[CSGibson]

Scoring: MP

P-(1♣)-P-(2♦!),
P*-(P)-?

*noticeable hesitation

---

In the above auction, no stop card is played when LHO bids 2 diamonds. Partner hesitates briefly, asks about the alert, and then hesitates again for about 10-12 seconds.

I thought this particular hand was going to balance whether or not there was a break-in-tempo, as pass is not really a LA here, but I still have a question about this situation:

Partner is allowed 10 seconds to think after a skip bid whether or not a stop card is played, right? Does that take place immediately after the bid is placed on the table, in which case there would probably be a break in tempo for this hand, or after partner receives an explanation for the alert, in which case there would not be a break in tempo for this hand?

[Trinidad]

The 10 seconds start after the explanation.

After all, if partner doesn't have a problem, he is supposed to fake that he has one. Asking-Explaining-Immediate Pass doesn't fake a problem, does it?

(In practice, I would say that after an unalerted skip bid you have 10 seconds. You need part of that time to process the meaning of the auction. After an alerted skip bid, you don't need to process the meaning of the auction, since you just get it explained to you. So, a little less time -say 8 seconds- will be needed to fake convincingly.)

Having said that, I think that you stated the problem very clearly. My partner would ask and then think for a while, no matter what her intentions would be. If she would do that, it would not occur to me to describe her behavior as a 'noticeable hesitation'. It did occur to you, which makes me think that the hesitation was clearly longer than what you would have expected. And that defines a break in tempo.

Rik

[helene_t]

Good answer, Rik.

[CSGibson]

Trinidad, on Aug 29 2008, 01:09 AM, said:

Having said that, I think that you stated the problem very clearly. My partner would ask and then think for a while, no matter what her intentions would be. If she would do that, it would not occur to me to describe her behavior as a 'noticeable hesitation'. It did occur to you, which makes me think that the hesitation was clearly longer than what you would have expected. And that defines a break in tempo.

Rik

Any 10 second pause by partner is a noticeable hesitation to me. The difference is that some are required/allowed by the rules without limiting my actions, and some suggest a course of action, and thus limit my available options on a hand. Mostly I was wondering if, in the situation described, this 10 second pause fell was in the first or 2nd category of pauses (do I have limited options).

[Trinidad]

If partner hesitated for about 10 seconds and partner always hesitates for about 10 seconds after asking a question about a skip bid, your options are unlimited. However, if partner usually hesitates for 5 seconds and now she hesitated for 10-12 seconds then there is a break in tempo and that may very well limit your options.

The point is that you need to judge yourself whether your partner's behavior gave UI. You are better capable of judging that than anyone else.

When some of my partners hesitate, at some point during the hesitation, I will actually say to myself (not out loud of course ): "This is a break in tempo. My options are limited." With some partners that point will come after 2 seconds, with others after 12 seconds.

Rik

[MFA]

I think that Trinidad has made some excellent posts in this and the other (UI?) thread.

[TimG]

Trinidad, on Aug 29 2008, 03:09 AM, said:

The 10 seconds start after the explanation.

Is there a basis for this claim in the Laws or the regulations of the SO?

Suppose I ponder for a moment, realize I might take some extra time, then ask for an explanation. Have I reset the clock? I don't think so.

I think the actions have to be taken as a whole; it shouldn't matter whether it is pause-question-pause or question-pause-pause. In fact, pause-question-pause might be more of a break in tempo than question-pause-pause even if the two require an identical time period.

As others have said, it is not simply a matter of clocking 10 seconds.

[nige1]

There are frequent controversies over stop bid hesitations. Players find it hard to estimate 10 seconds. The stop card could easily be replaced by a 10 second timing device to remove this problem. (If the stop-bidder didn't activate the timer, his LHO could do so). A sort of egg-timer would do. In the UK, there is an inference that you are interested in bidding if you ask a question. That complicates the issue but is a separate topic.

