[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2016-November-09, 11:24, said:

Experienced players will wait without indicating anything until the card is replaced in the box.

That's the EBU regulation. The ACBL regulation is "put down the stop card, put down your bid card, pick up the stop card". Nonetheless some people leave the stop card out, and some people think that they can't bid until the stop card is removed. But most people just ignore the stop card and the fact that RHO jumped and bid in their normal tempo. Unless they have something to think about, in which case they "hesitate". There doesn't seem to be a way, short of PPs, to get them to stop that.

[mycroft]

Minor hope: at least extend L42B3's restriction to L42A1 and A2. Preferably remove the restriction completely. Perhaps extend L42B2's restriction to A1 as well. Or even rework it completely. Nobody violates L42A2 any more - for bridge values of nobody - but we still want to be able to have a clear answer in general to "you weren't supposed to do that, but you did anyway, so how does that affect rectification?"

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2016-November-09, 11:30, said:

Why have a Law about Stop cards? I realise that one of the purposes of the Laws is to gradually get everyone to do things the way they are done in the ACBL, but is your equivalent of the Laws and Ethics Committe really incapable of writing a regulation that is suitable for their own playing environment?

I never said that the law should be what ACBL does. But I suggested there be a law so that we're all playing the same game. What's so different about the Stop card that it should be up to the regions to regulate it?

This was just a specific aspect of my general suggestion that bidding box regulations be made part of the Laws.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2016-November-09, 11:24, said:

Experienced players will wait without indicating anything until the card is replaced in the box.

blackshoe, on 2016-November-09, 15:49, said:

That's the EBU regulation.

Indeed. And the purpose of the STOP card is not to alert LHO that a skip bid (or whatever) follows.

The purpose is to protect LHO from accusations of BIT!

LHO is supposed to consider his call while the STOP card is faced without having to measure out any prescribed time for this, and then make his call when the STOP card is withdrawn. It is the responsibility of the player using the STOP card to measure out (approximately) the ten seconds allocated by regulations.

BIT may apply if LHO makes his call before the STOP card is retracted or after a further delay when the STOP card is retracted (unless the STOP card is retracted before ten seconds have passed).

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2016-November-09, 23:08, said:

I never said that the law should be what ACBL does. But I suggested there be a law so that we're all playing the same game. What's so different about the Stop card that it should be up to the regions to regulate it?

This was just a specific aspect of my general suggestion that bidding box regulations be made part of the Laws.

You never said that, but that is the trend, e.g. Removing the penalty for saying "having none" or the like.

Anyway, if bidding box regulations ever make it into the Laws, whose regulations will be used? Whose Stop card regulations? Definitely if anything is included in the Laws it should just be that which is covered in L25.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2016-November-10, 08:44, said:

Anyway, if bidding box regulations ever make it into the Laws, whose regulations will be used? Whose Stop card regulations?

A regulation created by the international committee revising the laws, just like the rest of the Laws.

Of course, one of the problem with something like this is that long-standing habits are hard to break, so players in each jurisdiction will cling to their traditional styles regardless of the changes in the Laws.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2016-November-10, 09:36, said:

A regulation created by the international committee revising the laws, just like the rest of the Laws.

Of course, one of the problem with something like this is that long-standing habits are hard to break, so players in each jurisdiction will cling to their traditional styles regardless of the changes in the Laws.

The regulation would most likely be in line with ACBL regulations. I a man happy with our regulation that a bid is made once it clears the box. I would hate for my opponents to snatch away the Stop card before I had had time to think. You are probably content with the ACBL regulations. i really think that it is foolish to expect that the Laws should micro-manage things like this.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2016-November-10, 12:31, said:

The regulation would most likely be in line with ACBL regulations. I a man happy with our regulation that a bid is made once it clears the box. I would hate for my opponents to snatch away the Stop card before I had had time to think. You are probably content with the ACBL regulations. i really think that it is foolish to expect that the Laws should micro-manage things like this.

Why not, they micromanage other things, like the way dummy is supposed to be laid out.

[johnu]

barmar, on 2016-November-11, 10:16, said:

Why not, they micromanage other things, like the way dummy is supposed to be laid out.

You can have a law but who says you have to follow it. The dummy on BBO's web version confirms my point.

