[Tramticket]

 steve2005, on 2018-June-21, 13:36, said:

from the director
" I took the hesitation problem to 3 director's and the ACBL help desk.Although there is supposed to be a delay in bidding after a jump there was agreement that a change in tempo is sufficient to consider the bidding after the change in tempo." So they looked at the bidding most players would not make the bid made which is agreed but...
Does this override 16BaSays cant make a call that is demonstrably suggest by the ui
So before you even poll you need to show bid was suggested by tempo. Quick bids mean min hands and suggest a pass.

Steve, I am unclear from your opening post and subsequent posts what actually happened? Was the director called and made a ruling which you subsequently questioned? (appealed?). You said that the hesitation was 2 seconds. Is that your assessment or was this agreed by all of the players or otherwise established as the facts by the director?

Did the director rule that there was a break in tempo because (a) the player bid too quickly not observing the pause after the jump or (b) this particular player doesn't normally pause after jump bids, so even a two-second pause is hesitation and a break from his/her normal tempo?

[barmar]

Are there really players whose bidding tempo is so consistent that a 2-second difference is a meaningful break?

[blackshoe]

The ACBL predates the WBF by some years. When the WBF was founded, the ACBL controlled bridge in the US, Canada, Mexico, and Bermuda. When the WBF embarked on its "lets get recognized as an Olympic sport" campaign, the ACBL had a problem, because the Olympic Charter says that no national sports organization is permitted to have international responsibilities. So the ACBL created the USBF to serve, at least in theory, as the "national bridge organization" for the United States, while the ACBL kept virtually all of its organization, duties and powers in the US (not to mention the other three countries).

Bermuda is, I think, unique, in being both a part of the ACBL and not a part of Zone 2. Some time ago Bermuda opted and petitioned the WBF to move from Zone 2 (North America) to Zone 5 (Caribbean and Central America). The petition was granted. At the same time, Bermuda petitioned the ACBL to remain a Unit of the ACBL (part of District 2, Eastern Canada) so they could continue to hold the lucrative Bermuda Regional. That petition was also granted. So Bermuda is a Unit of the ACBL, but not a member nation of Zone 2.

Aren't legal shell games fun?

[Vampyr]

When a SO has issued regulations such that the Stop card is not held by the skip bidder for an appropriate amount of time and is in fact not even used, they have accepted and consented to the fact that tempos after skip bids will be wildly variable. Therefore the clear message is that no matter how long the next bidder takes it shall not be ruled as a BIT.

[pescetom]

 Vampyr, on 2018-June-22, 21:00, said:

When a SO has issued regulations such that the Stop card is not held by the skip bidder for an appropriate amount of time and is in fact not even used, they have accepted and consented to the fact that tempos after skip bids will be wildly variable. Therefore the clear message is that no matter how long the next bidder takes it shall not be ruled as a BIT.

The Laws say:
"But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick."

The ACBL Bidding Box Regulations say:
"Use of the Stop card has been discontinued. No verbal or visual skip-bid warning should be used. Following a jump in the bidding, left-hand opponent is obligated to wait approximately 10 seconds (while giving the appearance of studying his hand and not in excess time to determine a choice of bids) before making a call."

The "and not in excess time" clause is baffling, but otherwise it is a clear message that doesn't seem to allow wild variation.
If anything you could argue that it is puzzling to beginners, difficult to enforce and open to abuse, just like the Stop Card it replaced.

[blackshoe]

Not so in the ACBL. Skip bidder's LHO is still required to pause about ten seconds, so a pause of about that length is not a BIT, while a significantly shorter or longer one is, and shall be so ruled.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2018-June-22, 21:00, said:

When a SO has issued regulations such that the Stop card is not held by the skip bidder for an appropriate amount of time and is in fact not even used, they have accepted and consented to the fact that tempos after skip bids will be wildly variable. Therefore the clear message is that no matter how long the next bidder takes it shall not be ruled as a BIT.

Haven't we had this discussion over and over ever since ACBL announced that they were making this change?

What they were accepting was that it was not actually serving its intended purpose, and was often being used in ways that are completely unrelated to the purpose (e.g. reminding partner, or distinguishing between strong and weak jumps).

Most players fell into two camps:

1. Players who never hesitated over a skip bid, even when the Stop card was used.
2. Players who always hesitated over a skip bid, even when the Stop card was not used.

I believe that the removal of the Stop card has not changed either of their behaviors. Almost no one in Group 2 thinks that the removal of the Stop card removed their obligation to hesitate. We've basically given up on trying to teach Group 1 the proper procedure; if the Stop card was supposed to do that, it clearly didn't work.

You're in the UK, where Stop card use works very well. You just can't understand how ineffective it was over here.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2018-June-24, 14:52, said:

Haven't we had this discussion over and over ever since ACBL announced that they were making this change?

