[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-May-19, 13:31, said:

That was the basis of my question. Vampyr implied that even the players who know the rule cannot be expected to pause when there's no Stop card.

Players who know the rule can be expected to protest when the Stop card is not shown, at very least to the player who committed the infraction.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2019-May-19, 14:50, said:

Players who know the rule can be expected to protest when the Stop card is not shown, at very least to the player who committed the infraction.

The Stop card is no longer used in the ACBL, so there would be no basis for that protest here.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2019-May-19, 13:31, said:

As I've mentioned in all the other threads related the Stop card, my experience is that the Stop card makes absolutely no difference.

My knowledge of this is based entirely on what I read on newsgroups and forums, but since I have noted a few who think that the stop procedure has been abandoned by the ACBL, as opposed to just the stop card itself, I find it hard to imagine that this will have made no difference in practice.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-May-20, 09:05, said:

The Stop card is no longer used in the ACBL, so there would be no basis for that protest here.

I took the post of vampyr as referring to the case where a player omits to show the Stop card in violation of regulations, but you are probably right that it refers instead to the case where the RA has abandoned the Stop card.

[captyogi]

Whatever Limited Information I had I had mentioned in the Opening Post and then Followed with Another Post.

Tournament was Selection Trial to Represent State 2 Teams , So ^ out of 7 Teams were Expert level.

When TD is Called and If the Ruling to be given is Not Straightforward Routine like Lead out of turn etc, then TD Takes Opinion of Few Knowledgeable Players and Gives the Ruling and then There is No Appeals Comm.

I am 100 % the Pairs Involved is Not Cheater.

[nielsbio]

I wonder what you meen by "TD Takes Opinion of Few Knowledgeable Players and Gives the Ruling and then There is No Appeals Comm."


Have you chosen to ignore any players right to appeal ANY ruling given by the TD?

Ie. violating Law 92A:

A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the Director

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2019-May-20, 09:15, said:

My knowledge of this is based entirely on what I read on newsgroups and forums, but since I have noted a few who think that the stop procedure has been abandoned by the ACBL, as opposed to just the stop card itself, I find it hard to imagine that this will have made no difference in practice.

Anyone who thought that was wrong. But so were all the people who either ignored or misused the Stop card in the past, which was the reason we got rid of it.

It's been almost a year and a half since we got rid of the Stop card, and I haven't seen any significant change in practice. I have many years of experience playing with and against the same players, so I think I'd be able to notice changes in habits. When we had the Stop card, most people ignored it, and they still insta-bid. There were a small fraction of players who obeyed it, and from what I can tell most of them still hesitate as required.

Don't forget that the majority of players didn't even use the Stop card when making skip bids. But the players who understood the hesitation rule knew that they should hesitate regardless of whether it was used. And those players still understand their responsibility.

[nige1]

I enjoy reading the legal threads on BridgeWinners although some of the opinions of top-players seem weird. For example...

• ACBL stop regulations are inadequate, misunderstood, unpopular, and widely ignored.
• Many regard director-calls as sharp-practice (especially for faulty claims and use of UI). Calling the TD is routinely condemned as "attempting to recover, at committee, what they lost by mistakes at the table".
• Views on UI rulings are usually split 50-50 at best, even when its profitable use seems blatant.
• Top-players defend inadequate system-card completion and alert-disclosure.
• Fellow professionals defend World-class players, who fail to report their infraction to the director, when made aware of their profitable transgression. Authorities share this expert assessment: international careers seem unaffected and victims get no redress.

[pran]

barmar, on 2019-May-21, 09:06, said:

Anyone who thought that was wrong. But so were all the people who either ignored or misused the Stop card in the past, which was the reason we got rid of it.

It's been almost a year and a half since we got rid of the Stop card, and I haven't seen any significant change in practice. I have many years of experience playing with and against the same players, so I think I'd be able to notice changes in habits. When we had the Stop card, most people ignored it, and they still insta-bid. There were a small fraction of players who obeyed it, and from what I can tell most of them still hesitate as required.

