it 10 second pause for everything, 20 second pause over skips. We'd probably have way less UI. We'd also have a way less fun game.

Calling 10 second mandatory pauses over skips "pragmatic" is funny to me. It makes the game impractical. But fine that is the regulation, I greatly prefer the way the game is generally played in expert vs expert competition that everyone keeps a normal tempo for normal situations.

Could you really imagine an expert game where it went 2N, 10 second pause, pass, 4N 10 second pause, pass, 6N 10 second pause, pass? It would be ridiculous.

Do you think there should be a mandatory 10 second pause if partner transfers? Because if you wait more than 1 second to accept, partner knows you have 4 trumps. Just be prepared to know what your standards for super accepts are and you won't ever have to hesitate. If you have a tough situation, make up your mind quickly. If it's really tough, take as long as you want and realize partner will have to pass if it's a logical alternative. Being prepared for situations so that you can keep an even tempo in normal situations is part of being an expert bridge player. It should be expected of you. It is expected to keep the game fair, and keep the game moving.

But as far as I know giving UI is not a crime. Sometimes you have to think. The crime would be taking advantage of it. I am happy with a game where experts are self correcting with the horribly stupid "10 second over ALL skip" rule.

I would not be happy with a game where everyone took ridiculous amounts of time on stupid things so that they can give themselves a stupid amount of time the 1 % of times they have a bidding problem in that situation causing there to be no time for the real problems in bridge.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Oct 14 2009, 12:22 PM, said:

That may work in Norway, Sven. In North America, the ten second pause is mandated whether or not the stop card is used and the use of the stop card is optional. So you cannot fault a player who does or does not use the stop card, so long as he is consistent.

Which of course means that in North America the player must concentrate on accurately timing the ten seconds pause (not more and not less because either will be an infraction of regulation) instead of being allowed to concentrate on what call he will make.

Sven

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on Oct 14 2009, 07:22 PM, said:

That may work in Norway, Sven. In North America, the ten second pause is mandated whether or not the stop card is used and the use of the stop card is optional. So you cannot fault a player who does or does not use the stop card, so long as he is consistent.

What stops ACBL from improving their regulation to adopt the Norwegian model?

This discussion is not about how things are. It is about how things should be.

Rik

[Phil]

I didn't use the Stop card for a long time but when I played in Nashville in a NABC event against good opponents, they would rapid fire pass cards over my preempts. It was a long match and I made it a point to use it from then on. I did for about two years and then played mostly club games where using it is kind of obnoxious and elitist, at least where I play. A Stop card isn't curbing any bad behavior from these offenders anyway, so I took a 'why bother' attitude, especially when I was had a partner who just wanted to enjoy the game.

We had discussed this topic a few years and I was a believer that you shouldn't pause after a 1N -3N auction, but others convinced me you should. I thought one of them was Justin and now I'm surprised that he says a few seconds is enough. I agree that 10 seconds is arbitrary, but it seems like a reasonable period of time to me .

[axman]

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, it is telling someone to do your command, and, in a derogatory way. Derogatory certainly. Any fool can tell that a skip occurs in the bidding, that is quite an adequate cue to provide a pause without additional cues. Therefore, to Warn belittles the recipient and warner both. It is childish. I, for one, resent it.

To be coerced into meekly obeying such command, the command intimidates, and does so without necessity.

The body-English that accompanies the command conveys tells to the partner that frequently contain more and better information than the agreement behind the bid.

The concept of the player deciding what occasions to issue a command presents its own complications. Namely, that it is a system of communicating with partner other than by call or play various inferences [such as those that cannot be conveyed by bidding systems] of the variety that L73B2 rails against.

The Warning and its aftermath far from facilitating the players is a distraction that is gotten wrong way too often.

The fact that most players do not obey the command speaks to their contrariness as homo sapiens and quite likely their subconscious perception of the unfairness of the rules and the way they applied, as well as the way they are applied incorrectly. And need it be brought up that treating contestants as children results in acquiring children rather than bridge players.

[bluejak]

I agree that in a timed game we should not take ridiculous amounts of time over things that are irrelevant. But since that has nothing whatever to do with what we are discussing it is of no interest.

Ok, not following the rules so as to save on average about sixty or seventy seconds a session may seem sensible to you. I think it is stupid. People who break the rules deliberately are a pain and bad for the game.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on Oct 14 2009, 05:28 PM, said:

What stops ACBL from improving their regulation to adopt the Norwegian model?

