Stop Card regulations

[aguahombre]

IMO the whole business sucks especially at the club level where white on red it goes 1nt - p - 3nt with a stop card prominently displayed as the round is called.

 

I have never used the stop card, never called the Director on this issue and NEVER felt disadvantaged. BIT's are well handled by other means.

It sounds as if you are lucky that you live in a jurisdiction where this is permitted.

ACBL land and I'm not entirely sure this is legal but believe it is on the (non-enforcible) premise that you use it always or never, not sometimes as in for partners benefit.

 

Still, I've never had a problem with never.

ACBL "stop-regulations" may suit ggwhiz; but they seem unlucky for other members.

I am with GGWhiz on these thoughts. I don't think the stop card regulations of the ACBL are clear or enforceable. They don't "suit" us; they just suck at what they are intended to accomplish.

 

I don't see him saying he doesn't honor the opponents' use of the card, he just says he doesn't use it himself.

 

Breaks in tempo are identifiable with Stop Card use, and also in many other situations where the Stop Card was not used or there was no skip bid involved. They should be, and usually are, handled by the players and/or TD without relying on whether the Stop Card was used properly as a primary crutch.

 

I really believe the main (though unintended) result of using the Stop Card is to alert players who might not have been paying attention that a skip bid has occurred.

[blackshoe]

I think the ACBL stop card regulation is very clear as regards the important part, which is, to my mind, that when a skip bid is made, the LHO of the skip bidder is obligated to pause approximately ten seconds, while giving ever appearance, at least, of contemplating his hand and considering what call to make. The regulation specifies that this obligation exists whether or not the stop card is used. Granted, it doesn't say specifically anything about "what if it's not?" or "what if it's used improperly?" Doesn't matter. The idea behind the regulation is to avoid transmission of UI via a BIT, whether it be a "too short" BIT or a "too long" one. I think that requiring the skip bidder to leave the card out for the required time would be a good addition to the ACBL reg, but I note that we have one very good (and very ethical) player here who does leave the card out for what she considers is an appropriate time, but that time is consistently closer to six seconds than ten. So most likely that wouldn't work too well here, either, even if we could convince people to do it.

 

The bottom line is that most American players don't like the regulation, either because they think it's "silly" in some particular cases, or because they don't understand it and can't be bothered to fix that little problem, or because they don't think it should apply to them. And those players, most of them, think it's quite okay to ignore a regulation they don't like. An impression that's given considerable weight by the fact that TDs rarely rule against them.

[aguahombre]

The bottom line is that most American players don't like the regulation, either because they think it's "silly" in some particular cases, or because they don't understand it and can't be bothered to fix that little problem, or because they don't think it should apply to them. And those players, most of them, think it's quite okay to ignore a regulation they don't like. An impression that's given considerable weight by the fact that TDs rarely rule against them.

I think you might be mixing together two different things: not complying with the regulations about what to do if the opponent chooses to use the stop card, and choosing not to use the stop card.

 

The first applies to everyone and is subject to adverse rulings. The second is an ACBL option which should not affect adjudication for B.I.T.

[blackshoe]

Well, there are two parts to the regulation: how and when to give a "skip bid warning" (with or without bidding boxes), and how the LHO of a skip bidder is supposed to act. In fact, I've just read the actual regulation (ACBL BoD minute 953-102, in Appendix A to Chapter 12 of the "ACBL Codification"). It is commonly believed, and frequently ruled by directors (including me) that the warning is "optional". However what the regulation actually says is

 

The skip bid warning may not be used to alert partner that a strength-showing bid is being made or not being made. The warning should be used all the time. The tournament director may assess a procedural penalty (Law 90) for failure to comply.

(The emphasis is mine). That last sentence accords with the laws' usage of "should" - that failure to do what one "should" do is an infraction, although one rarely penalized. Nonetheless, TDs frequently rule that use of the stop card is "optional", and players have come to believe it, and some choose not to use it. I have been one. I'm going to have to go back to using it all the time, now.

