[inquiry]

Here are the facts, no arguement about any of them (but minor time issue). ACBL knockout tournament.


West opened not vul 2♠ "weak" 1st seat, NS-Vul, EW not vul. East West did not use stop card or announce skip bid.


North bid 4♥ (vul) with no hesitation at all, lets say a second and no more than 2 seconds after 2♠ hit the table. There was no skip bid warning or stop card used here either,


East paused or hesitated then passed. According to East, he paused for 7 second, according to north he hesitated for 12 to 15 seconds, according to South somewhere in the middle of 7 and 15 seconds, and according to West a normal pause tempo.
South passed, East West bid 4 ♠.

North called the director, these quoted facts were agreed too, other than the legnth of East pause. The times quoted by the players (7 seconds and normal pause) by the 4♠ bidders and somewhere berween the reported 12 to 15 second hesitation by North and somewhere between the reported values of 7 and 12 to 15 by south.

The director ruled play on. North passed, East passed, South doubled which became the final contract.
was called, these facts


West had opened 2♠ with an atypical hand perhaps, 7S, 3C. 1H, 2D and held:

KT9xxxx
x
xx
AQx

and felt that all he need was six tricks for a good "save" (although this was imps).

East held:

Qx
K9xx
xxx
Kxxx

and said he "counted to seven slowly in his head and passed" as he hoped he had at least two tricks with his kings, and his partner for his weak two might contribute two with something like the spade king and minor suit ace. The thought of bidding 4♠ never entered his mind in an "eight card fit".

The defense started diamond ace, swithced to a club won in declarer's hand. Low spade to Queen ACE, club back, dummy winning as North discarded a heart. This marked the spade jack with south, which was picked up. Clubs did not split, so EW took nine tricks (6 spades, 3 clubs).

The director was called back by north who protested the result (five hearts was making, losing a club and a heart). The director took the board, came back in a few minutes and ruled 4H NS making five. She further made these two comments:
1) West had "shot his wad" when he decided to open 2♠ instead of 3♠ or 4♠ or 1♠ and could not preempt and then bid again uninvited
2) and that East, by pausing (her word) over 4♥ further barred west for considering the vulnerabilty or the offshape of his first bid anyway, thus barring a further bid.

EW lost the match by 1 imp, this board, if playing 4♠x -1 would mean a 12 imp I think (or whatever it turned out to be). So EW's team captain appealed the ruling.

Without going into the appeal process. What are the issues, and how would you rule on the appeal? Not that it matters, but I held the hand with Qx of spades and counted to seven, even if I took a few seconds before I counted, it was certainly not longer than 10 seconds, but go ahead and use what ever time frame you like from the quoted facts in deciding your ruling. For those who have played against me live or online, you know I pause over all jump bids, no matter what I hold -- but that should be a non-issue in your decision. Go on the law and if necessary, any comments about the two numerated statements by the director at the table (those parts in quotes she said just that way).


[edited to fix the confusion over who bid what, and to make it complete, i have included the auction below]

---

d

This post has been edited by bluejak: 2011-March-17, 07:15
Reason for edit: Switching 'East' and 'West' in description of hands

[Vampyr]

A little confused about the bidding sequence, but...

What is the ACBL Stop Card regulation? If it is a sensible regulation, then if the jump bidders choose not to hold the Stop Card for the required amount of time they are out of luck. It's for their own protection, after all.

As for West's bidding; did West bid 4♠ and not East? If so, West does not seem to be in receipt of UI and can do what she chooses.

[matmat]

inquiry, on 2011-March-16, 22:16, said:

East paused or hesitated then passed. Accoring to East, he paused for 7 second, according to north he hesitated for 12 to 15 seconds, according to South somewhere in the middle of 7 and 15 seconds, and according to West a normal pause tempo.
South passed, West bid 4 ♠.

I assume you meant west.

My understanding is that N is supposed to wait a few seconds before taking a call to avoid precisely this sort of situation. As it is a wily West might have defended their action something along the lines of: "the speed and certainty with which N bid 4♥ led me to believe they were sure of making it, so I felt 4♠ would likely be a good sacrifice, and if not, unlikely to cost more than their vul game."

[wank]

basically you were legally on firm ground, but seem to have been somewhat screwed by what i gather to be an american penchant for ignoring the stop mechanism. even the director seems to have ruled on the basis that it doesn't exist.

[nigel_k]

You seem to have started with West as the 2♠ bidder and switched to East as the 2♠ bidder halfway through the description. But I think the meaning is clear.

