[McBruce]

Novice/intermediate game (0-750 MP, very few Life Masters, for those familiar with ACBL numbers) at a sectional (local) tournament. Opening leader is calling because an auction seems odd:

East opened 2♣, West responded 2♠, and after three passes that is the final contract.

E-W are very nice new players, possibly at their first tournament, but have been seen at the club a few times in the entry-level lesson-games.

West explains that the review is slightly incorrect: actually, the auction went like this:

East displayed the Stop card and opened 2♣, West responded 2♠, and after three passes that is the final contract.

When you ask how this is different, West explains patiently that with the Stop card they play this as a preempt. Without the Stop card, it's strong and forcing. She is entirely serious, completely without guilt or fear, and East has six losers and seven clubs to the AKQJ. The only thing you have going for you is that these opponents are kind enough to let you handle it. Your move, TD. (Tread carefully.)

[hrothgar]

McBruce, on 2013-May-11, 05:22, said:

Novice/intermediate game (0-750 MP, very few Life Masters, for those familiar with ACBL numbers) at a sectional (local) tournament. Opening leader is calling because an auction seems odd:

East opened 2♣, West responded 2♠, and after three passes that is the final contract.

E-W are very nice new players, possibly at their first tournament, but have been seen at the club a few times in the entry-level lesson-games.

West explains that the review is slightly incorrect: actually, the auction went like this:

East displayed the Stop card and opened 2♣, West responded 2♠, and after three passes that is the final contract.

When you ask how this is different, West explains patiently that with the Stop card they play this as a preempt. Without the Stop card, it's strong and forcing. She is entirely serious, completely without guilt or fear, and East has six losers and seven clubs to the AKQJ. The only thing you have going for you is that these opponents are kind enough to let you handle it. Your move, TD. (Tread carefully.)

In all sincerity, I'd congratulate E/W on their creativity and say that they might have a future as systems designers. However, I'd also explain (nicely) that the the laws of the game require that they only use their bids to communicate information about their hand type. They can not use the stop card to convey extra information.

I'd explain that there has been an infraction of the rules of the game and that there might need to be an adjustment. They should play the hand out and N/S should then let me know if they think that there has been any damage.

I'd also ask E/W to talk to me after the game so we can discuss some details about competitive bridge that might not have been covered during their class.

I would not assess a procedural penalty for beginners...

[chrism]

If these are indeed novices then I want to protect NS without being punitive. I explain briefly that this is not an allowed use of the STOP card, and that EW should come and discuss it with me when there is more time, but that in the mean time they must decide to use the card never or (preferably) every time a skip bid occurs.

Then I rule on this hand, which I treat as a failure to alert a weak 2C opening bid. N gets a do-over of the last pass, and NS are protected from damage resulting from the MI, as in a routine MI case.

[pran]

When STOP (and ALERT) was introduced in Norway one of the original rules was that STOP was mandatory with 1NT opening bids showing less than (I believe) 15 HCP. (The "normal" HCP range for 1 NT opening bids was, and still is 15-17).

The Secretary General of the Norwegian Bridge Federation told me some years later that they had had to drop this STOP rule because players within some Norwegian regions had "invented" a new system where STOP 1NT showed 12-14 HCP and 1NT without STOP showed 15-17 HCP.

As he said: "It was completely impossible to make these guys understand that this was illegal use of STOP!"

[campboy]

chrism, on 2013-May-11, 05:54, said:

If these are indeed novices then I want to protect NS without being punitive. I explain briefly that this is not an allowed use of the STOP card, and that EW should come and discuss it with me when there is more time, but that in the mean time they must decide to use the card never or (preferably) every time a skip bid occurs.

Then I rule on this hand, which I treat as a failure to alert a weak 2C opening bid. N gets a do-over of the last pass, and NS are protected from damage resulting from the MI, as in a routine MI case.