 

The other part of the regulation is

 

When RHO has announced a skip bid, the player following the skip bidder must wait for a suitable interval (about 10 seconds). In waiting the player's manner must be one that suggests he is an active participant in the auction (the hand should be studied during pause). any obvious display of disinterest is most improper.

Note that this part says the player must wait. Under the current laws, if he must wait, and does not, he should receive a PP "more often than not". That doesn't happen, either.

 

The regulation also says

 

Experienced players expected to maintain proper temp whether a skip bid is announced or not.

Poorly edited, but that's what it says.

 

I've gotten a little sidetracked. What I was trying to say earlier was that a lot of people don't give the warning (which at the time I wrote that I thought was optional), and they don't pause the appropriate amount of time. I think both are down to either ignorance of the regulation, or "I don't care, I'll do what I want". Sometimes both. B-)

 

If there is a BIT (either fast or slow) the regulation specifies

 

When a player acts with undue haste or hesitation, the tournament director may award an adjusted score (Law 16) and/or procedural penalty (Law 90).

There is one caveat in the regulation, applicable to clubs.

 

The warning is effective for all ACBL sanctioned events. For sanctioned games at clubs, the club may elect to discourage it's use and require no mandated pause.

(Why do people insist on sticking apostrophes in where they don't belong?)

[Mbodell]

I dislike the ACBL stop card regulations and never use the stop card. It is impossible to be consistent otherwise since a good 10+% of bidding boxes are missing the stop card (more in the clubs).

 

Even when our team mates used the stop card today in the 5000 spingold our opponents 3 times in 14 boards turbo bid, once doubling the skip before the bid had even landed on the table. This resulted in a director call, some reported abuse of the director and a decisive 3 IMP zero tolerance penalty.

 

But still, using the stop card, even against decently experienced opponents (let alone against the random club players) just doesn't work.

 

I do, however, always pause myself after a jump, and usually count the tempo after any jump at the table (assuming I'm not furiously thinking about my bid). 10 seconds is a very long time, even when an opponent has seemed to think forever it is often only a slow count to 8 or 9.

[Zelandakh]

I like Nige's egg-timer idea too and wonder if this could be incorporated into Bridgemate. If there was a SKIP button a player could place their STOP card, make their bid, then press the button. When Bridgemate beeps they remove the card. I imagine that the company behind Bridgemate are always eager to hear about ideas to improve their product and this would be a very simple (and cheap) addition.

[bluejak]

The problem with the ACBL approach to Stop cards is that practice and theory often differ. Since I play annually in the Nationals [sometimes more often] and have occasionally played in North American clubs I have seen the skip bid regulation at work there. The basic difference between British and North American skip bids is caused by the card: if you make a skip bid in North America the average time before the next player calls is about three seconds: in England it is about six. My guess is that it is less than three seconds in clubs in North America.

 

The practice of the matter is that if you put out the Stop card and keep it out as per English regulation most people do not call before you put it away. In North America where keeping it out is wrong putting it out is so useless I have given up and far fewer people pause as required.

 

Sure, the basic regulation is the same: RHO skips, you are mandated to pause. But the effect of the British stop card use is that people do so much more.

[blackshoe]

I dislike the ACBL stop card regulations and never use the stop card. It is impossible to be consistent otherwise since a good 10+% of bidding boxes are missing the stop card (more in the clubs).

 

Even when our team mates used the stop card today in the 5000 spingold our opponents 3 times in 14 boards turbo bid, once doubling the skip before the bid had even landed on the table. This resulted in a director call, some reported abuse of the director and a decisive 3 IMP zero tolerance penalty.

 

But still, using the stop card, even against decently experienced opponents (let alone against the random club players) just doesn't work.

 

I do, however, always pause myself after a jump, and usually count the tempo after any jump at the table (assuming I'm not furiously thinking about my bid). 10 seconds is a very long time, even when an opponent has seemed to think forever it is often only a slow count to 8 or 9.

 

I think that if the stop card is missing, one should call the director and ask for one. In the meantime, I'd give a verbal "skip bid warning".