If I understand the skip bid regulation correctly, East is entitled, or maybe even required, to wait for 10 seconds before bidding or passing. And East is protected against being held to have transmitted UI when he does so. There is some suggestion that East may have taken slightly longer than 10 seconds, but it is doubtful and North isn't getting the benefit of the doubt after they failed to make a skip bid warning or use the stop card. So there is effectively no UI and West can bid what he likes. The fact that West's actions are terrible bridge is not subject to penalty.

West failed to follow the skip bid procedure but that doesn't affect North's actions and so is not relevant to what happened after. There could be procedural penalties but they would cancel out as both North and West infringed.

[bluejak]

East's actions did not constitute a BIT in my view, so West was free to make any call he liked.

We know what has happened here: players who regularly ignore the skip bid regulations claim a BIT when there is a pause of normal length. In one way it is a BIT, but it is their own fault.

Stef: the ACBL skip bid regulations have been interpreted despite their wording to make use of a Stop card optional, and it is getting rarer. They could not get North American players to follow the original regulation mandating use of the Stop card [note, please, Nigel, with your suggestion that it is easy to bring in new regulations that players do not like in a thread in Changing Laws & Regulations] so the ACBL backed off and claimed the wording made it optional. Yeah, right.

One effect of not using the Stop card is that the pause after a skip bid is also getting shorter and rarer, thus ten second pauses are beginning to look like BITs.

Have I any worries with this ruling? Only if East normally does not pause over a skip bid then his pause ion this occasion was a BIT and transmitted UI. Not easy to demonstrate, and very much the fault of the ACBL attitude to this regulation and its policing.

inquiry, on 2011-March-16, 22:16, said:

She further made these two comments:
1) West had "shot his wad" when he decided to open 2♠ instead of 3♠ or 4♠ or 1♠ and could not preempt and then bid again uninvited

[skip]

For those who have played against me live or online, you know I pause over all jump bids, no matter what I hold -- but that should be a non-issue in your decision.

The TD has no right to teach people how to bid. Sure, I think it a poor 2♠ bid myself, but it is not a TD's job to criticise bidding. Either 4♠ is illegal because of UI or it is not.

It is not a non-issue: it matters a lot as I mentioned in the previous paragraph whether you normally follow the skip bid process or not: if you do not, a ten second pause is a BIT.

[inquiry]

The ruling went in our favor, obviously. But a couple of points interestingly were raised there that I wondered aboutl.


First, they never ruled or commented on the two complaints/comments about the table director made. Well, they did rule no BIT, so in fact that indirectly covers one, but she suggested if I paused to think at all, it barred my partner and that I SHOULD have passed quickly. Seems like someone needed to be more direct with her on that issue.


Another issue, they didn't even want to her why I passed, what I was thinking or not thinking about, or why partner bid 4♠. Ok, I understand that. But, I would think a key issue was how long the pause/hesitation was. Looking at my hand, I have likely two tricks, and if partner has as muchas singleton Ten of hearrs likely three trickis in my hand. I really, really, had no problem whatso ever on this auction over 4♥ and if it was "legal" in my mind to pass quickly I would have done so, The director was more or less chasticing mem in fact for not passing quickly. So I wonder, should I pause or not (from a legal standpoint). That question aside, it would seem the nature of my hand should SUPPORT my statement that my pause was on the order of 7 seconds. Would they take that into consideration when consideering the timing of the allege hesistation (I thought legally required pause).


A final piece that acutally surpised me was the ruling went in our favor -- in final analysis - not because of my pause, but because Nlorth didn't pause over 2S. They said I get time to think after my partners 2S bid if North bids fast. I have never heard such a thing before. Can someone expand on that in, say other situations. I hear preempt jump raise by partner, next hand bids instantly and I consider my options for awhile and then fell forced to bid because otherwise it is a bit. Would this apply in those situations.

[blackshoe]

The skip bid procedure (announcing "skip bid" or putting out the stop card) is optional, so neither West nor North has committed an infraction in not using it. What is required, however, is that the LHO of the skip bidder pause for "approximately ten seconds" before calling after the skip bid, so North has committed the infraction of failing to pause the required ten seconds.

The law speaks of "undue" hesitation or speed. Given the skip bid requirement, and on the preponderance of evidence in this case, I would rule on the subject of the timing that there was no undue hesitation by East; there was undue speed by North (although it should not affect the ruling in the end). While I agree with David that if there is evidence that East normally ignores the requirement to pause, then his pause here is an undue hesitation, I see no such evidence in this case.

No undue hesitation by East means West has no UI and can make whatever calls he likes. The TD, as has been pointed out, has no business trying to teach West how to bid. Result stands.

[axman]

inquiry, on 2011-March-17, 07:39, said:

The ruling went in our favor, obviously. But a couple of points interestingly were raised there that I wondered aboutl.


