Appeal in San Diego

[barmar]

Sven, you entirely missed my point. Let me put it simply: Why should a regulation require a player to help his opponents avoid a problem? It's kind of like requiring football (either variety) players to warn their opponents when they're about to step offside.

 

Nigel, if you want to spin everything so it fits your preconceptions, I can't stop you, but please leave my name out of it. :(

I suspect the reason that many countries do it that way is simply because it tends to work better. The skip bidder doesn't usually have anything to do immediately after making his bid, it's easy for him to count out the time to keep the STOP card on the table. On the other hand, if the opponent actually has something to think about, it can be difficult for him to also count out the time so that he makes his bid at the required 10 second mark.

 

And we simply know from experience that when the opponent doesn't have anything to think about, they frequently bid too quickly. But if the skip bidder keeps the STOP card out, that serves as a better reminder not to bid.

 

In an ideal world we wouldn't even need the STOP card, but we don't live in an ideal world. As a practical matter, putting the onus on the skip bidder solves the problem best.

[aguahombre]

nice, barmar...but you didn't leave his name out of it :(

[blackshoe]

The English (European) solution is certainly expedient, and there's no law that specifically says that a player is responsible for his own tempo, but it still seems a bit much to make an opponent responsible for it.

[pran]

The English (European) solution is certainly expedient, and there's no law that specifically says that a player is responsible for his own tempo, but it still seems a bit much to make an opponent responsible for it.

The opponent isn't responsible for the tempo, he is responsible for establishing a specific reference as to which tempo shall not be considered BIT with that particular call.

 

Is there anything in the laws that makes our regulation:

 

- Illegal?

- Unreasonable?

- Unsuitable?

- Unfair to either side?

[blackshoe]

Illegal? I don't know. It depends, I think, on how you interpret "not in conflict with these laws". I don't think your regulation as written is in conflict with the letter of the law.

Unreasonable? Unsuitable? Unfair to either side? Well, the laws say that if a player breaks tempo, and his side gains when his partner may have taken advantage of UI, the TD shall adjust the score. Your regulation, in practice, says that failure by the player's RHO to use the stop card lets the player off the hook. I think that's unfair to the side which didn't break tempo, unsuitable, and unreasonable.

 

I think it would be better in law, in most cases, to adjust the score if appropriate, but if the stop card wasn't used (and there is no "optional" about it as there is here) then issue a PP. BTW, what is the wording of the regulation? "Should" use the stop card? "Must" use it? It probably ought to say "must".

 

I think your regulation works better than ours, at least insofar as making it easy for the skip bidder's LHO to maintain proper tempo. I just don't think it's right to let LHO off the hook if the stop card isn't used.

[pran]

BTW, what is the wording of the regulation? "Should" use the stop card? "Must" use it? It probably ought to say "must".

 

I think your regulation works better than ours, at least insofar as making it easy for the skip bidder's LHO to maintain proper tempo. I just don't think it's right to let LHO off the hook if the stop card isn't used.

It says "shall" (which in practice amounts to the same as "must").

 

We (or rather our NBOs) obviously have a difference in opinion on what is "right". I agree with my NBO, and you seem at least to agree that our regulation works better than yours?

[blackshoe]

"Shall" is not quite the same as "must", but close enough for this purpose, since when a player "shall" do something, he just usually get a PP if he doesn't do it.

 

Yes, I did say (with a caveat) that I think yours probably works better than ours. I'm mostly concerned not with the mechanics, though, but with the implication that a pair which may have taken advantage of UI might get away with it if their opponent failed to use the stop card.

[bluejak]

Unreasonable? Unsuitable? Unfair to either side? Well, the laws say that if a player breaks tempo, and his side gains when his partner may have taken advantage of UI, the TD shall adjust the score. Your regulation, in practice, says that failure by the player's RHO to use the stop card lets the player off the hook. I think that's unfair to the side which didn't break tempo, unsuitable, and unreasonable.

 

I think it would be better in law, in most cases, to adjust the score if appropriate, but if the stop card wasn't used (and there is no "optional" about it as there is here) then issue a PP. BTW, what is the wording of the regulation? "Should" use the stop card? "Must" use it? It probably ought to say "must".

