Norwegian STOP bid regulations

[jallerton]

On another thread, there has been a reference to Norwegian STOP bid regulations. How do they work exactly?

 

1. When do these apply? For example, if the auction starts: 2♠-P-P-3♣ is Opener expected to pause?

 

2. If a player doubles (or redoubles) a bid at the 3-level, does that count as a STOP?

 

3. How long are players expected to pause for? If the 3-level bidder displays the STOP card for only a very short period of time (or fails to use the STOP card at all) is the next player obliged to pause anyway?

 

4. Are all players expected to pause in a competitive auction at the 3-level or is it just the RHO of the bidder?

 

5. Are the STOP rules properly observed by most players?

 

6. Do you find that some auctions take a long time to complete? Suppose the auction goes:

1♥-1♠-2♥-2♠

3♣-3♦-3♥-3♠

4♥-4♠-Dbl-Pass

Pass-Pass

[gnasher]

There is a summary or the rule in this thread:

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...=0entry401471

[pran]

This translation is not official, it is my personal attempt to translate the current Norwegian STOP regulation into English:

 

A: General

 

STOP is used to give opponents 10 seconds compulsory pause for thought after a call that must be expected to cause need for consideration. Pause for thought is most common after skip bids (including opening bids on level 2 or higher) and in competitive auctions at level 3 and higher.

 

A STOP pause for thought begins after opponents have received answers to possible questions on the call.

 

The pause shall last approximately 10 seconds and it is the duty of the player who has displayed the STOP card (or said "STOP") to mark the expiration of the pause.

 

B: STOP with compulsory pause for thought

 

Pause shall be announced displaying a STOP card or by saying "STOP":

- with opening bids at the level 2 or higher

- with all skip bids

- with all calls except PASS in all competitive auctions from level 3 and up.

 

A player who displays the STOP card or says "STOP" forces his LHO to delay calling until the STOP card is retracted or for instance "continue" is spoken.

 

LHO is according to these rules always entitled to 10 seconds pause for thought in the specified situations regardless of whether or not STOP was used.

 

It is correct tempo to wait these seconds.

 

A pause for thought that is considerably longer or shorter than 10 seconds is therefore considered to possibly conveying unauthorized information even if RHO failed to display the STOP card or saying "STOP".

 

Players' variations in tempo can still convey unauthorized information also within the new limits.

 

C: Comments

 

These comments are not part of this regulation but rather to help applying it.

 

Correct tempo:

- Pause for thought is now defined the same whether or not STOP is correctly used.

- Players that call slightly too early or too slow when RHO failed to use STOP are to be treated "leniently".

- Very quick or very late action can convey unauthorized information and thereby limit partner's options.

 

Competition is to be expected when both sides have called on the 2-level.

- if one of the sides does not call (other than pass) on the 3-level (or during an entire round of the auction) then STOP is not used thereafter.

- This STOP rule is reinstated if that side again makes a call other than PASS.

 

--------------------------------------------------------

A personal note: I suspect there is a slip of the pen when the "comments" require both sides to having called (other tnan pass) at the 2-level for the auction to be considered competitive at the 3-level and up.

 

The way I understand the rule a competitive auction exists from the 3-level and up when both sides have called (other than pass) below the 3-level unless at any time during the auction both players on one side have passed at their respective latest turn to call.

[axman]

This translation is not official, it is my personal attempt to translate the current Norwegian STOP regulation into English:

 

A: General

 

STOP is used to give opponents 10 seconds compulsory pause for thought after a call that must be expected to cause need for consideration.

The use of the STOP command conveys to partner that you consider the opponent is to take ten seconds prior to calling. This consideration is bridge information as to your judgment. The presence and absence of the STOP command is a system of communication with partner other than by call or play and is in conflict with L73B2 which describes the most heinous of bridge crimes. As described by L80B2f such regulation is illegal.

[blackshoe]

It appears, if I understand this thing correctly, that in Jeffrey's example auction, there are to be seven required ten second pauses, four in the second round, and three in the third. Total, 70 seconds. Seems a bit too much to me. :blink: :unsure:

[pran]

This translation is not official, it is my personal attempt to translate the current Norwegian STOP regulation into English:

 

A: General

 

STOP is used to give opponents 10 seconds compulsory pause for thought after a call that must be expected to cause need for consideration.

