[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on Oct 15 2009, 01:10 AM, said:

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.

Oh, yes, it is perfectly possible that there are better models than the Norwegian one.

But your reasoning is that the Norwegian regulation will not work in the ACBL because the ACBL has another regulation. That argumentation is obviously flawed. As soon as the ACBL regulation would be changed, your argumentation would be gone.

Your line of reasoning is equivalent to "We can't have 220 V power in the USA, because we have 110 V." or "We can't drive on the left hand side, because we drive on the right hand side.".

Now, I am not going to say that ACBL should use the Norwegian STOP regulations or that the USA should start driving on the left hand side and use 220 V power. That's up to them to decide. But "That can't work, because we are doing it like this." is poor reasoning. In fact, it is no reasoning at all. It is just presented as reasoning which makes it worse than poor reasoning.

It is this kind of reasoning that inhibits progress in the world. Imagine where we would be now if Oongabumboo would have told Shinkyshonga that the wheel won't work because "we push things and we don't roll".

blackshoe, on Oct 15 2009, 01:10 AM, said:

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.

As I pointed out, my problem is not with you telling us how things are in the ACBL. I actually find that informative. My point is about your reasoning that the Norwegian method can't work in the ACBL, "because we already do it differently".

Rik

[cherdanno]

campboy, on Oct 14 2009, 07:14 PM, said:

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.

That's incorrect as far as ACBL regulations are concerned. I don't think it changes anything anyway - those who would spend 10 seconds looking at their watch find other ways of making it obvious they aren't thinking if you change the rules. That's at least my experience from playing under such regulations.

[Vampyr]

cherdanno, on Oct 15 2009, 01:39 PM, said:

That's incorrect as far as ACBL regulations are concerned. I don't think it changes anything anyway - those who would spend 10 seconds looking at their watch find other ways of making it obvious they aren't thinking if you change the rules. That's at least my experience from playing under such regulations.

My experience is that people are pretty good at hesitating without giving anything away. Making it obvious that you aren't actually thinking about your hand is, of course, cheating, and should be reported.

Of course, there are still many people here who ignore the Stop card entirely.

[blackshoe]

If the question is whether the ACBL regulation is flawed, then let's talk about the ACBL regulation. Let's not talk about the Norwegian one, or the EBU one, or some other one, except as examples of what might perhaps be better than the ACBL regulation. That's my reasoning.

[Phil]

cherdanno, on Oct 15 2009, 07:39 AM, said:

campboy, on Oct 14 2009, 07:14 PM, said:

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.

That's incorrect as far as ACBL regulations are concerned. I don't think it changes anything anyway - those who would spend 10 seconds looking at their watch find other ways of making it obvious they aren't thinking if you change the rules. That's at least my experience from playing under such regulations.

I'm sure he's kidding.

[jdonn]

Obviously I will get lots of disagreement since people here clearly like it, but it's the leaving the card on the table that I really hate. And someone wants me to not consider this being told what to do by an opponent? I feel like I should call rho mommy when that happens.

But even that's not as bad as my least favorite behavior. I have come across people who hold it directly in front of me for the 10 seconds, like in the area of my bidding cards. I wouldn't be surprised if you start a fist fight by doing that to the wrong person.

[kfay]

I'm probably a candidate for that. I got into a fist fight one time at the table :-P

[nige1]

jdonn, on Oct 15 2009, 10:00 AM, said:

Obviously I will get lots of disagreement since people here clearly like it, but it's the leaving the card on the table that I really hate. And someone wants me to not consider this being told what to do by an opponent? I feel like I should call rho mommy when that happens. But even that's not as bad as my least favorite behavior. I have come across people who hold it directly in front of me for the 10 seconds, like in the area of my bidding cards. I wouldn't be surprised if you start a fist fight by doing that to the wrong person.

In the UK, I can't imagine anybody insulting or assaulting an opponent over a harmless mutually beneficial regulation. Perhaps hardball is endemic to US Bridge

[jdonn]

It is neither harmless (annoyance is harmful) nor does it benefit me in any way, as I make the appropriate stop whether the card is used or not. But I am glad to add one to the list of forum posters who seem to prefer America-bashing as a sport more than they prefer bridge.

[bluejak]

The problem with the ACBL regulation is that without some sort of reminder players do not wait the required time. As for having a reminder and making it optional, that is just horrible.