[gordontd]

gordontd, on 2016-October-10, 04:02, said:

I have it on good authority that it will be ready early in 2017 for intended implementation later in that year.

Well they have stuck to this - NBOs have been sent a draft of the "penultimate" version. The final version will be submitted for approval in March and will be expected to come into force later in the year, I think September.

[blackshoe]

Hm. I wonder how ACBL likes the timing, given they seem to want to do things at NABCs, and the next NABC is in March.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-10, 19:35, said:

Hm. I wonder how ACBL likes the timing, given they seem to want to do things at NABCs, and the next NABC is in March.

Maybe that's why they named the 2007 Laws as 2008. Perhaps you'll be playing to the 2018 Laws?

[pran]

gordontd, on 2017-January-11, 02:20, said:

Maybe that's why they named the 2007 Laws as 2008. Perhaps you'll be playing to the 2018 Laws?

The 2007 laws had to be delayed until 2008 due to the very unfortunate wording in the original Law 27.
They just couldn't live with this error and the year had changed before they managed to correct it.

[helene_t]

So the 2017 draft is out, with as most important change that it is now allowed to continue playing after a claim has been rejected.

[gordontd]

helene_t, on 2017-January-31, 07:11, said:

So the 2017 draft is out, with as most important change that it is now allowed to continue playing after a claim has been rejected.

Other important things are the introduction of the phrase "slip of the tongue" and the concept of "comparable call".

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2017-January-31, 07:11, said:

So the 2017 draft is out, with as most important change that it is now allowed to continue playing after a claim has been rejected.

Yes, and it is a real pity. I see no advantage to it, and I have no idea why it was added. Now when you claim and the opponents want to play on you can no longer say, " I'm terribly sorry, but it is illegal ". Now you have to say, "no, I don't feel like it ". Making you sound somewhat unfriendly. Hopeless. Absolutely hopeless.

[WellSpyder]

Vampyr, on 2017-January-31, 08:05, said:

Yes, and it is a real pity. I see no advantage to it, and I have no idea why it was added. Now when you claim and the opponents want to play on you can no longer say, " I'm terribly sorry, but it is illegal ". Now you have to say, "no, I don't feel like it ". Making you sound somewhat unfriendly. Hopeless. Absolutely hopeless.

I haven't really formed a view on whether I think this change is good or bad, but why wouldn't you feel like playing on after making a claim, if the opponents asked you to? Assuming you have made a valid claim, isn't playing on just a way of helping your opponents to understand the claim you have made?

[helene_t]

WellSpyder, on 2017-January-31, 08:17, said:

I haven't really formed a view on whether I think this change is good or bad, but why wouldn't you feel like playing on after making a claim, if the opponents asked you to? Assuming you have made a valid claim, isn't playing on just a way of helping your opponents to understand the claim you have made?

As a declarer, yes, but as a defender who ha contested a claim you may still chose to call the TD because there is a risk that the rejection of the claim alerted declarer to some problem with his plan that he otherwise might have noticed too late.

Of course, the new law doesn't prevent you from calling the TD in such a case but it creates a bit of a bad atmosphere since the TD call sorta insinuates that declarer might otherwise take advantage of the rejection of the claim.

[weejonnie]

Unless things have changed, from what I have seen I would argue that the procedure after a call out of turn is a very significant alteration. Also the potential delay in advising opponents that you have given a misexplanation.

With regards to claims - although the principle is that the non-claiming side can suggest that play resume (and all four players have to agree), I would worry in case some inexperienced players might be led into volunteeering to play on and not realise they may lose the protection the TD would give.

"I claim the rest" (no claim statement)
"Are you sure?" (contested claim)
"Would you both like me to play on then?" (oops! I forgot to make a statement - honeyed voice)
"Yes please." (suckered)

[WellSpyder]

helene_t, on 2017-January-31, 08:21, said:

As a declarer, yes, but as a defender who ha contested a claim you may still chose to call the TD because there is a risk that the rejection of the claim alerted declarer to some problem with his plan that he otherwise might have noticed too late.

I agree. I suspect defenders would be well-advised generally not to take advantage of this additional option. But Vampyr's objection to the new law was specifically to the position she would be put in as a claimant (and, I assume - perhaps wrongly? - a declarer) being asked to play on.