[carena_sez]

You are West and dealer, game all (and playing against VERY experienced opponents).

W     N      E     S

♠---                 ♠AK72
♥JT85432        ♥AQ7
♦T42               ♦Q98
♣KQ7              ♣632

(West and SOUTH hands shown above.)

You're not proud of your bid, but decide hands of this shape need to be opened! 2♥ seems enough, but you hear later others chose 3♥. Horrid, but by-the-by!

North passed prematurely prior to the STOP card being removed, and everyone passes.

Dummy is

♠QJT864
♥6
♦ KJ
♣T95

and as you can imagine 2♥ is not a great success. Opps can make 11 tricks in NT, and so you score 80% on the board as most of the room is in 3N.

Most South's bid 2N in protect seat after 2♥ was opened (or 3N over 3♥ openers).

You suspect South's pass in the protect seat was "influenced" (informed?) North's premature pass (even tho North held 12 hcp on this occasion).

Do you just smile and accept a good board, and move on, or do you raise questions about South's pass?

(Remember your opps are very experienced, not LOLs*, and South is renowned for aggressive bidding!)

And if you were director and called to the table, what would you do/say?



* LOLs = little ole ladies!

[CamHenry]

Let's see.

North passed prematurely: this gives UI to South that North has a rubbish hand. This demonstrably suggests passing, which South did: the fact that the rest of the room sees fit to balance with the South hand implies that there are LAs other than pass. South has, consciously or not, taken "advantage" of the UI.

On the other hand, NS did not get a good result, and are unlikely to have done worse than they did if S had balanced. I'm not adjusting, but as a director I will have a quiet word with NS. If this isn't the first time, I'm taking some matchpoints away (PP).

As W, if S is known to be aggressive and passes this hand, I'm going to call the director. I'll have to be tactful about it, because it's close to saying "you cheated your way to this 20% board", but I believe I should call.

[ahydra]

CamHenry, on Sep 2 2010, 04:32 AM, said:

Let's see.

North passed prematurely: this gives UI to South that North has a rubbish hand. This demonstrably suggests passing, which South did: the fact that the rest of the room sees fit to balance with the South hand implies that there are LAs other than pass. South has, consciously or not, taken "advantage" of the UI.

On the other hand, NS did not get a good result, and are unlikely to have done worse than they did if S had balanced. I'm not adjusting, but as a director I will have a quiet word with NS. If this isn't the first time, I'm taking some matchpoints away (PP).

As W, if S is known to be aggressive and passes this hand, I'm going to call the director. I'll have to be tactful about it, because it's close to saying "you cheated your way to this 20% board", but I believe I should call.

I imagine you put in the "consciously or not" bit to stop me ranting again?

Anyway, I agree with the first bit - North should pass in tempo here as that's what the rules on STOP cards say, so NS have only themselves (or just North?) to blame. But I'm not sure on the 2nd bit, as South might have just decided to calm down a bit after a bad result or something [or try playing "away from the field" to get a good result that way]. It is, after all a borderline 2NT bid with 4333 and minimum 15 with no tens.

However if he had an extra queen and still passed then we can definitely consider whether something more suspicious may be going on.

ahydra

[bluejak]

Just because it is slightly different from normal UI situations is no need to treat it any different.

Was there UI? Yes, quick pass.

Were there an LA to South's pass? Yes, bidding 2NT. I have just lost a k/o match, partly because I did not protect on a similar hand after a 3-level pre-empt - and the player in the other room did.

Does the UI suggest the chosen action over the LA? Yes, certainly.

Was there damage because of the choice. No, so no adjustment. But I would explain the steps in my reasoning to South, and make it clear that if there had been damage I would have adjusted.

As to the embarrassment over calling the TD, it is just the same as calling the TD for a hesitation. No suggestion of cheating, just of the possibility of the UI rules being broken. It is not unreasonable to call the TD for a breach of the rules even if you cannot see damage: perhaps the TD will look at it differently, perhaps he will feel the necessity for a PP. Leave that to him.

Quote

I'll have to be tactful about it, because it's close to saying "you cheated your way to this 20% board", but I believe I should call.

No, it isn't, no more than calling for a hesitation. You called the TD for a breach of rules which did occur. In fact a hesitation is not a breach of rules, but a quick pass over a Stop bid is, so it should be easier than calling for a hesitation.

[aguahombre]

Welcome to the BBO fora. May I assume this is an EBU question? Some jursdictions don't treat the STOP card with much import.

[bluejak]

Where there is a regulation covering the use of a Stop card, and the regulation is broken, then the TD will treat it with this import, whether it is EBU or somewhere else. Not playing to the rules is not acceptable outside England as well as inside.

[mgoetze]

bluejak, on Sep 2 2010, 04:46 PM, said:

Where there is a regulation covering the use of a Stop card, and the regulation is broken, then the TD will treat it with this import, whether it is EBU or somewhere else. Not playing to the rules is not acceptable outside England as well as inside.