As for the idea of letting opponents regulate time, that works well because if one side both pause and measure the pause they will know when it is exceptional.

The idea that obeying a little regulation like this smacks of being treated as a little boy is very strange, and anyone who thinks this way probably dislikes being told which way round the table the bidding goes, and when he should alert. But it is normal to have rules in sports and mindsports.

As for people doing aggressive things with Stop cards, like shoving it in the opponent's face, that is clearly a ZT violation and will get a DP.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Oct 15 2009, 11:41 AM, said:

The idea that obeying a little regulation like this smacks of being treated as a little boy is very strange, and anyone who thinks this way probably dislikes being told which way round the table the bidding goes, and when he should alert.  But it is normal to have rules in sports and mindsports.

Lol do you ever stop creating false arguments for your opponents? It is not following a rule that is irritating, it's having a rule enforced by your opponents, I have been quite clear about that. Do the opponents hold up a sign for me that says "your turn to bid now" and I get penalized if I bid before they hold up the sign? Please show me a single sport where the opponents enforce a rule for the other side.

[Jlall]

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.

I have been very careful to continually say things like in an expert vs expert match I think that the players can self correct this rule. In fact, I think that is what happens regularly. You're right that not everyone is an expert. My point is that the optional or non use of the stop card allows people to self correct the problem that after many skips in bridge nobody is ever going to bid, so making them wait 10 seconds is silly. Thus I think forcing people to use the stop card and wait 10 seconds on every skip..well..sucks


Anyways as others have pointed out the truth is that many non experts will give away whether they're thinking or not anyways. Especially if it's your own partner, you know their mannerisms etc, and not everyone is a great actor, especially most non experts who don't understand why they should be or tempo issues in general etc. I doubt England is some magical promise land where all the bad players act exactly the same whether they're thinking or not if they're a non expert. Of course I'm sure there are a few non expert bridge players who are expert in understanding the rules, but they would definitely be the exception. Those players would not need a "reminder" to keep an even tempo anyways, so the stop card is not really helping in that situation either.

I think the references to looking at a watch were a joke, but I could be wrong. I do not even mind any of this, people play bridge to have fun and most players are not nefarious, they just don't understand tempo related issues. That's fine. I just don't understand how the stop card is helping anything. Either the players understand the rules enough to keep an even tempo, or they don't. If they are in the latter group they will not suddenly give no hint of if they have a problem or not when the stop card comes out.

It is a silly rule, and I still maintain that 10 seconds is a silly amount of time. If you're going to set an arbitrary amount of time that everyone must pause over every skip make it 5 seconds. 5 seconds is an eternity. But best of all is to be allowed to set your own tempo in certain situations. Yes this gives more room for cheating, but if that's what you want to do you will find other ways anyways. Yes it will lead to situations where someone says HE HESITATED, and the other guy is like NO THAT IS MY NORMAL TEMPO. Let the directors or committees figure it out based on the auction and what is a reasonable normal tempo in that auction, etc. If it's close give the guy the benefit of the doubt that it's his normal tempo.

[aguahombre]

I think Josh doesn't like the stop card.

[nige1]

jdonn, on Oct 15 2009, 11:22 AM, said:

It is neither harmless (annoyance is harmful) nor does it benefit me in any way, as I make the appropriate stop whether the card is used or not. But I am glad to add one to the list of forum posters who seem to prefer America-bashing as a sport more than they prefer bridge.

I am sorry. I intended no offence. I do enjoy Bridge but I'm not in a xenophobe. I hope to visit the USA some day. But I haven't done so yet. Hence what little I know of America is hearsay. I think the first time I read the sentence "We play hardball" was in Bob Hamman's autobiography At the Table. He wrote "In a major event like the Spingold, I don't ask for quarter and I don't give it" and he relates amusing examples.

[cherdanno]

Vampyr, on Oct 15 2009, 09:01 AM, said:

cherdanno, on Oct 15 2009, 01:39 PM, said:

That's incorrect as far as ACBL regulations are concerned. I don't think it changes anything anyway - those who would spend 10 seconds looking at their watch find other ways of making it obvious they aren't thinking if you change the rules. That's at least my experience from playing under such regulations.