 

I think your regulation works better than ours, at least insofar as making it easy for the skip bidder's LHO to maintain proper tempo. I just don't think it's right to let LHO off the hook if the stop card isn't used.

The English regulations say "should". As far as we are concerned that does not make it optional in any way, it just seems politer than must. Players are expected to obey regulations.

 

Players are required to wait ten seconds if the Stop card is not displayed. While they certainly get some sympathy and certainly benefit of the doubt if it is not displayed, that is nowhere near the same as saying they can ignore the requirement to pause.

 

One of the problems with the American approach to skip bids is that, apart from all the people who do not pause as required, the opponents do not know whether a pause is a break in tempo because they do not know what the pair's normal habits are. But if the tempo is controlled by the opponents a break in tempo becomes obvious.

 

There seems a presumption in your post that the Stop card will not be displayed: in practice that is very rare in tournament play, and reasonably so in club play. But there are problems - especially in club play - that it is not left out long enough.

[blackshoe]

There seems a presumption in your post that the Stop card will not be displayed:

I was responding to this statement of Sven's:

when we get summoned because of an alleged BIT after a skip bid (or in a competitive auction) the first thing we ask is if STOP was used (properly).

 

If the answer is "no" then that player will remember to use it whenever needed in the future because then only in very extreme situations do we do anything further with the allegation.

[pran]

"Shall" is not quite the same as "must", but close enough for this purpose, since when a player "shall" do something, he just usually get a PP if he doesn't do it.

 

Yes, I did say (with a caveat) that I think yours probably works better than ours. I'm mostly concerned not with the mechanics, though, but with the implication that a pair which may have taken advantage of UI might get away with it if their opponent failed to use the stop card.

If they take advantage of anything it is opponents' failure to use STOP and not any UI as such.

 

The alleged UI if LHO calls without any delay must in case be that he had no problem selecting his call. I have a problem seeing how such alleged UI can restrict RHO's choices in selecting his subsequent calls except in very extreme cases.

[mjj29]

If they take advantage of anything it is opponents' failure to use STOP and not any UI as such.

 

The alleged UI if LHO calls without any delay must in case be that he had no problem selecting his call. I have a problem seeing how such alleged UI can restrict RHO's choices in selecting his subsequent calls except in very extreme cases.

I think people were probably thinking of the case where there was a pause of 15 seconds or so. Is that a not very good estimation of 10 seconds, or a genuine tank. If LHO hasn't been holding the stop card I think it would have to have been an undisputed 20 or 30 seconds or so before I would rule there was UI. If LHO displays the stop card for about the right amount of time and there is a subsequent pause, then it's a lot clearer there is UI.

[blackshoe]

Heh. Once, opps called the TD, alleging I had tanked for "at least 15 seconds". I maintained I had not, but had followed the ten second rule. My partner supported the opponents, saying "I'm a nurse, I know what ten seconds is". In the car on the way home, I gave her my watch, with a stopwatch function, and said "tell me when to start". She did, at what I thought was ten seconds, I called time. "Hah!" she says, "Eleven seconds!" "Give me the watch" I said. "Now you... Begin." She called time at fifteen seconds. :lol:

[bluejak]

It is easy. I sing to myself:

 

"Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday dear Da- - -vid,

Happy birthday to you."

 

I find that takes ten seconds.

[mamos]

What do you do on the other 364 days of the year David?

[jdonn]

Do you look like you are thinking about what to bid while you sing happy birthday? That's what I call talent.

[Phil]

It is easy. I sing to myself:

 

"Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday dear Da- - -vid,

Happy birthday to you."

 

I find that takes ten seconds.

Something to do when the Stop card is placed in front of me as I stare at my 5 count.

[pran]

It is easy.  I sing to myself:

 

"Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday dear Da- - -vid,

Happy birthday to you."

 

I find that takes ten seconds.

And while doing this you can still concentrate on deciding what call to make when you have serious alternatives to select between?

 

Most people can do one or the other, not both simultaneously.