The use of the STOP command conveys to partner that you consider the opponent is to take ten seconds prior to calling. This consideration is bridge information as to your judgment. The presence and absence of the STOP command is a system of communication with partner other than by call or play and is in conflict with L73B2 which describes the most heinous of bridge crimes. As described by L80B2f such regulation is illegal.

What do you mean?

 

Using STOP when none is required is an irregularity.

Not using STOP when one is required is a violation of regulation.

Varying between using and not using STOP (wether or not required in the actual situation) in order to communicate to partner is a serious infraction of Law 73.

[pran]

It appears, if I understand this thing correctly, that in Jeffrey's example auction, there are to be seven required ten second pauses, four in the second round, and three in the third. Total, 70 seconds. Seems a bit too much to me. :( :(

And so what?

 

Is five minutes delay caused by discussion, TD call, TD ruling, more discussion and eventually an appeal any better?

 

This regulation seems to work well in Norway.

[jallerton]

This translation is not official, it is my personal attempt to translate the current Norwegian STOP regulation into English:

Thanks for the information. Official or not, I can assure you that your translation from Norwegian to English will be far more accurate than I could even dream of achieving!

 

In your experience, are Norwegian players quite good at following these rules?

[NickRW]

I think I vastly prefer regulations like this. In England we only seem to use stop cards after skip bids - but the next player, in a great many situations, has no great need of the extra time - consequently the 10 second rule is widely flaunted. But, in contrast, competitive auctions commonly attract a 2 or 3 second pause - then the opps want to reserve their rights over what was not really an undue pause at all - with a great deal of angst generated as a result. It is no use whatsoever the TD trying to say calm down - your opps only want to reserve their rights - the supposed pauser's partner is sitting there absolutely steaming and wanting to say, "are you calling me a f***ing cheater - you wanna step outside and say that". I've been on all sides of this and it is distinctly unpleasant - way way more unpleasant that any other single annoying feature of the game.

 

Nick

[blackshoe]

And so what?

 

Is five minutes delay caused by discussion, TD call, TD ruling, more discussion and eventually an appeal any better?

 

This regulation seems to work well in Norway.

And so nothing. You in Norway can do what you like. Just don't expect the rest of the world to follow your lead.

[pran]

This translation is not official, it is my personal attempt to translate the current Norwegian STOP regulation into English:

Thanks for the information. Official or not, I can assure you that your translation from Norwegian to English will be far more accurate than I could even dream of achieving!

 

In your experience, are Norwegian players quite good at following these rules?

At club level: NO

At higher level: Yes

 

And at any level the first thing I "investigate" when summoned to an allegation of BIT during the auction is if the regulation has been observed. If not I just let the auction continue without any rectification unless there is overwhelming evidence of improper and deliberate gross break in tempo for no bridge reason.

[pran]

And so what?

 

Is five minutes delay caused by discussion, TD call, TD ruling, more discussion and eventually an appeal any better?

 

This regulation seems to work well in Norway.

And so nothing. You in Norway can do what you like. Just don't expect the rest of the world to follow your lead.

I simply cannot see how "we in Norway can do what we like"?

 

When the STOP regulation is observed any BIT is easily established and the player making a STOP is protected if his LHO breaks tempo.

 

The consequence of not using STOP when required is that the player is not protected.

 

In either case any information partner can infer except from the call itself is extraneous.

 

And I don't care what the rest of the world do (but I suppose I am permitted to worry on behalf of the game of Bridge?)

[gnasher]

In England ... wanting to say, "are you calling me a f***ing cheater - you wanna step outside and say that".

Which part of England do you live in?

[NickRW]

In England ... wanting to say, "are you calling me a f***ing cheater - you wanna step outside and say that".

Which part of England do you live in?

South East.

[blackshoe]

I simply cannot see how "we in Norway can do what we like"?

I meant that your NBO can make whatever regulation it likes in this area — provided it's consistent with the laws, of course.

[blackshoe]

In England ... wanting to say, "are you calling me a f***ing cheater - you wanna step outside and say that".

Which part of England do you live in?

South East.

Sounds a lot like the South Bronx. :D

[bluejak]

That part of England gets more like the South Bronx every day.

[Vampyr]

In England ... wanting to say, "are you calling me a f***ing cheater - you wanna step outside and say that".

Which part of England do you live in?

South East.

Sounds a lot like the South Bronx. :)

I live in the South East also, and it seems to me that people who state that they are "reserving their rights" are being at least a little belligerent and hostile. After all, it is a meaningless phrase, so what reason, other than to annoy your opponent, exists for uttering it?

