[hotShot]

I think that this whole issue is about the first words said to the director.

If the first words of the player in question to the TD would have been:
"I was just waiting the usual time because of the skip bid."
Than the whole thing would have gone the right way.
But i guess opps called the director and claimed hesitation and the player agreed that he needed a little longer. From that moment on, TD and AC can't do anything else but to handle this as a BIT case.

Reading the the original post, I don't see that the "offending side" claimed that they were just waiting because of the skip bid. Instead I read that they agreed that 12-14 second where used.
AC's, TD's and most of all players are far better in discussing bridge topics, than formal regulations from the laws. This is why they tend to discuss LA's before it's clear that there is an UI case at all.

I think it is unfair not to use the stop card and insisting that LHO broke his tempo.
After a skip bid, LHO is more likely to make an insufficient bid.
After a skip bid, LHO will often have to rethink his intended action, so he is forced to break his tempo, if he usually bids fast.
So not giving the "skip bid warning" puts LHO in a position, where he is almost forced to break the laws.

[skjaeran]

Gerben42, on Mar 28 2007, 08:41 PM, said:

I rule against the opening leader. People who wait the full 10 seconds after 1N - 3N are quite rare if not extinct.

That's because the stop procedure in most parts of the world is made up so that it can't work in practice.

In Norway the skip bidder puts the stop card on the table (or say "Stop!") before placing the bidding card on the table, waits ten seconds, then removes the stop card (or say "proceed" or something similar). Thus the timing of the pause is done not by the player in turn.

Of course many players doesn't comply with the procedure - either the skip bidder removes the stop card after far less than 10 seconds, or the next player calls before the stop card is removed. But that's easy to handle for a TD anyway - in most cases.

But anyway - ruling against the opening leader following procedure is just plain ridiculous. If that's how you rule, better scrap the stop procedure.

[Codo]

A lot of arguments are made in defending or attaking the descission of the TD and the AC.
But I think we all agree that if there was a hesitation, a club lead is a LA to a spade, so the problem is: Was there an UI?
I agree with Hotshot that there should be no case at all as E should have told, that she just waited about 10 seconds but obviously she did not know what she had to say to make the TD rule in her favour.

But after she just agreed that the hesitation was about 12-14 seconds, how should the TD rule?
E made the mistake to look a little to long into her cards.
N/S bid an offshape 1 NT, gambled 3 NT (not using stayman), forgot the skip bid warning and called for the TD for a hesitation of 2-4 seconds.

Sorry, this stinks.
So I would use any excuse I could find to rule in favour of E/W.
But unluckily from the given facts, there was a hesitation and surely a LA so if nothing new is reported, I must rule like the AC.

[Gerben42]

Quote

But anyway - ruling against the opening leader following procedure is just plain ridiculous. If that's how you rule, better scrap the stop procedure.

Now there's a good idea! With or without stop rule 99% of the time it is clear who had something to think about and who hadn't. 10 seconds is longer than most people can hide their "nothing to think about" attitude.

And has Josh has said:

Quote

The example auction you provide with 4 skip bids is different because it's so unusual. 1NT p 3NT is the most boring 10 second pause most people can have in their lives (they aren't even on lead), which is why most are a little lazier about their pause there.

Or Justin:

Quote

That being said, 12-14 seconds after 1N p 3N is a break in tempo. All auctions are not created equal and I know very few people who actually do wait the full 10 seconds on that auction (even though I agree technically they should). If they do that and take more time after that they have simply broken tempo.

Add this to that if the Stop card is not used by opponents, people tend to make it like 5 seconds or count barely audible up to 10 thus making clear they are not thinking.

[inquiry]

Gerben42, on Mar 29 2007, 09:24 AM, said:

Quote

But anyway - ruling against the opening leader following procedure is just plain ridiculous. If that's how you rule, better scrap the stop procedure.

Now there's a good idea! With or without stop rule 99% of the time it is clear who had something to think about and who hadn't. 10 seconds is longer than most people can hide their "nothing to think about" attitude.

And has Josh has said:

Quote

The example auction you provide with 4 skip bids is different because it's so unusual. 1NT p 3NT is the most boring 10 second pause most people can have in their lives (they aren't even on lead), which is why most are a little lazier about their pause there.