[nige1]

Heh. Once, opps called the TD, alleging I had tanked for "at least 15 seconds". I maintained I had not, but had followed the ten second rule. My partner supported the opponents, saying "I'm a nurse, I know what ten seconds is". In the car on the way home, I gave her my watch, with a stopwatch function, and said "tell me when to start". She did, at what I thought was ten seconds, I called time. "Hah!" she says, "Eleven seconds!" "Give me the watch" I said. "Now you... Begin." She called time at fifteen seconds. :lol:

If the nurse underestimates elapsed time consistently, then her partner's hesitation lasted over 20 secs, more than twice as long as he thought. Perhaps the game would benefit from a timing device.

[blackshoe]

The point, Nigel, was that at least in this particular case I (her partner) was a better judge of "ten seconds" than was my friend, the nurse, despite her claim.

 

I very much doubt that I would have hesitated 20 seconds and claimed it was ten, even without having demonstrated that my estimation of ten seconds is pretty close.

[bluejak]

It is easy.  I sing to myself:

 

"Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday dear Da- - -vid,

Happy birthday to you."

 

I find that takes ten seconds.

And while doing this you can still concentrate on deciding what call to make when you have serious alternatives to select between?

 

Most people can do one or the other, not both simultaneously.

You do seem to make every effort to misunderstand on every occasion.

 

I sing it to myself while I am displaying the Stop card, of course. When my opponent is doing so, and I am thinking what to call, I do not need to, do I?

[barmar]

I think there was a thread a few years ago on r.g.b that suggested the first verse of the Beatles "When I'm 64".

 

In the American system, I think the presumption is that if you actually have something to think about, you don't need to time it -- your natural hesitation is likely to be close enough to 10 seconds (or longer, if you're really unsure what to do -- in this case the STOP card regulation really doesn't help). So you only have to sing to yourself in the case where you're pausing artificially.

[Trinidad]

It is easy.  I sing to myself:

 

"Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday dear Da- - -vid,

Happy birthday to you."

 

I find that takes ten seconds.

And while doing this you can still concentrate on deciding what call to make when you have serious alternatives to select between?

 

Most people can do one or the other, not both simultaneously.

You do seem to make every effort to misunderstand on every occasion.

 

I sing it to myself while I am displaying the Stop card, of course. When my opponent is doing so, and I am thinking what to call, I do not need to, do I?

In ACBL land you would, and that is Sven's point.

 

Both of you do seem to make a sport out of not understanding eachother.

 

As I understand it, you are both advocating that the player who makes the skip bid is controlling the tempo of his LHO. I am very much in favor of that approach.

 

LHO could also control the tempo if he doesn't have anything to think about. He can count to 10 or he can sing for David. But when he does have something to think about he cannot think and count or sing at the same time. This is the reason why the Norwegian and UK approach works better than the ACBL approach.

 

---

 

My own opinion 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

Edited December 16, 2009 by Trinidad

[Trinidad]

I think there was a thread a few years ago on r.g.b that suggested the first verse of the Beatles "When I'm 64".

 

In the American system, I think the presumption is that if you actually have something to think about, you don't need to time it -- your natural hesitation is likely to be close enough to 10 seconds (or longer, if you're really unsure what to do -- in this case the STOP card regulation really doesn't help). So you only have to sing to yourself in the case where you're pausing artificially.

I think that you are right in that the ACBL is making that presumption.

 

However, when you play under the UK or Norwegian conditions, you see that this presumption is incorrect. Most of the time that you have a bidding problem, your RHO will be holding out the STOP card for another 5-8 seconds before he allows you to make your bid. Thus, most of these difficult decisions are made in about 3-4 seconds, instead of the presumed 10.

 

Rik

[pran]

It is easy.  I sing to myself:

 

"Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday dear Da- - -vid,

Happy birthday to you."

 

I find that takes ten seconds.

And while doing this you can still concentrate on deciding what call to make when you have serious alternatives to select between?

 

Most people can do one or the other, not both simultaneously.

You do seem to make every effort to misunderstand on every occasion.

 

I sing it to myself while I am displaying the Stop card, of course. When my opponent is doing so, and I am thinking what to call, I do not need to, do I?

Sorry, I thought you told how you did when playing in the US where the player who must measure out the ten seconds is the same player who needs this time for his considerations.

 

My mistake.

[pran]

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!