Apparently PeterE would disagree for Germany, or at least that is the impression I got from a recent mailing list exchange. (My RHO instabid after partner's skip bid + stop card, but then my taking 10s to find a bid still places partner under all sorts of UI restrictions, he said...)

[PeterE]

I do not disagree for Germany.
If (stopper's) LHO refuses to stop (when stopping is mandatory) and bids prematurely, this gives UI to (stopper's) RHO.

What the discussion in Germany was about (and mgoetze is referring to), was whether stopper's partner has the right to (at least) the same 10 seconds for thinking after partner's STOP. And my opinion is, that he has no such right.

[RMB1]

In England (EBU) the stopper's partner is expected to complete the 10 second wait if stopper's LHO takes less than the 10 seconds; but there is no UI from stopper's partner calling sooner.

[axman]

PeterE, on Sep 2 2010, 11:46 AM, said:

I do not disagree for Germany.
If (stopper's) LHO refuses to stop (when stopping is mandatory) and bids prematurely, this gives UI to (stopper's) RHO.

What the discussion in Germany was about (and mgoetze is referring to), was whether stopper's partner has the right to (at least) the same 10 seconds for thinking after partner's STOP. And my opinion is, that he has no such right.

The proper course of action is to call the TD immediately upon the speed bid and inform him that the player infracted such and such regulation and by doing so has created an improper distraction and improper irritation in contravention of L74. This breach of regulation warrants a multiple pip PP.

Further, as the player has deliberately communicated to partner other than by call or play it is proper to draw attention to the breach of L73B1.

[Pict]

RMB1, on Sep 2 2010, 01:00 PM, said:

In England (EBU) the stopper's partner is expected to complete the 10 second wait if stopper's LHO takes less than the 10 seconds; but there is no UI from stopper's partner calling sooner.

Interesting and different from the German position.

You say 'expected' RMB

Why is it expected? The German interpretation seems more logical.

I don't mention the USA, because they say (as I happen to agree should be the rule) that the stop card is an optional decoration.

[bluejak]

What axman means is one of two things:

• The proper course of action in the ACBL is to call the TD immediately upon the speed bid .....
  
  
• The proper course of action ought to be even though it is not is to call the TD immediately upon the speed bid .....

It is completely and hopelessly impractical for players to call the TD whenever there is a BIT, and would make a mockery of the game in practice, whatever the theoretical advantages are. Nevertheless, the ACBL has said that that is the correct approach, even though this is widely ignored at all levels in the ACBL.

It could be that axman personally considers it a good idea, but I strongly advise him to reconsider such an impractical approach.

To quote from a Changing Laws & Regulations thread:

PeterE, on Aug 29 2010, 08:21 AM, said:

No, for (at least) two reasons:

1. If you call a TD every time there is a pause you'll need 1 TD for every 3 tables - maybe more

2. If there's agreement about the pause the TD can do nothing more than establish this agreed pause - perhaps advise partners of pausers not to use UI - and leave the table - hoping never to be called back again 

It was a deliberate decision of the WBFLC to introduce the sentence "he should summon the TD when play ends" to show what they thought to be the right moment.

[RMB1]

Pict, on Sep 2 2010, 08:32 PM, said:

You say 'expected' RMB

Why is it expected?  The German interpretation seems more logical.

I can not find this expectation in the EBU regulations. (I looked before the previous post and I looked again before this post. )

The White Book describes the "mandated ten seconds" as "free thinking time". The view is that partner of the jump bidder is entitled to ten seconds thinking time (usually the time while next to call is pausing) without generating unauthorised information. If next to call does not pause, partner is still entitled to the thinking time.

The recommended procedure is that the jump bidder keeps the stop card out for the "ten seconds" even if the next player calls during that time. If the next player calls while the stop card is displayed, partner waits for the stop card to be removed before calling.

PeterE: What is the German regulation about picking up the stop card if the next player calls before the stop card is picked up?

[axman]

bluejak, on Sep 2 2010, 02:33 PM, said:

What axman means is one of two things:

• The proper course of action in the ACBL is to call the TD immediately upon the speed bid .....
  
  
• The proper course of action ought to be even though it is not is to call the TD immediately upon the speed bid .....

It is completely and hopelessly impractical for players to call the TD whenever there is a BIT, and would make a mockery of the game in practice, whatever the theoretical advantages are. Nevertheless, the ACBL has said that that is the correct approach, even though this is widely ignored at all levels in the ACBL.

It could be that axman personally considers it a good idea, but I strongly advise him to reconsider such an impractical approach.

To quote from a Changing Laws & Regulations thread:

PeterE, on Aug 29 2010, 08:21 AM, said:

No, for (at least) two reasons:

1. If you call a TD every time there is a pause you'll need 1 TD for every 3 tables - maybe more

2. If there's agreement about the pause the TD can do nothing more than establish this agreed pause - perhaps advise partners of pausers not to use UI - and leave the table - hoping never to be called back again 

It was a deliberate decision of the WBFLC to introduce the sentence "he should summon the TD when play ends" to show what they thought to be the right moment.