[nige1]

CSGibson, on Aug 29 2008, 01:33 AM, said:

... no stop card is played ...

Stop card protocol differs between jurisdictions.

The UK has the best and simplest protocol

• Before you make a jump bid. you face the stop-card.
  
• After you've made the jump-bid, you wait 10 seconds before you remove the stop-card.
  
• Then LHO bids.

When you make a jump-bid, it's polite for LHO to wait for you to complete your bid by (belatedly) deploying your stop card. IMO, those few seconds can't count towards his 10 second allotment.

It can be distracting, if you forget to use the stop-card. IMO, a simple solution for opponents is: RHO times LHO's 10 seconds, using his stop card.

[JoAnneM]

"there is an inference that you are interested in bidding if you ask a question." I think this more than clouds the issue, it defines the issue. If you are not interested in bidding ask your questions after the auction is over. Asking questions during the bidding carries a very high risk of UI to your partner. Of course if you are a player who queries every alert (how completely boring) then there is no problem.

[jdonn]

TimG, on Aug 29 2008, 07:17 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Aug 29 2008, 03:09 AM, said:

The 10 seconds start after the explanation.

Is there a basis for this claim in the Laws or the regulations of the SO?

Suppose I ponder for a moment, realize I might take some extra time, then ask for an explanation. Have I reset the clock? I don't think so.

I think the actions have to be taken as a whole; it shouldn't matter whether it is pause-question-pause or question-pause-pause. In fact, pause-question-pause might be more of a break in tempo than question-pause-pause even if the two require an identical time period.

As others have said, it is not simply a matter of clocking 10 seconds.

I think it has to be considered on a case by case basis. If it goes 1♥ p 4NT p 5♦, then I tank and ask about 5♦, needless to say that doesn't "reset my clock" since the answer won't be particularly relevant to anything I have to think about. In the problem situation however, my action and thought process may be greatly impacted by the meaning of the bid, which could be virtually any strength and either promise or deny diamonds.

[TimG]

nige1, on Aug 29 2008, 09:47 AM, said:

The UK has the best and simplest protocol

• Before you make a jump bid. you face the stop-card.
  
• After you've made the jump-bid, you wait 10 seconds before you remove the stop-card.
  
• Then LHO bids.

When you make a jump-bid, it's polite for LHO to wait for you to complete your bid by (belatedly) deploying your stop card. IMO, those few seconds can't count towards his 10 second allotment.

It might work well, but it certainly isn't simplest. Simplest would be for there to be no skip bid warning of any sort (other than the jump bid itself) and for the next player to pause appropriately.

[jdonn]

nige1, on Aug 29 2008, 09:47 AM, said:

The UK has the best and simplest protocol[LIST]
[*]Before you make a jump bid. you face the stop-card.
[*]After you've made the jump-bid, you wait 10 seconds before you remove the stop-card.
[*]Then LHO bids.

Best?!?! It is SO OBNOXIOUS when people leave their stop card out under your nose until they think it's right for you to bid. Wow do I hate when people do that.

There should simply be no stop cards. They remind me of the signs that say "obey all traffic laws" or "stop at red".

[nige1]

TimG, on Aug 29 2008, 11:50 AM, said:

It might work well, but it certainly isn't simplest.  Simplest would be for there to be no skip bid warning of any sort (other than the jump bid itself) and for the next player to pause appropriately.

jdonn, on Aug 29 2008, 12:17 PM, said:

Best?!?! It is SO OBNOXIOUS when people leave their stop card out under your nose until they think it's right for you to bid. Wow do I hate when people do that.
There should simply be no stop cards. They remind me of the signs that say "obey all traffic laws" or "stop at red".

Many are frustrated by traffic regulations; but, arguably, without them, the chaos would be worse and more would be dead or injured.