First, they never ruled or commented on the two complaints/comments about the table director made. Well, they did rule no BIT, so in fact that indirectly covers one, but she suggested if I paused to think at all, it barred my partner and that I SHOULD have passed quickly. Seems like someone needed to be more direct with her on that issue.


Another issue, they didn't even want to her why I passed, what I was thinking or not thinking about, or why partner bid 4♠. Ok, I understand that. But, I would think a key issue was how long the pause/hesitation was. Looking at my hand, I have likely two tricks, and if partner has as muchas singleton Ten of hearrs likely three trickis in my hand. I really, really, had no problem whatso ever on this auction over 4♥ and if it was "legal" in my mind to pass quickly I would have done so, The director was more or less chasticing mem in fact for not passing quickly. So I wonder, should I pause or not (from a legal standpoint). That question aside, it would seem the nature of my hand should SUPPORT my statement that my pause was on the order of 7 seconds. Would they take that into consideration when consideering the timing of the allege hesistation (I thought legally required pause).


A final piece that acutally surpised me was the ruling went in our favor -- in final analysis - not because of my pause, but because Nlorth didn't pause over 2S. They said I get time to think after my partners 2S bid if North bids fast. I have never heard such a thing before. Can someone expand on that in, say other situations. I hear preempt jump raise by partner, next hand bids instantly and I consider my options for awhile and then fell forced to bid because otherwise it is a bit. Would this apply in those situations.

In an auction such as 1D-2H-P-P where third hand was hasty and fourth hand takes upward of 15 seconds, when third hand then turns around to accuse fourth hand of UI he has used the TD and the threat of accusation to intimidate. I would tend to construe such an occurrence* on its face as perpetrated by intention rather than by happenstance, and thus a severe breach of propriety. It therefore justifies a stiff reduction in score for distraction, intimidation, and improper delay of game plus sufficient education so that he will know to be careful in the future.

* The skip bid pause is to provide a reasonable amount of time for all players to adjust so as to not be tempo sensitive. It is wrong that one player can feel that he can put his opponent under the threat of L16 by depriving him of that opportunity for non tempo sensitive time for reassessment .

[mrdct]

inquiry, on 2011-March-16, 22:16, said:

West had "shot his wad"

Does that have the same meaning in ACBL-land as the rest of the English-speaking world?

[blackshoe]

It has two meanings, actually. In the older historical one, the "wad" referenced was a wad of cotton cloth pushed down the barrel of a muzzle loading gun to hold the powder in place. The bullet then went in on top of that, but without a bullet, well, you get the idea. There is a newer sense in which the "wad" refers to something else, and yes, that usage is common in North America. More common than the historical one, now, I suspect.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-March-17, 07:55, said:

The skip bid procedure (announcing "skip bid" or putting out the stop card) is optional, so neither West nor North has committed an infraction in not using it. What is required, however, is that the LHO of the skip bidder pause for "approximately ten seconds" before calling after the skip bid, so North has committed the infraction of failing to pause the required ten seconds.

We have a similar regulation in England:

If the Stop card
has been removed prematurely or has not been used, an opponent should
nevertheless pause as though the Stop card had been used correctly.

I think that this is really unfortunate. The person who is supposed to be thinking about his bid should not be the one to also measure the length of his pause.

So I try, but it is no use, because nearly everyone bids before I have removed the Stop Card. I am lucky if they wait about 3 or 4 seconds. I am sometimes tempted to hold the card so as to block access to LHO's bidding box, but this would be very insulting to the players who do refrain from calling until the card is put away.

[gnasher]

In English English, one would say he had "shot his bolt", referring (I assume) to that very un-English weapon, the crossbow - once you've fired your bolt, that's it, because it takes so long to reload.

I thought "shot his wad" related to losing one's money at craps.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2011-March-18, 07:41, said:

In English English, one would say he had "shot his bolt", referring (I assume) to that very un-English weapon, the crossbow - once you've fired your bolt, that's it, because it takes so long to reload.

I thought "shot his wad" related to losing one's money at craps.

Hm. I'd not thought of the relationship to craps, but you have a point. And the crossbow thing makes sense, too. Interesting phrase, isn't it?

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-18, 07:40, said:

We have a similar regulation in England:

If the Stop card
has been removed prematurely or has not been used, an opponent should
nevertheless pause as though the Stop card had been used correctly.

I think that this is really unfortunate. The person who is supposed to be thinking about his bid should not be the one to also measure the length of his pause.

So I try, but it is no use, because nearly everyone bids before I have removed the Stop Card. I am lucky if they wait about 3 or 4 seconds. I am sometimes tempted to hold the card so as to block access to LHO's bidding box, but this would be very insulting to the players who do refrain from calling until the card is put away.