My experience is that people are pretty good at hesitating without giving anything away. Making it obvious that you aren't actually thinking about your hand is, of course, cheating, and should be reported.

For me, "cheating" means "intentionally breaking the rules in order to get an unfair advantage". Hence your second sentence is just wrong, 99% of players who give away whether they are thinking are either
- not aware that they should make an effort not to give this away, or
- not aware that they are giving away whether they are thinking.

Since your second sentence is so wrong (IMO), I find it hard to believe your first sentence, no matter where you live.

[Trinidad]

cherdanno, on Oct 16 2009, 01:56 AM, said:

Vampyr, on Oct 15 2009, 09:01 AM, said:

cherdanno, on Oct 15 2009, 01:39 PM, said:

That's incorrect as far as ACBL regulations are concerned. I don't think it changes anything anyway - those who would spend 10 seconds looking at their watch find other ways of making it obvious they aren't thinking if you change the rules. That's at least my experience from playing under such regulations.

My experience is that people are pretty good at hesitating without giving anything away. Making it obvious that you aren't actually thinking about your hand is, of course, cheating, and should be reported.

For me, "cheating" means "intentionally breaking the rules in order to get an unfair advantage". Hence your second sentence is just wrong, 99% of players who give away whether they are thinking are either
- not aware that they should make an effort not to give this away, or
- not aware that they are giving away whether they are thinking.

Since your second sentence is so wrong (IMO), I find it hard to believe your first sentence, no matter where you live.

I can think of a lot of words to describe the players that pull out a pass card and hold it above the table while counting to 10. But "cheater" isn't one of them.

Rik

[jeremy69]

Quote

Obviously I will get lots of disagreement since people here clearly like it, but it's the leaving the card on the table that I really hate.

You couldn't blame anyone for doing this in England because the relevant regulation is 7B5 form the Orange Book which says

"The Stop card should be left on the table for about ten seconds, to give the next player time to reflect. It should not be removed prematurely."

Quote

I can think of a lot of words to describe the players that pull out a pass card and hold it above the table while counting to 10. But "cheater" isn't one of them

Why? The player is quite deliberately indicating to partner that he has nothing to think about and using a forbidden form of communication to do this. If he said to the table "I've got nothing to think about and will pass as soon as these stupid regulations allow me to" the wrath of heaven and the regulating authority might fall upon him but this is the same thing in my view. If it was done through inexperience, without intent or because of an ignorance of the regulation I would agree. There are undoubtedly worse forms of cheating than this but nonetheless it is an example.

[campboy]

Phil, on Oct 15 2009, 03:55 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Oct 15 2009, 07:39 AM, said:

campboy, on Oct 14 2009, 07:14 PM, said:

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.

That's incorrect as far as ACBL regulations are concerned. I don't think it changes anything anyway - those who would spend 10 seconds looking at their watch find other ways of making it obvious they aren't thinking if you change the rules. That's at least my experience from playing under such regulations.

I'm sure he's kidding.

I didn't realise the regulations were different in the ACBL. But what I described is how it works in the EBU, and it works well. Here you very rarely see someone call before the stop card has been removed, or show obvious indifference while pausing.

[TMorris]

campboy
What you say is not the case in clubs. The stop card is regularly ignored there. The "better" educated might hold their hand over the pass card in the bidding box with a smile until the stop card is put away but then most people just take out the stop card, bid and put the stop card back with no delay - you tend to get quizzical looks if you then wait 10 seconds.
Tournements are of course rather better than this.
TMorris

[Trinidad]

jeremy69, on Oct 17 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

Quote

I can think of a lot of words to describe the players that pull out a pass card and hold it above the table while counting to 10. But "cheater" isn't one of them

Why? The player is quite deliberately indicating to partner that he has nothing to think about and using a forbidden form of communication to do this. If he said to the table "I've got nothing to think about and will pass as soon as these stupid regulations allow me to" the wrath of heaven and the regulating authority might fall upon him but this is the same thing in my view. If it was done through inexperience, without intent or because of an ignorance of the regulation I would agree. There are undoubtedly worse forms of cheating than this but nonetheless it is an example.

Jeremy, seriously, have you ever seen an experienced player do this?

How many times have you seen palookas do this?

When an opponent holds a pass card above the table and counts to 10, you can expect to get a lot of MPs that round.

Rik