 

That using the stop card "just doesn't work" is why, when I thought its use was optional, I stopped using it. As I said in my last post, though, having read the regulation, I've concluded the use is not optional, so I'm going back to using it. And I will apply Law 16B2 when LHO breaks tempo. And I think everyone should do so.

 

Yes, ten seconds is a long time, and also players are not very patient people. Too bad for them.

[barmar]

I suspect the assumption that use is optional comes from intepreting "The warning should be used all the time." as "The warning should be used consistently." I think this comes about because the sentence follows the one that specifically refers to using it to distinguish strong from weak jumps, it appears to be a reinforcement of that.

 

Note also that there are lots of "should"s in there, rather than "must"s. And the justification is for protecting one's own rights. Believers in personal responsibility tend not to believe that one cannot be REQUIRED to protect themselves. If you don't use the STOP card, you may forego some recticiation.

[AlexJonson]

My personal favourite is a stop card (EBU style) placed on the table and followed by a long pause during which the player:

 

reconnects with our world (not computer jargon)

decides which jump bid to make

decides whether to withdraw his stop card ... can he

 

I was persuaded a long time ago by a strong player that playing in strong company, you stick to the rhythm of stop cards (he was an idealist obviously). I like the rhythm and regularity argument.

 

In an average game I would never care one way or the other.

[mjj29]

My personal favourite is a stop card (EBU style) placed on the table and followed by a long pause during which the player:

 

reconnects with our world (not computer jargon)

decides which jump bid to make

decides whether to withdraw his stop card ... can he

The 'stop card then think' approach is particularly good when they've actually pulled out the other red card instead and then sit there making no sign that they've not completed their turn of bidding

 

(And the stop card isn't actually part of a call, so if you put the stop card out you aren't actually required to make a skip bid, it just might be UI)

[bill1157]

All this discussion tells me that we should do away with stop cards and forbid anyone saying: "skip bid please wait" or the like.

The stop card regulations (waiting 10 seconds,6 seconds,or whatever) is not followed and is unrealistic.

[blackshoe]

So we go back to the old situation, where people break tempo, partner takes advantage, and there's no redress?

[axman]

So we go back to the old situation, where people break tempo, partner takes advantage, and there's no redress?

 

Please demmonstrate by a realistic example.

[blackshoe]

Oh, come on, axman. Why do you think the regulation was implemented in the first place?

[axman]

Oh, come on, axman. Why do you think the regulation was implemented in the first place?

 

I am the world's worst guesser. Ive been proven to be a lousy mind reader. I have no inclination to read the minds of they that do the things of imbeciles.

[barmar]

Sometimes regulations are enacted because there's an actual problem that needs to be solved -- screens are a good example, as there were some cheating scandals involving subtle visual signals between partners.

 

Other times, regulations are created preemptively because of potential problems. For instance, I don't think there have been any examples of bridge players cheating with cellphones, to prompt the draconian cellphone prohibition at NABC+ events.

 

The STOP card regulation could be either of these. Although the fact that it's been around so long, and is used in one form or another in so many jurisdictions, leads me to think it's the first type. Stupid rules don't tend to be so widespread.

[aguahombre]

Exceedingly harsh (Draconian) prohibition of cellphones?

 

At the risk of perpetuating the off-topic reference:

 

In addition to preventing a method of possible improper communication, the prohibition also eliminates a source of irritation and distraction to the other players.

 

Even if it is on "silent", the mere fumbling with the phone during play is a source of distraction and doubt among others. Text shows up on the screen.

 

I would bet that the people who have no problem with the prohibition are the same ones who were always polite enough to not use them in the playing area before. Anyone who is old enough to remember when we only had landlines, remembers he/she could live without external communication while playing Bridge.

[barmar]

Exceedingly harsh (Draconian) prohibition of cellphones?

 

At the risk of perpetuating the off-topic reference:

 

In addition to preventing a method of possible improper communication, the prohibition also eliminates a source of irritation and distraction to the other players.