Or Justin:

Quote

That being said, 12-14 seconds after 1N p 3N is a break in tempo. All auctions are not created equal and I know very few people who actually do wait the full 10 seconds on that auction (even though I agree technically they should). If they do that and take more time after that they have simply broken tempo.

Add this to that if the Stop card is not used by opponents, people tend to make it like 5 seconds or count barely audible up to 10 thus making clear they are not thinking.

The codification rules address failures of the fourth hand to follow proper procedure. It states...

When a player acts with undue haste or hesitation, the tournament director may award an adjusted score (Law 16) and/or procedural penalty (Law 90).

I have never seen anyone penalized for "undue haste" on auctions like 1N-3N. I have never even seen the person making an undue hasty pass chastized by anyone at the table. It is also clear that many here think 12-14 seconds is undo hesitation, and now you even suggest that 10 seconds might easily fall into the undue hestiation.

The problem is, of course, the skip bid was created to allow people time to reflect on their bid on problem hands that might require thought before a bid. Maybe skaeran is correct. Maybe there is no way for skp bid warning to work to allow people a chance to reflect with difficult hands when they need too without giving UI. Clearly if someone looks bored or audible counts away the 10 seconds, then that is a violation. Equally clearly if someone passes with undue haste that is a violation. But here, we are penalizing someone not for the hasty pass or for the bored disintrested 10 second count. We are pentalize them for looking studious and taking approxiametly the correct amount of time. Maybe we add fancy additional logic like, "well look at his hand, he DID HAVE a problem."

This seems backassward to me. It is the fast pass (or undue hasty pass in 4 seconds) that is the problem and should be penalized not the 10 second tank. I don't know what the solution is, but whatever it is, allowing RHO to think for 10 seconds after a skip bid warning at one table and punishing him for waiting 10 seconds without a skip bid warning at the other (not that there is evidence of this two table thing here, that was my hypotheical) is clearly wrong.

[jdonn]

I'll take the opportunity to completely agree with you. If a situation was happening like in your example, where a pair was being punished or not based on whether their opponents were using the stop card, something would be terribly wrong.

Gerben, I did call the director once (that I can remember) on someone for passing instantly over my partner's stop card, though in a much more tempo sensitive auction. I expected him to be mad at me but surprisingly the opponent was very apologetic and said he didn't think about what he was doing. Maybe there is hope for the world after all

[bid_em_up]

inquiry, on Mar 29 2007, 10:10 AM, said:

This seems backassward to me.

The word you were looking for is bassackwards.

I agree with Ben.

The stop card is supposed to be placed on the table, and then after an appropriate pause, removed from the table by the maker of the skip bid. It is at that point that the "clock" begins on LHO. This gives him some time to think IF he has a problem, or not, without conveying that he actually needed time to think.

If the 3N bidder does not use the stop card, he essentially forfeits his rights to claim BIT, unless it is unduly lengthy. And no, anything longer than 5 seconds doesnt cut it. 10-15 seconds doesnt cut it either as he is SUPPOSED to wait at least 10 anyway, whether or not the stop card was used.

It doesnt matter whether or not you think that everybody in the world passes in less than 5 seconds, or 10 bored seconds. It does not mean everyone does this, necessarily.

"Gee officer, everybody else is driving 90 in a 55, you should be giving a ticket to the guy driving the speed limit for creating a traffic hazard"

is essentially what you are saying. That just because everybody else is breaking the law by NOT pausing 10 seconds in an auction such as 1N-3N, that you should then punish the person obeying the spirit of the law by waiting the 10-12 seconds and appearing to study his hand, as he is SUPPOSED to be doing, whether he has a problem or not. This totally violates the original intent of the stop card.

Now, of course I believe the guy had a problem. I also believe that had the 3N bidder put the stop card on the table, held it there for 10 seconds, then removed it, there could be very little claim for BIT if the next hand takes an additional 3-5 seconds prior to passing. So they are both at fault.

But what really appalls me is the fact that the "offending" side didn't even get to argue their case.......even though I think ultimately they would have lost the appeal, they may have at least succeeded in having a procedural penalty/warning issued to the other pair for their failure to use the stop card.

