[weejonnie]

The bidding goes:

1♠ - STOP 2♥ -

The partner of the person who used the STOP card, points out that this is not a skip bid and the player (who actually intended to bid STOP 3♥) now corrects his call to 3♥ as he is fully entitled to do under law 25A3 (or the added footnote to law 25 for those RAs who haven't adopted the new laws yet).

HOWEVER

LHO (Not a Secretary Bird), calls the Director at the end of the hand, and says that he would have called over 2♥, but was unwilling to call over 3♥, and that the information about the mechanical error was only provided in an unauthorised manner.

In previous cases, we have only had occasions where the auction of one side has been of significance - now we have a case where the UI has affected the other side. Your ruling is:-

a) result stands - law 25 A3 over-rules all possible outcomes (which means Law 16A1c allows the information to be authorised)
b) split ruling (offending side get their result, NOS get their result (if better), had they called over 2♥) - I think this is impossible but included for completeness.
c) weighted ruling - part of the time the mis-bid would have been spotted in time without the UI, part of the time it would not. Work out results in each case. (includes 0%,100%)
d) LHO should have made his call over the 2♥ call before it was corrected. (I think this is also impossible - but summoning a Director does not forfeit any rights before calling the Director)
e) other

A) PP to offending side
B) No PP to offending side

[barmar]

Shouldn't be a problem in ACBL soon, they're getting rid of the STOP card at the end of the year.

[weejonnie]

barmar, on 2017-August-03, 10:30, said:

Shouldn't be a problem in ACBL soon, they're getting rid of the STOP card at the end of the year.

Sort of, as I understand it (i.e. you don't have to use it, but LHO still has to pause for 10 seconds. I assume you have to say "STOP" or "Skip Bid") i.e. they aren't throwing them out of the bidding box.

Anyway - if the ACBL wants to disadvantage its players when they play under WBF or other RA rules then that is up to them.

[axman]

weejonnie, on 2017-August-03, 04:56, said:

The bidding goes:

1♠ - STOP 2♥ -

The partner of the person who used the STOP card, points out that this is not a skip bid and the player (who actually intended to bid STOP 3♥) now corrects his call to 3♥ as he is fully entitled to do under law 25A3 (or the added footnote to law 25 for those RAs who haven't adopted the new laws yet).

HOWEVER

LHO (Not a Secretary Bird), calls the Director at the end of the hand, and says that he would have called over 2♥, but was unwilling to call over 3♥, and that the information about the mechanical error was only provided in an unauthorised manner.

In previous cases, we have only had occasions where the auction of one side has been of significance - now we have a case where the UI has affected the other side. Your ruling is:-

a) result stands - law 25 A3 over-rules all possible outcomes (which means Law 16A1c allows the information to be authorised)
b) split ruling (offending side get their result, NOS get their result (if better), had they called over 2♥) - I think this is impossible but included for completeness.
c) weighted ruling - part of the time the mis-bid would have been spotted in time without the UI, part of the time it would not. Work out results in each case. (includes 0%,100%)
d) LHO should have made his call over the 2♥ call before it was corrected. (I think this is also impossible - but summoning a Director does not forfeit any rights before calling the Director)
e) other

A) PP to offending side
B) No PP to offending side

I would not term this consequence as unintended, it was known prior to adoption.

[blackshoe]

weejonnie, on 2017-August-03, 11:31, said:

Sort of, as I understand it (i.e. you don't have to use it, but LHO still has to pause for 10 seconds. I assume you have to say "STOP" or "Skip Bid") i.e. they aren't throwing them out of the bidding box.

Anyway - if the ACBL wants to disadvantage its players when they play under WBF or other RA rules then that is up to them.

Your assumption is incorrect. There is to be no skip bid warning of any kind. And they are throwing the stop cards out of the box - and recommending that clubs do the same.

One wonders what percentage of the 165 thousand or so ACBL members might be disadvantaged in this way — and how many of them are worried about it.

[blackshoe]

For starters, overcaller's partner, let's call him advancer, called attention to an irregularity, as he is entitled to do (Law 9A1). Now, the director should be summoned at once (Law 9B1{a}); failure to do so is an infraction (Introduction to the laws). No player shall take any action until the director has explained all matters in regard to rectification (Law 9B2). So all four players have broken Law 9B1{a}, and overcaller has broken Law 9B2. A PP for breaking 9B1{a} would be rare, but a PP for breaking 9B2 is appropriate "more often than not" (Introduction to the laws again). So I would start with a PP to the overcalling side. I will now pause for the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

We done? Okay, on to the next bit. Was the advancer's comment "unauthorized"? No. Law 9A1 allows it. Is overcaller entitled to change his call? He is. As weejonnie points out, Law 25A3 in the new laws says he is. Does the fact that responder, overcaller's LHO, would have bid over 2♥, but was unwilling to bid over 3♥, make any difference? No. Why should it? Final ruling: result stands.