 

Even if it is on "silent", the mere fumbling with the phone during play is a source of distraction and doubt among others. Text shows up on the screen.

 

I would bet that the people who have no problem with the prohibition are the same ones who were always polite enough to not use them in the playing area before. Anyone who is old enough to remember when we only had landlines, remembers he/she could live without external communication while playing Bridge.

In regular events they allow cellphones, but require that they be turned off. In NABC+ events, they aren't even allowed to be in the room, even if they're turned off. How does a device that's turned off create irritation and distraction to the other players? If a phone goes off during a regular event, there's supposed to be a penalty, but I don't know how diligent they are about enforcing it. They could certainly be more severe in national events (an immediate full board penalty in pair games, for instance), that should be sufficient deterrant to having the phone turned on. But the complete prohibition has always been claimed to be for security reasons, not comfort, despite the lack of any evidence of use of cell phones for cheating.

 

The reason the prohibition is considered onerous is not because they need to use the phone during the game, but because leaving it somewhere else is inconvenient or requires paying a fee.

 

It doesn't bother me personally, but surely you've seen the threads about it in other forums where people complain that it's unnecessary and bothersome.

[bluejak]

Players take advantage of long pauses from partner, possibly unintentionally: the Stop card regulations, which are followed some of the time, have reduced this problem.

 

:ph34r:

 

There is a case where a teenage player was found in the toilet texting details of a hand he had played to a friend who had not played the board yet.

[barmar]

Players take advantage of long pauses from partner, possibly unintentionally: the Stop card regulations, which are followed some of the time, have reduced this problem.

Yes, players occasionally take inferences from hesitations. But 99% of the time I think this occurs in complicated auctions. I haven't noticed any particular correlation with skip bids.

 

There is a case where a teenage player was found in the toilet texting details of a hand he had played to a friend who had not played the board yet.

If the friend's cellphone were turned off, he couldn't get the text. Maybe the concern is that the receiver could go to the toilet and turn his phone on while out of the room to get the message. But in cold weather he could also do that by leaving his phone in his jacket outside the room.

 

There actually was a cellphone scandal in the chess world earlier this year, where a cohort was using a computer and sending messages to the player. But turned-off phones can't be used in such a scheme.

[bluejak]

I don't think it is complicated auctions at all: typically it is something like 3H slow pass pass ???

 

Or 1S dbl 3S slow pass pass ???

 

Players often make quick decisions when someone produces a non-jump bid in front of them. But a jump tends to be more of a surprise. I think the Stop regulations have seriously cut down the number of UI problems.

[aguahombre]

Players often make quick decisions when someone produces a non-jump bid in front of them. But a jump tends to be more of a surprise. I think the Stop regulations have seriously cut down the number of UI problems.

You are probably right, for the less experienced players, and the slow pass rather than the slow bid is by far the most frequent problem for that level.

 

At higher levels, IMO, the mere establishment of, and widespread publicizing of, the concept (however vague depending on the jurisdiction) that after a skip bid one is likely to have a reason to slow down and should do so even without a reason has cut down on these problems.

 

From what I see, the B.I.T problems coming to the attention of AC's and TD's are more often the result of complicated auctions and caused by the "offenders'" own doubt about what certain calls mean or meant. Sometimes this is a competitive auction, sometimes not; but rarely are Stop Cards or Stop Regulations a real factor.

Edited August 1, 2011 by aguahombre

[bluejak]

True: but that proves their worth: Stop card situations are less likely to create UI rulings because of the Stop card regulations.

[aguahombre]

True: but that proves their worth: Stop card situations are less likely to create UI rulings because of the Stop card regulations.

We are coming from slightly different angles on this, and different jurisdictions. In your world the stop card seems to be taken seriously, and might well "create" a UI ruling.

 

In ACBL, it seems that the B.I.T. itself, and what it conveys or doesn't convey (UI) is the focus; and the use or failure to use the Stop Card doesn't significantly "alter" the rulings.

 

The original poster is in London, but the perspectives similar to mine seem to come from ACBL land.

Edited August 2, 2011 by aguahombre