If you will recall, it was stated that the policy in Germany is that if the previous call is not a skip then it is necessary for the next player to act in his consistent tempo to avoid an accusation of varying his tempo.

It therefore follows that in order to protect ones’ side after a speed bid immediately after a skip bid the TD needs to be called to issue a PP. And is it not curious that this process will take upwards of two minutes?

In so much as there is substantial empirical data supporting the notion that pausing [at least] 10 sec after each skip bid can eliminate UI problems if the players are so disposed that does not mean that it is a good idea to allow, let alone demand, that players behave like dictators- ordering opponents around. As a matter of fact, skip bid commands [SBC] are something that players get wrong incessantly [read: frequent TD calls]- there are over 3000 ways to wave the stop card around and a great many ways to react to it. Which is all neither here nor there since SBCs are illegal which makes the SBC regulation illegal- it being in conflict with L74 and L73B1&2.

The two points I actually was making was [a] if the illegal regulation was taken to its conclusion it would be demonstrated to be the ludicrous abomination that it is and [b] if players have the expectation of being treated with respect [read: treated as players rather than infants] they will respond to a regulation in the spirit that it was made: such as pause** 10 sec after every skip bid so that everyone can have a chance to catch up without creating UI.

**=that is, without prompting

[bluejak]

It is not illegal: please do not try to put that sort of silly suggestion here.

It is a fact that if people play this game [or any other] in a ludicrous way and try to make the game unplayable they will probably succeed. That is no reason to not have reasonable rules.

[blackshoe]

Scoring: MP

Your East hand had only 12 cards, so I moved a spade from North to East. Feel free to correct me. :-)

2♥-(P)-P-(P)

---

Axman: The question whether any particular regulation is illegal, or law should be changed, is better discussed in Changing Laws and Regulations.

Pict: "[In the ACBL] the stop card is an optional decoration". You have a point, but in fact the regulation requires a ten second pause by the skip bidder's LHO whether or not the stop card is used.

Axman again: I disagree with regard to what is proper procedure (see below), and I think invoking the proprieties at this point is a bit over the top.

Law 16B2 said:

When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the director later. The opponents should summon the director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed.

It would seem that proper procedure when the fast pass occurs is to announce that one reserves his right. Many players (including me) feel that's a bit much, and would prefer to ask opponents if they agree there was a BIT. Either way, they should call the TD if they disagree there was a BIT (or whatever action may have transmitted UI). IME, if they disagree, they often do not call the TD, even if prompted to do so. In such cases, I would call the TD myself. If they agree, there is no need for the TD.

If the TD is called at the time of the BIT, he should determine, on the available evidence, whether there was one, and if so inform South of his obligations.

Law 16B3 said:

When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the director when play ends. The director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.

So, at the end of play, if EW feel they were damaged, they should call the TD. In this particular case, there would seem to have been no damage, so the table result would stand.

To answer the question posed in the OP, in a club game I would simply accept the good result and move on. In a tournament, particularly if it were of some importance, I would follow the laws.

In the ACBL, if the stop card was not used, or was picked up early, this does not affect the ruling, since the skipper's LHO is still required to pause for ten seconds. I'll leave it to others to discuss the situation in their jurisdictions.

[PeterE]

RMB1, on Sep 2 2010, 02:52 PM, said:

PeterE: What is the German regulation about picking up the stop card if the next player calls before the stop card is picked up?

The regulation is quiet about that.
It says a player, who wants to open the bidding on the 2- or higher lever or who wants to make a jumpbid, has to say "Stopp" (or put out the stop card). Next player may only call after stopper says "Go" (or removes the stop card) after appr. 10 seconds (no more word about stopper).
There is no mention of "free thinking time" and all the regulation deals with are stopper's LHO's rights and duties.

[mgoetze]

PeterE, on Sep 3 2010, 08:15 AM, said:

The regulation is quiet about that.
It says a player, who wants to open the bidding on the 2- or higher lever or who wants to make a jumpbid, has to say "Stopp" (or put out the stop card). Next player may only call after stopper says "Go" (or removes the stop card) after appr. 10 seconds (no more word about stopper).
There is no mention of "free thinking time" and all the regulation deals with are stopper's LHO's rights and duties.

Yes, and those nonoptional duties lead to the skip bidder's partner automatically gaining 10 seconds of thinking time. I still don't understand where you get the assertion that this was not "intended" by the regulation.

[nige1]

Scoring: MP


2♥-(P)*-P-(P)
* Inadequare pause.

---

South may have broken the law by taking advantage of unauthorised information.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that the director comes to that conclusion.
On this occasion, the rub of the green means that NS rather than EW suffer damage, so no need for a score adjustment.
But should the director impose a disciplinary penalty on South?
Is this the kind of situation, for which PPs and DPs were created?
Or is that kind of ruling likely to cause too much resentment among law-breakers?

[Vampyr]

I get so frustrated by people bidding before the Stop card is removed that I am considering holding the card above LHO's bidding box so that he does not have access to his cards.