[Stephen Tu]

You don't punish people who routinely take the 10 sec pause, stop cd or not. You only rule against people who routinely fast pass on this auction. Surely if East was a person who routinely paused, he would have objected to the director that he did not break tempo, that he took his normal tempo after the skip bid, and the director should take that into account. If opponents say the entire break was 12-14 seconds there should be no adjustment for that case. But East agreed that he had broken tempo, hence there is sufficient reason to believe he *does not* routinely pause, and that this was a BIT, for East.

[blackshoe]

bid_em_up, on Mar 29 2007, 02:06 PM, said:

The stop card is supposed to be placed on the table, and then after an appropriate pause, removed from the table by the maker of the skip bid.  It is at that point that the "clock" begins on LHO. This gives him some time to think IF he has a problem, or not, without conveying that he actually needed time to think.

Hm. Without running back through the thread, I'll assume we're talking about ACBL rules.

The stop card is placed on the table. The bid is placed on the table. The clock starts. The stop card is picked up.

IOW, the clock starts when the bid is made; when the stop card is picked up is irrelevant.

In England, or in other jurisdictions where the skip bidder controls the tempo, the stop card is placed, the bid is placed (and the clock starts), and the clock stops when 10 seconds are up. The stop card is supposed to remain in place for that time, and the player bids when it's picked up. If it's picked up prematurely, the next player is still obligated to pause the full ten seconds.

[bid_em_up]

blackshoe, on Mar 29 2007, 03:40 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Mar 29 2007, 02:06 PM, said:

The stop card is supposed to be placed on the table, and then after an appropriate pause, removed from the table by the maker of the skip bid.  It is at that point that the "clock" begins on LHO. This gives him some time to think IF he has a problem, or not, without conveying that he actually needed time to think.

Hm. Without running back through the thread, I'll assume we're talking about ACBL rules.

The stop card is placed on the table. The bid is placed on the table. The clock starts. The stop card is picked up.

IOW, the clock starts when the bid is made; when the stop card is picked up is irrelevant.

In England, or in other jurisdictions where the skip bidder controls the tempo, the stop card is placed, the bid is placed (and the clock starts), and the clock stops when 10 seconds are up. The stop card is supposed to remain in place for that time, and the player bids when it's picked up. If it's picked up prematurely, the next player is still obligated to pause the full ten seconds.

Assuming you will agree that LHO is NOT supposed to bid until either 1) a reasonable amount of time has passed (the usual suggestion is 10 seconds, agreed?) or 2) the stop card has been removed from the table.

If you are smart, you place the stop card on the table, make the bid, and then you will not remove the stop card from the table until at least 8-10 seconds have elapsed. Now if LHO takes more time, then it is an obvious BIT.

This is what I meant.

Otherwise, you can just whip the card out, make the bid, and shove the card back in the box and now it is still clear whether or not LHO actually had a problem or not.

Surely you can understand this.

[mycroft]

There are good and bad theoretical arguments for both systems.

The major non-theoretical argument agianst what you are saying, bid_em_up, is that it's against the regulations, and will be totally ignored by the TD. "You didn't do what you were supposed to? LHO didn't wait what *you* thought was 10 seconds? And you can prove that how? I'm going to make my decision based on the questions I would have asked anyway, where the STOP card is is irrelevant. After all, it should have been in the box."

I'm not saying the European procedure isn't the right way to go (nor do I say it is), but "because I think it's wrong, I'm not going to follow it" doesn't fly here any more than it does with failure to follow the Alert Procedure or vioations of the Convention Chart in force, or any other ACBL procedure made with the force of Law. If you don't like it, petition to have it changed.

Michael.

[bid_em_up]

mycroft, on Mar 30 2007, 12:30 PM, said:

There are good and bad theoretical arguments for both systems.

The major non-theoretical argument agianst what you are saying, bid_em_up, is that it's against the regulations, and will be totally ignored by the TD.  "You didn't do what you were supposed to?  LHO didn't wait what  *you* thought was 10 seconds?  And you can prove that how?  I'm going to make my decision based on the questions I would have asked anyway, where the STOP card is is irrelevant.  After all, it should have been in the box."

