[nige1]

gordontd, on 2017-December-10, 06:10, said:

I certainly think that when a player routinely fails to comply with stop card regulations, a rare compliance is a break in their tempo and can provide UI. The difficulty is in determining that to be the case.

It's no surprise that top directors disagree. when. for us ordinary players, Bridge rules, especially local regulations, are too sophisticated to understand. For example, a naive player might reason as follows:

Any failure by you to comply with stop-card regulations breaks the rules. You create potential UI. Hence your opponents would be well-advised to call the director, to deal with your infraction,

Even If opponents condone your infraction, your partner must still take care not to choose a logical option, suggested over another, by UI.

When you comply with the rules, however, partner seems to be under no UI constraint.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2017-December-10, 14:31, said:

When you comply with the rules, however, partner seems to be under no UI constraint.

If by "comply with the rules" you mean "don't break tempo, then of course. If you mean "call the director when you broke tempo", then nonsense.

Also, note that there's nothing in the rules that says you should call the director for your own BIT.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2017-December-10, 17:28, said:

If by "comply with the rules" you mean "don't break tempo, then of course. If you mean "call the director when you broke tempo", then nonsense.
Also, note that there's nothing in the rules that says you should call the director for your own BIT.

I meant "comply with Bridge laws and regulations, in particular the stop card regulation that mandates a pause for about 10 seconds, even if that isn't your normal tempo".
When you break that stop-card regulation, then partner must be careful not to take advantage of resulting UI, and a director might penalise you for your infraction.
When you comply with that regulation, however, you don't create UI. (That is the point of the regulation).
IMO, it would be ridiculous if other rules could force you to break this stop-card regulation.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-December-10, 08:45, said:

I agree.

It is unfortunate that a lot of people routinely do not comply with the regulation, I would position the Stop card so as to block access to LHO's bidding box if it weren't for the fact that it would offend people who obey the regulation.

Soon that won't even be an option in ACBL territory. We've had so much trouble getting people to use Stop cards properly, ACBL is throwing in the towel and getting rid of them entirely.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-December-10, 21:56, said:

Soon that won't even be an option in ACBL territory. We've had so much trouble getting people to use Stop cards properly, ACBL is throwing in the towel and getting rid of them entirely.

Was it in this thread that Nigel mentioned the tail wagging the regulatory dog in the ACBL? Surely there was another way. When people don't properly use the verbal warning, will that be scrapped as well? Will people simply have to put on their CCs that they pause in Stop-card situations if that is what they wish to do? And what will happen if such people forget due to the absence of the Stop card being displayed?

[VixTD]

nige1, on 2017-December-10, 14:31, said:

It's no surprise that top directors disagree.

Which top director do you think Gordon is disagreeing with, Nigel?

[Zelandakh]

VixTD, on 2017-December-11, 07:42, said:

Which top director do you think Gordon is disagreeing with, Nigel?

I am fairly sure Nigel is referring to pran. Has another "top director" weighed in on this thread?

[gordontd]

Zelandakh, on 2017-December-11, 08:29, said:

I am fairly sure Nigel is referring to pran. Has another "top director" weighed in on this thread?

I'm not sure if Pran & I are even completely in disagreement, but I don't suppose that would stop Nigel from getting on one of his hobby horses at the slightest opportunity.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2017-December-10, 23:25, said:

Was it in this thread that Nigel mentioned the tail wagging the regulatory dog in the ACBL? Surely there was another way. When people don't properly use the verbal warning, will that be scrapped as well? Will people simply have to put on their CCs that they pause in Stop-card situations if that is what they wish to do? And what will happen if such people forget due to the absence of the Stop card being displayed?

The new regulation specifies that there will be no warning at all. A skip-bidder's LHO is nonetheless required in theory to pause for about ten seconds before making a call. It doesn't happen now, and it won't happen next month or thereafter. And nothing will be done about such BITs. That won't be anything new, of course.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2017-December-11, 17:35, said:

The new regulation specifies that there will be no warning at all. A skip-bidder's LHO is nonetheless required in theory to pause for about ten seconds before making a call. It doesn't happen now, and it won't happen next month or thereafter. And nothing will be done about such BITs. That won't be anything new, of course.