[sanst]

blackshoe, on 2017-August-03, 14:19, said:

Your assumption is incorrect. There is to be no skip bid warning of any kind. And they are throwing the stop cards out of the box - and recommending that clubs do the same.

One wonders what percentage of the 165 thousand or so ACBL members might be disadvantaged in this way — and how many of them are worried about it.

They still are obliged "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". Is there a reason for this change or is this what a well known Dutch politician once asked "is this policy or has been thought about it"?

[blackshoe]

sanst, on 2017-August-04, 02:27, said:

They still are obliged "to wait approximately 10 seconds…

Weejonnie mentioned that in the post to which I was replying. I agree, which is why I didn't mention it.

sanst, on 2017-August-04, 02:27, said:

Is there a reason for this change…

I'm certain there is. I suspect it has a lot to do with greasing a squeaky wheel. Some people wanted the stop card gone, so they complained, frequently. They're getting their wish.

[sanst]

blackshoe, on 2017-August-04, 09:46, said:

I suspect it has a lot to do with greasing a squeaky wheel. Some people wanted the stop card gone, so they complained, frequently. They're getting their wish.

And now they or others can start complaining about those not waiting for 10 secs after a skip bid. IMNSHO, if you drop the stop rule, you should also drop the 10 secs rule and treat a complaint about a pause for thought as any other UI complaint. I'm glad the Dutch union has no plans to copy the ACBL example.

[barmar]

sanst, on 2017-August-04, 02:27, said:

They still are obliged "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". Is there a reason for this change or is this what a well known Dutch politician once asked "is this policy or has been thought about it"?

Here's the explanation from the Daily Bulletin:

Quote

The reasoning of the C and C Committee is that more
people were using the Stop card for the benefit of
their own partnerships than for that of the opponents.

Another factor is that many players – particularly
the less-experienced – don’t understand it.
The bottom line, in the committee’s thinking, is
that the pluses of using the Stop card don’t outweigh
the minuses of its abuse.

Grand Life Master Patty Tucker, who has vast
experience with new players, approves of the move.
Experienced players, she said, are expected to do the
right thing at the table and don’t need the Stop card.
For many others, it’s a mystery. “It’s very difficult for
many new players to understand, and they already
have so much to think about,” she said. “It’s just
unnecessary.”

Players have been complaining about the STOP card for years -- there's at least one letter to the editor of the Bulletin every 2-3 months about it.

[Vampyr]

So what does "doing the right thing at the table" mean? and what will the ACBL do if UI-related director calls become overwhelming. Especially to volunteer playing directors at clubs?

What I nope the EBU adopt is wider use of the Stop card -- i.e. Before bids at the three-level and higher in a competitive auction.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-August-04, 23:18, said:

So what does "doing the right thing at the table" mean? and what will the ACBL do if UI-related director calls become overwhelming. Especially to volunteer playing directors at clubs?

"the right thing" is hesitating, and making it seem like you're thinking, after a skip bid. Getting rid of the STOP card doesn't remove this requirement.

I've been playing tournament bridge in ACBL for about 25 years. I have never seen anyone call the TD because someone bid too quickly after a skip bid, even though only about 10% of players actually seem to hesitate as required (actually, I think practically no one hesitates the full 10 seconds, it's probably closer to 5). And whether players hesitate seems to have no relation to whether the STOP card is used -- players who understand the requirement hesitate, players who don't don't.

What I even sometimes see is players start to pull a Pass card from the bidding box, then notice that the STOP card was used, put the card back, hesitate a few seconds, then pull the card back out and make the bid. That obviously misses the whole point, but they have no idea about this.

I'm not sure why you think the STOP card makes a difference regarding whether there would be UI-related director calls. If someone thinks an opponent broke tempo and their partner took advantage of it, why should the STOP card make a difference? If there was a skip bid, then the time until the next bid should be longer before it's considered a hesitation. It shouldn't be treated any different from a long pause at trick 1 -- it's allowed, and not considered to pass UI.

[sanst]

barmar, on 2017-August-04, 23:45, said:

"the right thing" is hesitating, and making it seem like you're thinking, after a skip bid ... If there was a skip bid, then the time until the next bid should be longer before it's considered a hesitation. It shouldn't be treated any different from a long pause at trick 1 -- it's allowed, and not considered to pass UI.