Don't forget that the majority of players didn't even use the Stop card when making skip bids. But the players who understood the hesitation rule knew that they should hesitate regardless of whether it was used. And those players still understand their responsibility.

For the record:
In Norway the STOP regulation is still in force, and
A player making a call for which STOP is required essentially waives all his rights for rectification because of BIT by his LHO if he violates this regulation.

Works fine here.

[pescetom]

nige1, on 2019-May-21, 10:48, said:

I enjoy reading the legal threads on BridgeWinners although some of the opinions of top-players seem weird. For example...

• ACBL stop regulations are inadequate, misunderstood, unpopular, and widely ignored.
• Many regard director-calls as sharp-practice (especially for faulty claims and use of UI). Calling the TD is routinely condemned as "attempting to recover, at committee, what they lost by mistakes at the table".
• Views on UI rulings are usually split 50-50 at best, even when its profitable use seems blatant.
• Top-players defend inadequate system-card completion and alert-disclosure.
• Fellow professionals defend World-class players, who fail to report their infraction to the director, when made aware of their profitable transgression. Authorities share this expert assessment: international careers seem unaffected and victims get no redress.

I don't think you are fair about "attempting to recover, at committee, what they lost by mistakes at the table" which has been (IMO) legitimately contested on several occasions, often when a committee overturned an apparently valid judgement by TD.
You also omitted to mention that the weird opinions of top-players include near unanimous opposition to drug testing.
For the rest, I agree whole heartedly.

[lamford]

gordontd is correct that 3S would be invitational and show a suitable minimum, something like xxxx x Ax AKxxxx, and 4S is better, but I presume not as good as 4red which would be a splinter for spades. I would splinter with Qxxx x Ax AKxxxx. Given that I have been in worse grands with that 11-count opposite the hand you quote, and grand is huge opposite the 13-count, it seems completely automatic to move on with or without any UI. How many spades did 2S systemically show?

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2019-May-21, 09:06, said:

Anyone who thought that was wrong. But so were all the people who either ignored or misused the Stop card in the past, which was the reason we got rid of it.

It's been almost a year and a half since we got rid of the Stop card, and I haven't seen any significant change in practice. I have many years of experience playing with and against the same players, so I think I'd be able to notice changes in habits. When we had the Stop card, most people ignored it, and they still insta-bid. There were a small fraction of players who obeyed it, and from what I can tell most of them still hesitate as required.

Don't forget that the majority of players didn't even use the Stop card when making skip bids. But the players who understood the hesitation rule knew that they should hesitate regardless of whether it was used. And those players still understand their responsibility.

Why does the ACBL regulatory body dog get wagged by the players’ noncompliance tail?

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2019-July-10, 06:49, said:

Why does the ACBL regulatory body dog get wagged by the players’ noncompliance tail?

The same reason lawmakers often do what citizens want, not necessarily what's best for them. <cough!>Brexit<cough!>

[mikestar13]

The way I've played in the past, 2♠ was natural and non forcing but not weak, it would be at least mildly invitational, bad hands pass 2♣. This is fairly normal in North America, but it is also normal to require six clubs for the 2♣ opening, so this may not be directly relevant to this case.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-July-10, 08:31, said:

The same reason lawmakers often do what citizens want, not necessarily what's best for them. <cough!>Brexit<cough!>

That's not only OT, but a rather poor analogy.
Right now we have the chief lawmaker ready to break the law formulated expressly to stop him doing what the citizens once wanted but not in the way he proposes to do it.

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2019-September-08, 11:13, said:

That's not only OT, but a rather poor analogy.
Right now we have the chief lawmaker ready to break the law formulated expressly to stop him doing what the citizens once wanted but not in the way he proposes to do it.

Well, right now that's a bill, not a law. Kind of like how bridge players often say "the rule is this" and when you point out that it's not, their comeback is "well, it oughta be!"