We have indeed

 barmar, on 2018-June-24, 14:52, said:

What they were accepting was that it was not actually serving its intended purpose

The purpose is to relieve the next player from the duty to measure out his 10 seconds delay and allow him to concentrate on his own auction rather than the timing.
BTW, this is not a question of using STOP card, it is the question of signalling STOP followed by signalling PROCEED after (about) 10 seconds (where PROCEED is signaled by withdrawing the STOP card if used).

I am interested in the experience with ACBL players who fail to accurately delaying their call (more or less exactly) 10 seconds because they were more occupied selecting their own call? Does this often result in call for the Director with BIT allegations?

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2018-June-24, 14:52, said:

Haven't we had this discussion over and over ever since ACBL announced that they were making this change?

What they were accepting was that it was not actually serving its intended purpose, and was often being used in ways that are completely unrelated to the purpose (e.g. reminding partner, or distinguishing between strong and weak jumps).

Most players fell into two camps:

1. Players who never hesitated over a skip bid, even when the Stop card was used.
2. Players who always hesitated over a skip bid, even when the Stop card was not used.

I believe that the removal of the Stop card has not changed either of their behaviors. Almost no one in Group 2 thinks that the removal of the Stop card removed their obligation to hesitate. We've basically given up on trying to teach Group 1 the proper procedure; if the Stop card was supposed to do that, it clearly didn't work.

You're in the UK, where Stop card use works very well. You just can't understand how ineffective it was over here.

Perhaps I can’t, but I think that much of the trouble was that the Stop card was shown and then put away, very much reducing its effectiveness.by the time the bid is made, the flash of the Stop card is a distance memory. And one person’s ten seconds is the next person’s four seconds.

Are you really going to penalise opponents who may be slightly inattentive and/or not really interested in the auction to notice that a skip bid was made and they must hesitate? And require them, as well, to (still) judge how long?

Even here, it is mostly the better players and the keen beginners who are scrupulous about the Stop card procedure. The others are unlikely to gain an advantage anyway, but you can always hold the Stop card over their bidding box, preventing access to it 😼

I remember the procedure in the US way back when, when you stated, “I am going to make a skip bid; please hesitate”. That actually seemed to work pretty well.

What I find disappointing is that yet again the non-compliant ACBL players’ tail is wagging the ACBL regulations dog.

[barmar]

 pran, on 2018-June-24, 16:41, said:

The purpose is to relieve the next player from the duty to measure out his 10 seconds delay and allow him to concentrate on his own auction rather than the timing.

There was never anything in the ACBL Stop card procedure that served that purpose. The procedure in the regulation was: Show the stop card, return it to the box, then make your bid.

It may have been a poor regulation, but it's what we had. And removing it didn't make any change to the specific goal you describe.

Quote

I am interested in the experience with ACBL players who fail to accurately delaying their call (more or less exactly) 10 seconds because they were more occupied selecting their own call? Does this often result in call for the Director with BIT allegations?

I have never in my entire bridge experience encountered a director call related the tempo of a bid over a skip bid. Maybe that's why I think this is much ado about nothing.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2018-June-25, 09:01, said:

I have never in my entire bridge experience encountered a director call related the tempo of a bid over a skip bid. Maybe that's why I think this is much ado about nothing.

I have. Occasionally the director would say something to the effect of "you need to be careful here". Most often the director would shrug and walk away.

[pran]

 pran, on 2018-June-24, 16:41, said:

The purpose is to relieve the next player from the duty to measure out his 10 seconds delay and allow him to concentrate on his own auction rather than the timing.

BTW, this is not a question of using STOP card, it is the question of signalling STOP followed by signalling PROCEED after (about) 10 seconds (where PROCEED is signaled by withdrawing the STOP card if used).

 barmar, on 2018-June-25, 09:01, said:

There was never anything in the ACBL Stop card procedure that served that purpose. The procedure in the regulation was: Show the stop card, return it to the box, then make your bid.

It may have been a poor regulation, but it's what we had. And removing it didn't make any change to the specific goal you describe.

It must indeed have been a (very) poor regulation and ACBL apparently never really understood the STOP procedure.

I fully agree that the ACBL regulation in question obviously served no purpose at all and could as well be removed, but I pity the apparent ignorance within ACBL on the real purpose of a STOP procedure.

[blackshoe]

The reg served, and still serves, the purpose of reminding skip bidder's LHO of his obligation to pause about ten seconds before making his call.

[sanst]

 blackshoe, on 2018-June-25, 12:18, said:

The reg served, and still serves, the purpose of reminding skip bidder's LHO of his obligation to pause about ten seconds before making his call.

The LHO is supposed to think about his call, or at least make that impression. You’re not supposed to look to the ceiling and count to ten or look at your watch for 10 secs or make whatever impression that you’ve nothing to think about.

[blackshoe]

Of course not.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2018-June-25, 12:18, said:

The reg served, and still serves, the purpose of reminding skip bidder's LHO of his obligation to pause about ten seconds before making his call.

This purpose is nonsense as ACBL apparently has realized by removing the regulation.

The skip bidder has nothing to think about during the presumed ten seconds pause before the subsequent call from his LHO.
Can somebody provide a good reason why not he (rather than his LHO) should be responsible for the timing of this pause?

