[blackshoe]

In my experience (such as it is) people don't get called on breaks in tempo for any of several reasons:

1. nobody noticed.
2. nobody cares.
3. it's "unfriendly".
4. "I didn't know if I should call".
5. "I didn't know I could call".
6. there's probably others.

As a player and a director, I wonder whether any particular break in tempo might (a) result in an opponent, all unconciously, taking advantage of inferences drawn ( make any difference at all © be worth whatever annoyance a director call may cause. In practice, as a player I try to follow the rules - and I hope my opponents do too. As a director, well, if I'm not called, I've got nothing to worry about, and if I am called, I simply follow the laws and regulations in force, and I'm sure Justin will live with it if I rule against him.

I'm sure Justin is right that his refusal to obey this regulation (and he's probably not the only one) rarely causes any immediate problem - but if he does it against beginners, they will learn that it's okay for them to defy it, too. And if it's okay to defy this regulation, why not that one? Or that other one? I really think in the long run this attitude does a disservice to the game.

[blackshoe]

Heh. Just as an example, the current laws pretty much require the TD to give a PP to any player who does not call the TD when attention has been drawn to an irregularity (because Law 9B1(a) uses the words "...the director must be called..."). Of course, it never happens - and after I pointed this out on the bridge laws mailing list several years ago, the WBF changed the word from "must" to "should" in the 2007 laws.

I guess we've been talking a bit at cross-purposes, Justin, both focusing on the levels at which we each play (and in my case, direct). I grant you that at your level, the culture is different, and that a TD needs to be sensitive to that - up to a point, at least.

I would not ordinarily give a PP where the laws give me discretion not to do so (IOW, in most cases) unless the infraction caused a problem - and the fact that somebody called the TD isn't enough of a problem. I might adjust the score, though, in a BIT case. Depends on the case.

[Mbodell]

awm, on Feb 13 2008, 02:07 PM, said:

Because of this issue, I sometimes think we'd be better off without the "stop card" altogether.

There is no doubt in my mind that at the club level, at least where I play, we'd be better off without stop cards. The primary usage of the stop card, at the club level, seems to be wake up partner so they realize that I skipped a level. And, in addition to people selectively using the stop card on purpose, people have issues with selectively using the stop card because bidding boxes don't always have a stop card in them.

I decided both because I was worried I might forget some of the time to play the stop card and because some times there is no stop card that I would just never use the stop card.

[paulg]

In the UK the use of the stop card has always been mandatory. It is a guide for the next player to take 5-10 seconds before making a call, however quickly or slowly it is removed. It took some time to get used to when it was first introduced, but generally people use the card consistently and we don't seem to have the same troubles over here.

I think the ACBL's flexible option (you may use if you wish) is largely to blame for undermining the stop card and it is really too late for clubs to try and force people to use it now.

Of course I have no problem with Justin's tempo as he is a very good player who understands which auctions are more tempo sensitive, however he is not your average club player for whom the regulations are written.

Paul

[mycroft]

The problem is that nobody has a problem with <3 rounds of noncompetitive auction>-skip 4NT, or skip-3D ... until they do.

The problem with not following the rule "that is stupid and nobody follows it" is that if one responds in 2-3 seconds over all the skip bids, and then on the 14th board of a set, it goes 3C-<6 or 7 second pause> p, it is *abundantly clear* that there has been a hesitation, *pretty clear* what the UI is, but if the TD is called, he's in around his 10 seconds, and they can't rule hesitation.

Yes, it happens. Yes, I've had long discussions trying to prove that the fast passes, which don't really provide UI as long as that's their normal tempo, mean that this is out of tempo for LHO and there is a problem. It's clear that there is an issue with the equivalent situation with the screen regulations, where "it is to be assumed that no information is passed by the tray taking 15-25 seconds to be passed back under the screen, and both passer (by holding the tray) and his screenmate (by holding the call they intend to make, but not placing it on the tray) are to regulate the tempo to assure this" (paraphrase), but there are several records in Appeal Casebooks where despite this regulation, it was clear that there was a noticeable hesitation, and it was clear where it came from, and UI got passed anyway, and the TD ruled, and it got taken to appeal. Why? Because "it's a stupid rule" and nobody follows it - until they should have, and we get a TD ruling, an appeal, and heated tempers instead.

Given the number of hands played under screens versus not, and the number of not very careful players who get to play under screens versus not, this causes a larger problem than one might think.

Of course, since it always happens, the TDs don't do anything if you call for an insta-pass (including "I didn't get a chance to even let go of my bid before the pass came out"). And of course, when the insta-passers *do* have a problem, they think - frequently as much as 10 seconds. And of course, there's nothing you can do about *that* either (see above). And of course, WeaSeL seems to always work here...

Justin, I'm sorry for the tone of my previous post. It sounded like you were attacking my style, that following the rules didn't help, and that it caused *you* a problem that I did it. Your response raises several salient points (which I need to review again before respnding to), but in particular makes clear that my impression was incorrect.

Michael.

[barmar]

Michael has it right about the intent of the mandatory hesitation: to make those cases where you actually DO have something to think about look normal.

The fallacy in the requirement, though, is in the assumption that this is particular to skip bids. What about all the times when you take a little longer to decide whether to overcall over a 1-level opening?

But maybe that doesn't happen so much. Usually when one picks up their hand, they can think ahead -- decide what they'll do if partner opens, RHO bids 1 something, or the bidding passes around to them. But it's harder to plan for all the higher-level bids. Much of the time you're going to pass (the preempt worked) or your plan over the 1 level works just as well at the 2 level, but there will also be many times when you'll have to stop and make a new plan. The mandatory pause should hopefully prevent the UI that distinguishes the cases.