LHO has far more important matters to consider than maintaining a pause.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-December-11, 17:35, said:

The new regulation specifies that there will be no warning at all. A skip-bidder's LHO is nonetheless required in theory to pause for about ten seconds before making a call. It doesn't happen now, and it won't happen next month or thereafter. And nothing will be done about such BITs. That won't be anything new, of course.

In my experience there are two classes of players:

1. Players who hesitate, as required, regardless of whether the STOP card was used.
2. Players who don't hesitate, even when the STOP card is used (unless, of course, they have something to think about).

So the STOP card was ineffective in getting people to hesitate. The problem ACBL is reacting to is players using the STOP card for the wrong reasons: to alert partner (rather than LHO) and to distinguish between different meanings of jump bids (the bid is weak when they use the STOP card, strong when they don't, or vice versa).

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2017-December-11, 22:46, said:

In my experience there are two classes of players:

1. Players who hesitate, as required, regardless of whether the STOP card was used.
2. Players who don't hesitate, even when the STOP card is used (unless, of course, they have something to think about).

You do not over there have:
3. Players who stare at the Stop card looking slightly annoyed and highly bored with their hand holding (or hovering over) the Pass card in the box until the Stop card is removed?

[WellSpyder]

Zelandakh, on 2017-December-12, 00:23, said:

You do not over there have:
3. Players who stare at the Stop card looking slightly annoyed and highly bored with their hand holding (or hovering over) the Pass card in the box until the Stop card is removed?

Or:
4 Players who wait until the stop card is removed, then ask about the meaning of the bid and start thinking?

[Vampyr]

WellSpyder, on 2017-December-12, 05:13, said:

Or:
4 Players who wait until the stop card is removed, then ask about the meaning of the bid and start thinking?

That cracks me up.

[VixTD]

Zelandakh, on 2017-December-11, 08:29, said:

I am fairly sure Nigel is referring to pran. Has another "top director" weighed in on this thread?

That's OK then. Disagreement with Pran is more the norm than an exception, nothing to worry about.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2017-December-12, 00:23, said:

You do not over there have:
3. Players who stare at the Stop card looking slightly annoyed and highly bored with their hand holding (or hovering over) the Pass card in the box until the Stop card is removed?

WellSpyder, on 2017-December-12, 05:13, said:

Or:
4 Players who wait until the stop card is removed, then ask about the meaning of the bid and start thinking?

The Stop card is normally removed immediately, so neither of these apply.

Once in a while I've seen someone start going for the box, then notice that there was a skip bid (or maybe the skip bidder does something to remind them), and put on the brakes. Again, missing the point.

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-December-12, 08:33, said:

The Stop card is normally removed immediately, so neither of these apply.

Depends on the jurisdiction.
In Norway the STOP period begins when STOP is faced and ends when it is removed.
However, LHO is always entitled to a 10 seconds pause even if the STOP card is removed earlier (or not used although required).

Just showing the STOP card and then immediately removing it is a violation of our regulations.

[nige1]

pran, on 2017-December-12, 08:40, said:

Depends on the jurisdiction.
In Norway the STOP period begins when STOP is faced and ends when it is removed.
However, LHO is always entitled to a 10 seconds pause even if the STOP card is removed earlier (or not used although required).
Just showing the STOP card and then immediately removing it is a violation of our regulations.

I like Norwegian Stop-card regulations.

Especially the idea of deploying the Stop-card in a variety of tempo-sensitive contexts.

I agree with Vampyr that the rules should stipulate that you place your Stop-card on LHO's bidding cards, and remove it after about 10 seconds. A "timer" would be better. Best of all would be a "chess-clock" built into a bridge-mate or tablet.

I guess the ACBL has put the kibosh on any sensible universal protocol

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-December-12, 08:40, said:

Depends on the jurisdiction.

I know. But I thought we were talking about why ACBL is getting rid of the Stop card, so only the common practice here was relevant to my post.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2017-December-11, 20:55, said:

LHO has far more important matters to consider than maintaining a pause.

Maybe so, but so what? He still has to follow the regulation. In theory, anyway.