I have never understood why the next caller, who really has something to think about, in addition to his consideration shall be responsible for measuring out the proper timing. Fortunately he is not - outside ACBL (as fae as I know).

[pescetom]

 barmar, on 2018-June-24, 14:52, said:

What they were accepting was that it was not actually serving its intended purpose, and was often being used in ways that are completely unrelated to the purpose (e.g. reminding partner, or distinguishing between strong and weak jumps).

Most players fell into two camps:

1. Players who never hesitated over a skip bid, even when the Stop card was used.
2. Players who always hesitated over a skip bid, even when the Stop card was not used.

I believe that the removal of the Stop card has not changed either of their behaviors. Almost no one in Group 2 thinks that the removal of the Stop card removed their obligation to hesitate. We've basically given up on trying to teach Group 1 the proper procedure; if the Stop card was supposed to do that, it clearly didn't work.

You're in the UK, where Stop card use works very well. You just can't understand how ineffective it was over here.

The British have a culture of following the rules, at least when they know they are enforced

In Italy the Stop card doesn't work at all well, and not just because the national regulations are little better than the old ACBL ones. The regulations say that one "must show the Stop card before any jump bid and that LHO cannot bid until after 10 seconds of pause" - so no requirement or even endorsement for the jump bidder to keep the card out for 10 seconds. Opponents will react with puzzlement or intolerance if jump bidder does so. Just like the old times in ACBL land, there are many who do not use the card at all and a small but significant number who use it to cheat. Calling the Director leads to a shrug of shounders.

Having said that, the best solution is not clear. EBU rules make a lot of sense but seem impossible to enforce, at least here. The new ACBL rules seem to me just sweeping the dust under the carpet. One possibility might be to oblige LHO (and not the bidder himself) to expose the Stop card, thus demonstrating that he has recognised a jump bid and that he understands he is bound to "think" for 10 seconds. All sorts of things might happen, but the responsibility should be clear and there is at least no opportunity for the jump bidder to cheat.

[pran]

 pescetom, on 2018-June-25, 14:28, said:

The British have a culture of following the rules, at least when they know they are enforced

In Italy the Stop card doesn't work at all well, and not just because the national regulations are little better than the old ACBL ones. The regulations say that one "must show the Stop card before any jump bid and that LHO cannot bid until after 10 seconds of pause" - so no requirement or even endorsement for the jump bidder to keep the card out for 10 seconds. Opponents will react with puzzlement or intolerance if jump bidder does so. Just like the old times in ACBL land, there are many who do not use the card at all and a small but significant number who use it to cheat. Calling the Director leads to a shrug of shounders.

Having said that, the best solution is not clear. EBU rules make a lot of sense but seem impossible to enforce, at least here. The new ACBL rules seem to me just sweeping the dust under the carpet. One possibility might be to oblige LHO (and not the bidder himself) to expose the Stop card, thus demonstrating that he has recognised a jump bid and that he understands he is bound to "think" for 10 seconds. All sorts of things might happen, but the responsibility should be clear and there is at least no opportunity for the jump bidder to cheat.

FWIW: We have no problem in Norway: The skip bidder says "STOP" or shows the STOP card, and after approximately 10 seconds says "CONTINUE" or retracts the STOP card (if that was used).
The skip bidder's LHO is not allowed to call during this delay but is supposed to make his call immediately on "CONTINUE" or retraction of the STOP card.

However, LHO is always entitled to at least 10 seconds delay, so if the STOP card is retracted or "CONTINUE" is announced before 10 seconds have passed then for LHO to delay his call further is itself no violation of procedure unless the total delay amounts significantly to more than 10 seconds.

Whenever the Director is called on an allegation of BIT his first question shall always be: "Was STOP used?". If the answer is NO then the TD call is dismissed immediately unless the total delay was significantly longer than 10 seconds.

Our experience (as far as I know): Excellent.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2018-June-25, 14:10, said:

This purpose is nonsense as ACBL apparently has realized by removing the regulation.

The skip bidder has nothing to think about during the presumed ten seconds pause before the subsequent call from his LHO.
Can somebody provide a good reason why not he (rather than his LHO) should be responsible for the timing of this pause?

I have never understood why the next caller, who really has something to think about, in addition to his consideration shall be responsible for measuring out the proper timing. Fortunately he is not - outside ACBL (as fae as I know).

ACBL did not remove the regulation. They removed the part of the regulation dealing with the stop card/skip bid warning. You may think that's a stupid move. Hell, I may think that was a stupid move. But they did not remove the regulation and you do yourself no favors by claiming they did.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2018-June-25, 16:48, said:

ACBL did not remove the regulation. They removed the part of the regulation dealing with the stop card/skip bid warning. You may think that's a stupid move. Hell, I may think that was a stupid move. But they did not remove the regulation and you do yourself no favors by claiming they did.

OK, they didn't remove the entire regulation, they removed that part of the regulation that this is all about. What is the important difference?
I don't really care as I don't play within ACBL. But I still pity this situation for your players.