I'm not saying the European procedure isn't the right way to go (nor do I say it is), but "because I think it's wrong, I'm not going to follow it" doesn't fly here any more than it does with failure to follow the Alert Procedure or vioations of the Convention Chart in force, or any other ACBL procedure made with the force of Law.  If you don't like it, petition to have it changed.

Michael.

It is not against the regulations. Show me anywhere that it says that "you make the bid and then must IMMEDIATELY place the stop card back in the bidding box". And I have always been told that LHO is not supposed to bid until the stop card has been removed from the table.

From two different sources:

"With bidding boxes, the red "Stop" card is used to announce a skip bid. To use it, place the Stop card on the table first, then make your bid. Wait about 10 seconds and then remove the Stop card."

Source: http://www.prairiene.../bridge/dup.htm

"Use of the Stop card is optional with most sponsoring organizations, but if players use it, they must do so consistently for all skip (jump) bids. Prior to his own skip bid, a player displays the stop card and makes the bid, moving the stop card back into the box after 10 seconds. The rationale for the procedure is that jump bids, especially preempts, often pose a bidding problem for the opponents, and the left-hand opponent's fast or slow reaction after the bid can reveal whether his cards are bad or good. In order to prevent such passing of unauthorized information, the skip-bid warning requires the next player to wait for a while with his bid, regardless whether he has a problem or not."

Source: http://en.wikipedia....iki/Bidding_box

Granted, neither of these are official ACBL sites. However they give a pretty good interpretation of the INTENT of the stop card.

When it was originally implemented, the ACBL provided no definitive procedures or penalties for the use or non-use of the stop card, and there are still none to this day that I am aware of. There are no regulations for the use of the stop card either, that I have been able to locate (Can you provide them?), other than the wording on the STOP card itself. This is not a regulation, but only a short description.

The ACBL may have changed the wording of the skip bid warnings, or the stop cards, but the original intent was for LHO not to bid until the stop card was removed from the table. The person making the skip bid would control the tempo at that point, to prevent both a fast pass (indicating no problem) or a BIT (indicating a problem).

If, as you are claiming you just make the bid and slap the card back in the box, then you (the TD) are still left trying to decide if a BIT occured. Which defeats at least one of the purposes of the stop card to begin with which was to reduce the amount of director calls regarding BIT's, insufficient bids, etc.

If I (the skip bidder) control the tempo, then there can be no claim of BIT, unless LHO continues to take additional time once the card is removed off of the table.

You may "feel" that your interpretation is correct. I do not believe it is. I have not played in European procedures. I have only played in ACBL competitions, since before the skip bid and stop cards were even around. This is the way that it has ALWAYS been explained to me, and the way I have always done it and will continue to do so.

I also believe it is the "correct" way to do it, as it resolves any BIT issues.

[inquiry]

bid_em_up, on Mar 30 2007, 02:58 PM, said:

It is not against the regulations. Show me anywhere that it says that "you make the bid and then must IMMEDIATELY place the stop card back in the bidding box".

Well, I will not quote such outstanding places as wikipedia or prairienet DOT org, but I will quote the the ACBL's appendix to the "Rules of Duplicate Bridge" that deals with "using bidding boxes when screens are not in use.. ( ACBL's appendix).

"3. The skip-bid warning is given using bidding boxes by displaying the stop card, making a call and then replacing the stop card in the bidding box. LHO is obligated to wait 10 seconds (while giving the appearance of studying his hand) before making a call. "

How does that do? I know other jurisdictions use other rules about the stop card. I believe, but don't have the facts to back it up, that within the past few years the ACBL changed it rules such that you show the stop card, then replace it, then the 10 second clock starts. My recollection is based on the fact that people would stick the stop card down for three to four seconds and then pick it up and call the director for BIT if you took 5 to 8 second before you bid.. in effect, reducing your "legal time to bid" if they excpect a bid immediately after they choose to pick up the card.

[Stephen Tu]

Official ACBL guidelines:
http://www.acbl.org/play/bidboxes.html
http://web2.acbl.org/codification/CHAPTER%...Section%20A.pdf

bid_em_up, I agree that having the skip bidder keep the card on the table for 10 seconds is a better way to do it, and indeed that is what is printed on the back of the stop card for most bid boxes. (The common Jannersten manufactured ones).