But why would a quick call make a difference? The auction goes p-1♠-p-4NT and the opener passes without pausing. What UI could possibly be given? IMO waiting for ten seconds and pretending to think is nonsense and totally unnecessary. Thinking or not after a skip bid might or might not give UI and, if necessary, the TD should decide whether that was the case or not.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2017-August-04, 23:45, said:

What I even sometimes see is players start to pull a Pass card from the bidding box, then notice that the STOP card was used, put the card back, hesitate a few seconds, then pull the card back out and make the bid. That obviously misses the whole point, but they have no idea about this.

I've had players count to ten, in French, out loud, and then make a call after my skip bid. Calling the director after this sort of nonsense, at least at a club game (which is where I've seen it done) is useless.

sanst, on 2017-August-05, 06:22, said:

But why would a quick call make a difference? The auction goes p-1♠-p-4NT and the opener passes without pausing. What UI could possibly be given? IMO waiting for ten seconds and pretending to think is nonsense and totally unnecessary. Thinking or not after a skip bid might or might not give UI and, if necessary, the TD should decide whether that was the case or not.

Yes, there are some situations where the passing of UI after a skip bid is unlikely to say the least. There are some situations where the passing of UI could be a problem. The RAs have elected, in most cases, to require a pause regardless of which situation applies in the opinion of the player. When the regulation says "pause" it's not up to the player concerned to decide whether this is a situation where UI can't be a problem. Just pause and be done with it.

[barmar]

sanst, on 2017-August-05, 06:22, said:

But why would a quick call make a difference? The auction goes p-1♠-p-4NT and the opener passes without pausing. What UI could possibly be given? IMO waiting for ten seconds and pretending to think is nonsense and totally unnecessary. Thinking or not after a skip bid might or might not give UI and, if necessary, the TD should decide whether that was the case or not.

The point of the skip bid regulation is to require players to be consistent in their tempo after a jump. If they sometimes pass quickly, and other times hesitate, you know that the slow passes mean they had a problem. The quick pass passes the "no problem" UI just as much as the slow pass passes the "problem" UI.

[sanst]

blackshoe, on 2017-August-05, 06:51, said:

Yes, there are some situations where the passing of UI after a skip bid is unlikely to say the least. There are some situations where the passing of UI could be a problem. The RAs have elected, in most cases, to require a pause regardless of which situation applies in the opinion of the player. When the regulation says "pause" it's not up to the player concerned to decide whether this is a situation where UI can't be a problem. Just pause and be done with it.

I didn't write that the player shouldn't follow the rules, just that we could do without the rigmarole of pausing and pretending to think. A RA certainly has the right to impose that rule and it's members should adhere to it. But I really don't understand why the ACBL drops the Stop card, because players don't understand the reason for it, but still requires them to wait 10 secs before making a call. That's just as incomprehensible.

[weejonnie]

I play that a double of an immediate 4NT response to an opening major is a request for partner to lead the other major. I have to decide whether to ask for the lead.

I was also going to protect the p 1♠ - p - p auction or bid 2NT/ 3NT if 1♠ was raised to 2♠ or 3♠

(And I still don't understand how people who have played bridge for the 25 years the STOP card has been in use still don't know how to use it. How many articles explaining how to use the STOP card have there been in bridge magazines in the USA?)

(A quick pass can also tell partner of course that you hold a bare minimum (or subminimum) hand and prevents them from doubling game with 2 Aces for instance - or competing and risking going for -800)

[Vampyr]

sanst, on 2017-August-05, 11:24, said:

I didn't write that the player shouldn't follow the rules, just that we could do without the rigmarole of pausing and pretending to think. A RA certainly has the right to impose that rule and it's members should adhere to it. But I really don't understand why the ACBL drops the Stop card, because players don't understand the reason for it, but still requires them to wait 10 secs before making a call. That's just as incomprehensible.

Yes, it is crazy. What if the person is dozy and doesn't even notice that it was a jump? And how do you judge an appropriate pause if the Stop card is not displayed?

True people do bid before that Stop card is put away. But decent and aspiring players do not.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2017-August-05, 15:21, said:

And how do you judge an appropriate pause if the Stop card is not displayed?

This sounds like you're thinking in terms of EBU rules, where the skip-bidder controls the length of the pause by how long he puts the stop card out. That's not the way it works in North America, where currently it's up to the skip-bidder's LHO to pause for the appropriate time, regardless what the skip-bidder does. That will be just as true after the stop card goes away here as it is now.

[gordontd]

weejonnie, on 2017-August-05, 15:20, said:

And I still don't understand how people who have played bridge for the 25 years the STOP card has been in use still don't know how to use it.

Closer to 45 years, at least in England - the procedure at any rate pre-dates bidding boxes.