I agree with your first paragraph (at least in the ACBL; in my jurisdiction the STOP card is mandatory) but I do not think it is equitable to treat this as simple MI. Doing so protects NOS from the MI, but it does not protect them from the fact that EW had the opportunity to open either a weak 2♣ or a strong 2♣, which they shouldn't have had. I would treat it as an illegal method as well as MI.

[nige1]

McBruce, on 2013-May-11, 05:22, said:

Novice/intermediate game (0-750 MP, very few Life Masters, for those familiar with ACBL numbers) at a sectional (local) tournament. Opening leader is calling because an auction seems odd: East opened 2♣, West responded 2♠, and after three passes that is the final contract. E-W are very nice new players, possibly at their first tournament, but have been seen at the club a few times in the entry-level lesson-games. West explains that the review is slightly incorrect: actually, the auction went like this: East displayed the Stop card and opened 2♣, West responded 2♠, and after three passes that is the final contract. When you ask how this is different, West explains patiently that with the Stop card they play this as a preempt. Without the Stop card, it's strong and forcing. She is entirely serious, completely without guilt or fear, and East has six losers and seven clubs to the AKQJ. The only thing you have going for you is that these opponents are kind enough to let you handle it. Your move, TD. (Tread carefully).

The stop card business is illegal and merits a strict warning. I'm unclear how the auction can cause NS much damage. Under ACBL rules, in this context, is a natural no-forcing 2♣ opener alertable? Is a natural nonforcing 2♠ response alertable? Would a strong artificial 2♣ opener be alertable?

[chrism]

nige1, on 2013-May-11, 07:20, said:

The stop card business is illegal and merits a strict warning. I'm unclear how the auction can cause NS much damage. Under ACBL rules, in this context, is a natural no-forcing 2♣ opener alertable? Is a natural nonforcing 2♠ response alertable? Would a strong artificial 2♣ opener be alertable?

In the ACBL:
A natural non-forcing 2♣ opening is alertable no matter what the range (including weak 2-bid and Precision 2♣)
NF suit responses to weak 2-bids are alertable
Strong artificial 2♣ opening is not alertable

[GreenMan]

Some of the original bid-boxes ( ) had "D" on the Double card instead of "X", and some clubs for a while had both kinds of boxes at different tables, and occasionally the different cards would get intermingled. I heard of an incident where a player was upset because her box only contained D cards, and she needed an X card, because they played that one was takeout and the other was penalty.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL stop card regulation begins "Players should protect their rights and the opponent's by announcing, prior to making any subsequent bid that skips one or more levels of
bidding". It is quite common in the ACBL to interpret "should" in this sentence as "you ought to, but you don't have to," but (a) the laws define failure to do something one "should" do as an infraction of law, and (b) if you read the full regulation, it becomes clear that the intent is that the stop card (or skip bid warning) always be used.

The regulation, as listed in the "ACBL Codification" clearly states that it is illegal to use the stop card as this pair have done - they have an illegal agreement. Law 40B5 says that in such cases if the NOS are damaged (likely, in this case), "the score shall be adjusted".

I would not issue a PP in match points to this clearly novice pair, but I would make it clear that what they have done is illegal, and make sure they understand that if they do it again, sooner or later they will be penalized. "Sooner or later" because there's no guarantee that the next TD who runs into this will be aware it's not the first time they've done it.

[lamford]

hrothgar, on 2013-May-11, 05:53, said:

They can use the stop card to convey extra information.

I presume that you have left out a "not" here, and hope that it is not a disease caught from RMB1.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-11, 11:48, said:

I would not issue a PP in match points to this clearly novice pair, but I would make it clear that what they have done is illegal, and make sure they understand that if they do it again, sooner or later they will be penalized. "Sooner or later" because there's no guarantee that the next TD who runs into this will be aware it's not the first time they've done it.

That, of course, is one of the problems with trying to teach "life novices" correct behavior. As long as they're perceived as players who don't know any better, they can get away with quite a bit.