However, that is *not* what the ACBL has adopted as its regulation. It is clear from the articles above, and also various discussions in bulletins, that in the ACBL one is supposed to replace the skip card in the box, and that skip bidder does not control the tempo of the next bidder by keeping it out. I don't know exactly why they decided to adopt this. Perhaps the argument for this is that the skip bidder may pull the stop card too quickly, say 5 seconds, then claim LHO hesitated if he takes another 5 seconds ... I guess it's problematic if either side is too fast on the draw.

[hrothgar]

Quick comment about the use of stop cards;

My understanding is that the North and Europe differ regarding Stop card rules.

In much of Europe, the stop card control the tempo. Players are not allowed to bid until the stop card has been removed.

In North American, the stop card introduces a fixed 10 second pause.

Jannerstein is based out of Sweden. It comes as little surprise that the instructions printed on the card match the traditional use in Europe.

[skjaeran]

hrothgar, on Mar 30 2007, 10:54 PM, said:

Quick comment about the use of stop cards;

My understanding is that the North and Europe differ regarding Stop card rules.

In much of Europe, the stop card control the tempo. Players are not allowed to bid until the stop card has been removed.

In North American, the stop card introduces a fixed 10 second pause.

Jannerstein is based out of Sweden. It comes as little surprise that the instructions printed on the card match the traditional use in Europe.

That's not correct. That procedure is used in Norway and maybe a few other jurisdictions - Sweden is not among them. The common procedure in Europe is the same as in ACBL.

[cherdano]

Actually, in Germany you are required to use the stop card also to make sure your LHO doesn't overlook that you are jumping. E.g. after (1H) 1S (3H*) X where your RHO bid 3H without using the stop card, you could complain that you thought he had bid 2H and you wouldn't have doubled at the 3-level. (At least that's what I've been told.)
It seemed silly to me.

[blackshoe]

bid_em_up, on Mar 29 2007, 04:19 PM, said:

Assuming you will agree that LHO is NOT supposed to bid until either 1) a reasonable amount of time has passed (the usual suggestion is 10 seconds, agreed?) or 2) the stop card has been removed from the table.

If you are smart, you place the stop card on the table, make the bid, and then you will not remove the stop card from the table until at least 8-10 seconds have elapsed. Now if LHO takes more time, then it is an obvious BIT.

This is what I meant.

Otherwise, you can just whip the card out, make the bid, and shove the card back in the box and now it is still clear whether or not LHO actually had a problem or not.

Surely you can understand this.

Are you attempting to imply I'm too stupid to understand you?

If you are smart, you will comply with the regulations in force where you are playing.

[blackshoe]

bid_em_up, on Mar 30 2007, 02:58 PM, said:

And I have always been told that LHO is not supposed to bid until the stop card has been removed from the table.

If you were told that in the ACBL, then you were misinformed.

[bid_em_up]

blackshoe, on Mar 30 2007, 05:50 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Mar 30 2007, 02:58 PM, said:

And I have always been told that LHO is not supposed to bid until the stop card has been removed from the table.

If you were told that in the ACBL, then you were misinformed.

No, I was not. Trust me when I say that I was around when the skip bid and stop card were originally implemented (were you?) and I am absolutely certain that I know what the original intent was. It is not what you are claiming it to be. No matter how much you may believe it to be otherwise.

And no, I am not implying that you are too stupid to understand it, only that I am not certain if I am wording my sentiments properly.

Now, granted, over 20+ years time, its usage may have migrated into something else, but if it has, then it defeats the purpose of even using the card, as ORIGINALLY intended.

And there is absolutely NO regulation that states that I cannot keep the card on the table for the 10 seconds before replacing it in the bidding box. If you believe otherwise, please provide the rule, law or regulation. Again....the card itself is NOT an legal definition of what needs to be done, nor does it say that the card must be IMMEDIATELY replaced into the bidding box, as you are attempting to claim needs to be done.

So, how are you attempting to claim that I am NOT complying with the regulations in force? Show me one rule, law, regulation that I am NOT in compliance with by waiting 10 seconds prior to replacing the STOP card in the bidding box? I don't believe you can.