Damfino. Why don't you ask them? I will say that there may be other models than the Norwegian and that if there are, one or more of them may be better than that model.

Quote

This discussion is not about how things are. It is about how things should be.

Discussing how things should be is pointless if you don't start with an understanding of how they are.

[awm]

The stop card regulations do create some funny issues.

There was a hand a few years ago in a national swiss where my RHO opened 3♥. I had a very easy pass, but in a misplaced attempt to be ethical I waited about ten seconds before passing. LHO raised to 4♥ and that ended the auction.

The play revolved around declarer making a trick from ♠KT9 in dummy opposite ♠xxx in hand. After pulling trumps he lead a spade to the nine and it lost to the queen. Then he came back to hand and played another spade up, with his LHO (me) playing low in tempo. Declarer immediately called for the king, the anti-percentage play working since I held the ace and partner had the jack. Everyone at the table (including declarer's partner) was surprised by this play, and I asked declarer how he found it. His answer:

"You thought so long over 3♥, I was sure you had some high cards, so I played you for the ace."

Hmm. I felt sort of taken advantage of, although obviously the same thinking could fix declarer on another board. But the really funny question is, if partner had needed to make a decision on defense and correctly played me for some cards, could declarer call director on my "break in tempo" over 3♥ since after all, no one takes ten seconds to pass over this call?

[jdonn]

I love Justin's post, couldn't agree more.

[blackshoe]

Not everybody is an expert. Not everybody aspires to be one. Some people just like to play bridge as best they can. Telling Joe and Judy Dabbler to control their tempo like experts is not gonna go anywhere. They won't. They can't.

[cherdanno]

blackshoe, on Oct 14 2009, 07:02 PM, said:

Not everybody is an expert. Not everybody aspires to be one. Some people just like to play bridge as best they can. Telling Joe and Judy Dabbler to control their tempo like experts is not gonna go anywhere. They won't. They can't.

True. Instead you can tell them to wait 10 seconds, and they will do so, looking at their watch for 9 seconds, grabbing the pass card, waiting another second, and putting it on the table.

[campboy]

Quote

True. Instead you can tell them to wait 10 seconds, and they will do so, looking at their watch for 9 seconds, grabbing the pass card, waiting another second, and putting it on the table.

But that is not what should happen with the current stop card regs. You make a skip bid; you use the stop card; you wait ten seconds (looking at your watch, if you like); you take the stop card away; they pass.

[bluejak]

Maybe that shows another advantage of the English method of letting the person who displays the Stop card control the tempo. While players do not all follow the regulations fully, the stupidities over looking at watch, counting out loud and so forth have all disappeared.

[nige1]

bluejak, on Oct 14 2009, 08:59 PM, said:

Maybe that shows another advantage of the English method of letting the person who displays the Stop card control the tempo.  While players do not all follow the regulations fully, the stupidities over looking at watch, counting out loud and so forth have all disappeared.

Again, I seem to agree with most of what Bluejak writes I must be cracking up IMO ..

• In the UK, the player faces his stop card face before his jump bid. Then he waits for ten seconds before removing the stop card. While the stop card is faced, his LHO may not call.
  
• The UK rule is simple and easy to remember (as it should be).
  
• Most players understand its purpose and comply with it.
  
• Directors enforce it. It provides the director with an ideal opportunity to educate the uninitiated on the concept of unauthorised information.
  
• The rule works well, consuming little extra time, but eliminating lots of UI.
  
• Extending the rule to high-level competitive auctions (as Sven recommends) would be a good idea.
  
• Such rules may be less effective in the USA because Americans seem to be accustomed to a tougher game. Hamman's "hardball"

[Trinidad]

cherdanno, on Oct 15 2009, 02:04 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Oct 14 2009, 07:02 PM, said:

Not everybody is an expert. Not everybody aspires to be one. Some people just like to play bridge as best they can. Telling Joe and Judy Dabbler to control their tempo like experts is not gonna go anywhere. They won't. They can't.

True. Instead you can tell them to wait 10 seconds, and they will do so, looking at their watch for 9 seconds, grabbing the pass card, waiting another second, and putting it on the table.

Let's help Joe and Judy a little bit then. We tell the skip bidder to look at his watch, then Joe can think about his bid.

Rik