I guess they'll eventually run out of directors who haven't seen them pull one of these stunts, and they'll get penalized because "I told you last time you can't do that."

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-May-11, 12:13, said:

That, of course, is one of the problems with trying to teach "life novices" correct behavior. As long as they're perceived as players who don't know any better, they can get away with quite a bit.

I guess they'll eventually run out of directors who haven't seen them pull one of these stunts, and they'll get penalized because "I told you last time you can't do that."

I wish I could think of a better solution, but short of always issuing a PP, I can't, and I don't think that's really better, given that we want to be able to cut people a little slack for a first offense.

[hrothgar]

lamford, on 2013-May-11, 11:49, said:

I presume that you have left out a "not" here

correct (and corrected)

[barmar]

I said it was a problem, I didn't say it was an easily solved problem.

[lamford]

pran, on 2013-May-11, 06:16, said:

As he said: "It was completely impossible to make these guys understand that this was illegal use of STOP!"

Then it must be the explainer that is at fault. It reminded me of a pair in Birmingham who played revolving discards. The way they turned the card indicated whether they wanted the higher or lower suit. They understood this was not allowed when it was explained to them.

[nige1]

chrism, on 2013-May-11, 10:10, said:

In the ACBL: A natural non-forcing 2♣ opening is alertable no matter what the range (including weak 2-bid and Precision 2♣)
NF suit responses to weak 2-bids are alertable
Strong artificial 2♣ opening is not alertable

Thank you, that accords with the general approach of local regulators

[McBruce]

Bravo to the responders here; everyone clearly recognized the importance of explaining without scorn or innuendo. At the table I told them with a smile that I was gobsmacked by their methods and I compared it to the old tale of the two players who arrived at a tournament bearing a system card with "lead singletons with left hand" marked in the defensive carding area. They immediately saw this as illegal, and from there we established that two different meanings for the same bid based on whether or not the stop card appeared was in that same ballpark.

Today I was concerned when 'Team Stop Card' did not play in the afternoon session, but they did arrive for the evening 0-750 game, and I had a very quick chat with them about the stop card and offered a more lengthy version the next time we meet at the club. 2♠ went two down vulnerable and was a universal zero; no adjustment required. I also privately thanked the player who called the TD for his behavior (and his partner's) at the table during the call: nobody reacted in such a way to scare them into never returning, which is important. So it appears all is well, but with one more day in the tourney we'll see if we can top this one tomorrow...

[Cyberyeti]

As a much younger player a good 25 years ago, I did something as a matter of routine which I had no clue was illegal. I used to watch when a defender detached a card from his hand and use that information to try to work out how many cards he had in the suit. Somebody noticed this and pointed out that it was illegal and showed me the part of the rules that said this which was perfectly fine. I trained myself to stare at the middle of the table when declaring to avoid doing this (which I no longer have to do). Unfortunately, the person that showed me the rulebook delighted in breaking tempo for no obvious reason at which point when I was declaring, meaning that I looked at him and he gave me a tut tut implying I was doing it again.

[blackshoe]

Heh. Procedural penalty. See Laws 72B1, 73D, 74A, and 74D7, particularly the last.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2013-May-11, 06:16, said:

When STOP (and ALERT) was introduced in Norway one of the original rules was that STOP was mandatory with 1NT opening bids showing less than (I believe) 15 HCP. (The "normal" HCP range for 1 NT opening bids was, and still is 15-17).

The Secretary General of the Norwegian Bridge Federation told me some years later that they had had to drop this STOP rule because players within some Norwegian regions had "invented" a new system where STOP 1NT showed 12-14 HCP and 1NT without STOP showed 15-17 HCP.

As he said: "It was completely impossible to make these guys understand that this was illegal use of STOP!"

It should have been no surprise. What you had there was self-announcement of bid meaning, and that is obviously liable to abuse in at-the-table bridge without screens. Announcement "weak" by the bidder's partner would have been a securer way to achieve the same objective.