TimG would always pause "appropriately" and JDonn would never take advantage of unauthorised information from partner's tempo break

They may not realise it themselves, but they are rare exceptions: there are many players (none of them consciously dishonest) whom you would be naive to trust

I don't know how far I could trust myself

Such is the power of rationalisation

[jdonn]

nige1, on Aug 29 2008, 12:59 PM, said:

TimG, on Aug 29 2008, 11:50 AM, said:

It might work well, but it certainly isn't simplest.  Simplest would be for there to be no skip bid warning of any sort (other than the jump bid itself) and for the next player to pause appropriately.

jdonn, on Aug 29 2008, 12:17 PM, said:

Best?!?! It is SO OBNOXIOUS when people leave their stop card out under your nose until they think it's right for you to bid. Wow do I hate when people do that.
There should simply be no stop cards. They remind me of the signs that say "obey all traffic laws" or "stop at red".

Many are frustrated by traffic regulations; but, arguably, without them, the chaos would be worse and more would be dead or injured.

You misrepresent the example. There are already traffic laws. The stop card is a sign that says "obey traffic laws". Well of course you have to obey them even without the sign, they are laws! Forget if there would be chaos without the laws. Would there be chaos without signs telling you to obey the laws you already have to obey?

[TimG]

nige1, on Aug 29 2008, 12:59 PM, said:

TimG would always pause "appropriately" and JDonn would never take advantage of unauthorised information from partner's tempo break

I never said I would always pause appropriately, I simply said that would be the simplest solution. I like to think that I am good about pausing appropriately, but no one is perfect all the time.

How is it that the person using the stop card can always decide what is appropriate, but the next player cannot?

[nige1]

jdonn, on Aug 29 2008, 01:03 PM, said:

You misrepresent the example. There are already traffic laws. The stop card is a sign that says "obey traffic laws". Well of course you have to obey them even without the sign, they are laws! Forget if there would be chaos without the laws. Would there be chaos without signs telling you to obey the laws you already have to obey?

The jump-bidder is better placed to time 10 seconds than is his LHO. In UK regulations, the purpose of the pause after a jump-bid is to give LHO time for untramelled thought (whether needed or not). Counting out ten seconds might detract from LHO's thought processes; and his estimate might be influenced by how much he needs to think. Unless his name is TimG or JDonn.

[jdonn]

nige1, on Aug 29 2008, 01:18 PM, said:

Counting out ten seconds might detract from LHO's thought processes

Counting to 10 doesn't detract from my thought quite as much as having a bright red laminated piece of plastic shoved up my nose until RHO is good and pleased.

[nige1]

JoAnneM, on Aug 29 2008, 11:13 AM, said:

"there is an inference that you are interested in bidding if you ask a question."  I think this more than clouds the issue, it defines the issue.  If you are not interested in bidding ask your questions after the auction is over.  Asking questions during the bidding carries a very high risk of UI to your partner.   Of course if you are a player who queries every alert (how completely boring) then there is no problem.

IMO the only sensible ethical solution is

• Always to ask or
  
• Never to ask.

To ask randomly has been shown be an impractical solution. I never ask but I respect those who always ask.

If you ask when you need to know, you impart unauthorised information that, in the UK, may impose restraints on partner's options.

Strangely, this seems to present no practical problem in America

A similar anomaly occurs with asking "having none partner" when partner shows out in the play. (Always allowed in USA and about to become law almost everywhere). In the UK, some are worried about the unauthorised information that may become available. If you ask only when, from counting the cards that you can see on the table and in your own hand, you deduce that partner could be revoking, then it helps partner to count the hand.

Again, Americans seem to have no practical problem with this

[nige1]

jdonn, on Aug 29 2008, 01:22 PM, said:

nige1, on Aug 29 2008, 01:18 PM, said:

Counting out ten seconds might detract from LHO's thought processes

Counting to 10 doesn't detract from my thought quite as much as having a bright red laminated piece of plastic shoved up my nose until RHO is good and pleased.

A metaphor? In the UK, the STOP card is placed on the table, face-up, beneath the jump-bid card. Hence it inconveniences only those with very long noses