I think that if a player ignores the stop card, you should invoke Law 16B2 and establish that a BIT has occurred which may convey UI. Your opponents won't like it, but that's just too bad, IMO. And maybe they'll eventually learn.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-18, 07:40, said:

We have a similar regulation in England:

If the Stop card
has been removed prematurely or has not been used, an opponent should
nevertheless pause as though the Stop card had been used correctly.

I think that this is really unfortunate. The person who is supposed to be thinking about his bid should not be the one to also measure the length of his pause.

So I try, but it is no use, because nearly everyone bids before I have removed the Stop Card. I am lucky if they wait about 3 or 4 seconds. I am sometimes tempted to hold the card so as to block access to LHO's bidding box, but this would be very insulting to the players who do refrain from calling until the card is put away.

The Norwegian regulation says that if the Stop card has been removed prematurely then the next opponent is still entitled to his full ten seconds but that it is not an error to call earlier.

As you suggest the entire responsibility for measuring out the delay lies upon the player causing a Stop pause.

(And a player calling while Stop is in effect is indeed committing BIT.)

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2011-March-18, 23:43, said:

The Norwegian regulation says that if the Stop card has been removed prematurely then the next opponent is still entitled to his full ten seconds but that it is not an error to call earlier.

Good regulation.

Quote

As you suggest the entire responsibility for measuring out the delay lies upon the player causing a Stop pause.

Yes. The next player is supposed to be thinking about his call.

Quote

(And a player calling while Stop is in effect is indeed committing BIT.)

Well, yes, but it happens so frequently that I think there is little option to call the director every time. Maybe I will just say, "Sorry, meant the Stop Card to be clearly visible. Would you see it better if I slapped you with it?"

[blackshoe]

If you call the TD, he may not help things. If you don't call the TD, it's guaranteed he won't help things.

[nige1]

inquiry, on 2011-March-16, 22:16, said:

West had "shot his wad"

If the director got this fact right, I'm not surprised she ruled against him. With everyone spurning stop recommendations, however, West is in receipt of no UI, so is free to bid as badly as he he likes.

bluejak, on 2011-March-17, 07:11, said:

...the ACBL ...could not get North American players to follow the original regulation mandating use of the Stop card [note, please, Nigel, with your suggestion that it is easy to bring in new regulations that players do not like in a thread in Changing Laws & Regulations] so the ACBL backed off and claimed the wording made it optional. Yeah, right.

If there were manifestly sensible WBF laws about bidding boxes, alerting,and so on, it would be harder for local regulators to replace them with daft variants. I accept that the ACBL may an exception, however, as it often seems to exert a pernicious influence. For example, by insisting on maintaining the law that encourages defenders to signal their distribution by word of mouth ("having none partner").

Vampyr, on 2011-March-18, 07:40, said:

We have a similar regulation in England: If the Stop card has been removed prematurely or has not been used, an opponent should nevertheless pause as though the Stop card had been used correctlyI think that this is really unfortunate. The person who is supposed to be thinking about his bid should not be the one to also measure the length of his pause. So I try, but it is no use, because nearly everyone bids before I have removed the Stop Card. I am lucky if they wait about 3 or 4 seconds. I am sometimes tempted to hold the card so as to block access to LHO's bidding box, but this would be very insulting to the players who do refrain from calling until the card is put away.

When my RHO does not use the stop card or takes it away before ten seconds is up, my partner often protects me by displaying his own stop card for the appropriate time. I like Vampyr's implication that you could place your stop card over LHO's exposed bidding cards to inhibit a premature call.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2011-March-19, 19:00, said:

For example, by insisting on maintaining the law that encourages defenders to signal their distribution by word of mouth ("having none partner").

What I don't understand is why the ACBL apparently needed to replace the previous version, which permitted SAs to reject this practice. I always thought that the EBU could get around the lack of a prescribed penalty by simply making the question (or equivalent mannerisms) subject to a mandatory PP.

Quote

When my RHO does not use the stop card or takes it away before ten seconds is up, my partner often protects me by displaying his own stop card for the appropriate time. I like Vampyr's implication that you could place your stop card over LHO's exposed bidding cards to inhibit a premature call.

Of course, he may not have bid. Jump bids are often openers, so I have envisioned holding the card over their box. I like the partner thing.

Perhaps a moderator could move all these posts about Stop Card regulations, as the original case doesn't really enter into them anymore.

By the way, 10 seconds is a lot longer than you think. If you sing "When I'm 64" to yourself, you will finish singing the word "Valentine" at almost precisely 10 seconds. Try it.