[peachy]

This translation is not official, it is my personal attempt to translate the current Norwegian STOP regulation into English:

Thanks for the information. Official or not, I can assure you that your translation from Norwegian to English will be far more accurate than I could even dream of achieving!

 

In your experience, are Norwegian players quite good at following these rules?

At club level: NO

At higher level: Yes

 

And at any level the first thing I "investigate" when summoned to an allegation of BIT during the auction is if the regulation has been observed. If not I just let the auction continue without any rectification unless there is overwhelming evidence of improper and deliberate gross break in tempo for no bridge reason.

If the regulation is not observed/followed/enforced, it has no teeth and would possibly have the side effect of reducing respect for regulations in general. Anyway, if it works fine, fine. The waste of time still seems too great for me.

[pran]

This translation is not official, it is my personal attempt to translate the current Norwegian STOP regulation into English:

Thanks for the information. Official or not, I can assure you that your translation from Norwegian to English will be far more accurate than I could even dream of achieving!

 

In your experience, are Norwegian players quite good at following these rules?

At club level: NO

At higher level: Yes

 

And at any level the first thing I "investigate" when summoned to an allegation of BIT during the auction is if the regulation has been observed. If not I just let the auction continue without any rectification unless there is overwhelming evidence of improper and deliberate gross break in tempo for no bridge reason.

If the regulation is not observed/followed/enforced, it has no teeth and would possibly have the side effect of reducing respect for regulations in general. Anyway, if it works fine, fine. The waste of time still seems too great for me.

Maybe you misunderstood me?

 

Players who don't observe the regulation and fail to use STOP when required (for instance during a competitive auction) soon learn when they discover that their request for rectification after an alleged BIT is (in most cases) dismissed immediately.

 

The regulation is of course observed by the directors.

[bluejak]

I live in the South East also, and it seems to me that people who state that they are "reserving their rights" are being at least a little belligerent and hostile. After all, it is a meaningless phrase, so what reason, other than to annoy your opponent, exists for uttering it?

It is not meaningless: it is a matter of Law. Of course, you could explain it better, and people use in unsuitable situations.

 

The simplest reason for using the clause is that you trust your opponents and you say it to simplify a conversation and pass information to my opponents. If I thought Paul hesitated I might say "I am reserving my rights, ok?" and would expect Paul to either say "Yes" or "No, I do not agree, let's get the TD".

 

Against a lesser player this conversation would take more time because I would have to go through the moves of explaining I thought he hesitated, no, I did not say he cheated, no, Steffie, I am sure you have your bid really, and so on.

 

I am reserving my rights means that something has happened in my view which might need a TD call at the end of the hand. Sensible and knowledgeable opponents know this and either agree it has happened or call the TD. It is a time-saver.

 

Law 16B2 refers. Incidentally, it's a clause. :rolleyes:

[mjj29]

Against  a lesser player this conversation would take more time because I would have to go through the moves of explaining I thought he hesitated, no, I did not say he cheated, no, Steffie, I am sure you have your bid really, and so on.

This is why I always say "Are you happy to agree that your partner took some time before making that call?", doesn't take much longer to say and just sounds a whole lot nicer.

[pran]

Against  a lesser player this conversation would take more time because I would have to go through the moves of explaining I thought he hesitated, no, I did not say he cheated, no, Steffie, I am sure you have your bid really, and so on.

This is why I always say "Are you happy to agree that your partner took some time before making that call?", doesn't take much longer to say and just sounds a whole lot nicer.

Why exclude the player hesitating from the conversation?

 

"Do we agree that there was a pause here?" takes even less time and is IMHO equally polite and pleasant?

[zenko]

Years ago, late great Bobby Goldman was pushing hard for a similar type of modification. The idea has a lot of merit but the key problem is to define well "stop" situations without slowing the game too much.

 

I think this issue appears to be more important in theory than in reality. Every player good enough to beat you knows the rule, and will stay away from taking the advantage of UI. Lesser players might, just because they do not know any better, so the focus should be on educating them in friendly manner, not scaring them away.

[gnasher]

I think this issue appears to be more important in theory than in reality. Every player good enough to beat you knows the rule, and will stay away from taking the advantage of UI.

The purpose of the stop procedure isn't to stop people taking advantage of UI: it is to prevent the existence of UI. Other things being equal, every law-abiding player would prefer not to have UI, rather than to have UI and be constrained by it.