[axman]

pran, on Dec 16 2009, 05:56 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Dec 16 2009, 11:39 AM, said:

My own idea is that RHO should always control the tempo in sensitive situations. There are situations where it is quite obvious that 10 seconds will not be enough time if you do have a bidding problem. By all means make it 20. And there are situations where a bidding problem takes 3 seconds to solve. So, in that case, RHO can allow the 'thinker' to bid after 3 seconds.

Rik

That is precisely what very often happens in Norway!

It also is a system of communication to partner other than by call or play and thus is an egregious infraction of L73B2.

[pran]

axman, on Dec 16 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

pran, on Dec 16 2009, 05:56 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Dec 16 2009, 11:39 AM, said:

My own idea is that RHO should always control the tempo in sensitive situations. There are situations where it is quite obvious that 10 seconds will not be enough time if you do have a bidding problem. By all means make it 20. And there are situations where a bidding problem takes 3 seconds to solve. So, in that case, RHO can allow the 'thinker' to bid after 3 seconds.

Rik

That is precisely what very often happens in Norway!

It also is a system of communication to partner other than by call or play and thus is an egregious infraction of L73B2.

How come?
The skip bidder "informs" his LHO when the latter is allowed to call, and LHO calls.

How is this communication to partner?

[axman]

pran, on Dec 16 2009, 08:31 AM, said:

axman, on Dec 16 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

pran, on Dec 16 2009, 05:56 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Dec 16 2009, 11:39 AM, said:

My own idea is that RHO should always control the tempo in sensitive situations. There are situations where it is quite obvious that 10 seconds will not be enough time if you do have a bidding problem. By all means make it 20. And there are situations where a bidding problem takes 3 seconds to solve. So, in that case, RHO can allow the 'thinker' to bid after 3 seconds.

Rik

That is precisely what very often happens in Norway!

It also is a system of communication to partner other than by call or play and thus is an egregious infraction of L73B2.

How come?
The skip bidder "informs" his LHO when the latter is allowed to call, and LHO calls.

How is this communication to partner?

By assigning a value to the length of pause demanded from LHO the bidder communicates to partner his judgment as to the size of problem he expects the hand will create. THe primary factor influencing this judgment is his holding. Most UI problems arise from deciding/ judging risk therefore this UI is materially tangible.

[WellSpyder]

axman, on Dec 16 2009, 09:31 AM, said:

By assigning a value to the length of pause demanded from LHO the bidder communicates to partner his judgment as to the size of problem he expects the hand will create.  THe primary factor influencing this judgment is his holding. 

Disagree.

You are right in theory, of course, that his holding may affect his view of the problem LHO will be facing, but most of this judgment will be based on the auction to date. Everyone knows which auctions are likely to be tempo sensitive where they would prefer LHO not to convey UI by the length of their pause.

[Trinidad]

axman, on Dec 16 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

pran, on Dec 16 2009, 05:56 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Dec 16 2009, 11:39 AM, said:

My own idea is that RHO should always control the tempo in sensitive situations. There are situations where it is quite obvious that 10 seconds will not be enough time if you do have a bidding problem. By all means make it 20. And there are situations where a bidding problem takes 3 seconds to solve. So, in that case, RHO can allow the 'thinker' to bid after 3 seconds.

Rik

That is precisely what very often happens in Norway!

It also is a system of communication to partner other than by call or play and thus is an egregious infraction of L73B2.

Yes, you are absolutely right, particularly about the use of the word 'egregious'. We commit those infractions in Europe aaaaallllll the time. But then again, cheating is our middle name.

Or maybe this really is a problem that is specific for the American culture. In the American culture, lawyers will be able to find a breach of some law somewhere in whatever someone does in good faith.

In Scandinavian culture, when people do things in good faith for the good of all us (in this case the game of bridge), that would be considered good.

Obviously, you are wrong. WellSpyder has already said that the length of the pause is characteristic for the auction and not characteristic for the player's holding. And even if the duration of the pause might be influenced by the player's holding (which might happen on occasion), his partner will not be able to decode this little bit of noise in the background.

Rik

[pran]

Thanks to WellSpyder and Trinidad saving me the need for some comments.

But I will add that an allegation against a player that he uses variation of the STOP time as a means for communication to his partner will be considered a very grave accusation of cheating, investigated and ruled upon correspondingly.

And unless such accusation is (forthwith) substantiated with something far more tangible than general suspicion based on a possibility, the person posing such accusation will find himself charged with a serious diciplinary action for slander.

[axman]

pran, on Dec 16 2009, 11:55 AM, said:

Thanks to WellSpyder and Trinidad saving me the need for some comments.

But I will add that an allegation against a player that he uses variation of the STOP time as a means for communication to his partner will be considered a very grave accusation of cheating, investigated and ruled upon correspondingly.

But unless such accusation is (forthwith) substantiated with something far more tangible than general suspicion based on a possibility, the person posing such accusation will find himself charged with a serious diciplinary action for slander.

It is the regulation that compels the breach of L73B2**. As such L80B2f prohibits such regulation.

** breach of L73B2 is the communication irrespective of use/benefit thereof

[blackshoe]

If you want to talk about how a regulation is screwed up and needs changing, we have a different forum for that. Please start a new thread there.

[Trinidad]

axman, on Dec 16 2009, 07:19 PM, said:

pran, on Dec 16 2009, 11:55 AM, said:

Thanks to WellSpyder and Trinidad saving me the need for some comments.

But I will add that an allegation against a player that he uses variation of the STOP time as a means for communication to his partner will be considered a very grave accusation of cheating, investigated and ruled upon correspondingly.

But unless such accusation is (forthwith) substantiated with something far more tangible than general suspicion based on a possibility, the person posing such accusation will find himself charged with a serious diciplinary action for slander.

It is the regulation that compels the breach of L73B2**. As such L80B2f prohibits such regulation.

** breach of L73B2 is the communication irrespective of use/benefit thereof

The duration of the pause says nothing about the hand. It only says something about the auction. You seem to think that this information about the auction is communication to partner. That is a legitimate point of view.

But, if you subscribe to that view then any STOP card regulation will be a breach of Law 73B2. After all, any STOP card regulation communicates to partner: "Pay attention! I made a jump bid [or whatever bid mandates the use of the STOP card]."

Rik

[JoAnneM]

The "lawless ex-colonies"? haha, that made my day. Sorry, was just reading through the posts. I think that war is over.

[nige1]

JoAnneM, on Dec 18 2009, 01:07 PM, said:

The "lawless ex-colonies"?  haha, that made my day.  Sorry, was just reading through the posts.    I think that war is over.

Nobody told me May we have our tea back?

[JoAnneM]

LOL

[aguahombre]

that might be a modern day record....8 days for a laugh.