No stop card

[bluejak]

James Vickers asked me an interesting one here in Brighton. In England players nearly always put a stop card out before a jump bid, even if some of them withdraw it too quickly and sometimes do not stop over it.

 

Stop 2♣ [Precision]

No stop 3♦

3♣

 

When asked why he bid 3♣ he said he had decided to raise somewhat pre-emptively to three. When there was o stop card it did not occur to him that 3♣ would be insufficient.

 

Ruling?

[mfa1010]

I can't help him, this is a regular insufficient bid.

The purpose of the stop regulation is to limit UI transmission. Not to service an opponent that he should now be aware that a deeper dig into the bidding box is going to be required for joining the action.

[shintaro]

:lol:

 

Perhaps he/she should have gone to 'Specsavers'

 

:P

[aguahombre]

I can't help him, this is a regular insufficient bid.

The purpose of the stop regulation is to limit UI transmission. Not to service an opponent that he should now be aware that a deeper dig into the bidding box is going to be required for joining the action.

That's what I thought. But for some reason Bluejack chose to bring it up; maybe there is something different in the EBU literature which adds more purposes to Stop Card usage.

[ahydra]

Deal with it as an insufficient bid, remind (with liberal use of the pointy stick used on those old-fashioned things where you point at the call you want to make) the 3D bidder that he needs to use the Stop card properly, problem solved?

 

ahydra

[blackshoe]

Overcaller has failed to use the stop card, which is a breach of the regulation. However, the regulation says players "should" use the stop card, so that the infraction is "not often penalized"*. However, overcaller seems also to be in breach of Law 73D1, unless he never uses the stop card. That might result, eventually, in an adjusted score.

 

All that said, responder has nonetheless made an insufficient bid, with which the TD must deal. Law 27 applies.

 

There is some missing evidence, as well. Did overcaller make the required pause before bidding? Did responder? I would guess responder probably did not, since he did not seem to notice that 3♦ was a skip.

[iviehoff]

A common reason in England for failing to use the stop card when overcalling is that there was no conscious decision to make a jump overcall. We could probably make everyone happy by reducing the 3D bid to 2D, if that is the case. But it comes into the category of miscalculated rather than unintended, so that would not be a legal ruling.

[blackshoe]

Hm. I had trouble parsing that, ivie. I think perhaps you're suggesting that if 3♦ was unintended, we could allow overcaller to change it to 2♦, not that the TD should somehow "roll it back". Am I right?

[jallerton]

James Vickers asked me an interesting one here in Brighton. In England players nearly always put a stop card out before a jump bid, even if some of them withdraw it too quickly and sometimes do not stop over it.

 

Stop 2♣ [Precision]

No stop 3♦

3♣

 

When asked why he bid 3♣ he said he had decided to raise somewhat pre-emptively to three. When there was o stop card it did not occur to him that 3♣ would be insufficient.

 

Ruling?

 

For ease of reference, I'll assume that the 2♣ Opener was North, East bid 3♦ then South bid 3♣. My ruling has several stages:

 

1. Ask the 3♦ bidder to explain why he did not use the 'stop' card. If you judge from the response that the player intended to pull out the 2♦ card (or some other non-jump bid) then consider whether a change of call is permitted under Law 25A. If it is, then the 3♣ bid is withdrawn and South is now invited to make a (hopefully legal) call.

 

2. If the 3♦ bid stands, then deal with 3♣ using the normal recommended procedure for dealing with an insufficent bid.

 

3. At the end of the hand, apply Law 27D if appropriate.

 

4. Also at the end of the hand, consider whether the failure to use the 'stop' card may have damaged North/South. It seems to me that South's contention is valid: had East used the 'stop' card, South would probably not have made the insufficient bid. East "could have known" that his failure to use the 'stop' card might cause damage so I suggest using Law 23 (or maybe Law 12A1) and Law 12C to adjust the score:

 

(i) For East/West, decide what would/might have happened after 2♣-STOP 3♦, weighting the score "to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results". East/West are assigned this weighted score unless the result achieved at the table is worse for them (in which case there is no damage from the infraction).

 

(ii) South's insufficient 3♣ bid is a wild action. Therefore by applyling Law 12C1c to this situation, we arrive at North/South keeping their table result.

[bluejak]

This is the sort of thinking that was intriguing me. East committed an infraction and it is possible he is going to gain because of it. That does not seem to be what the Laws intend.

 

Incidentally, you cannot apply Law 12A1 unless there is an infraction. But an infraction of regulations is an infraction of law because Regulations are made under Law 80B2F.

 

I do not see how Law 25A can be relevant: certainly the 3♦ bid may have been inadvertent, but there has been no attempt to change it.

[jallerton]

I do not see how Law 25A can be relevant: certainly the 3♦ bid may have been inadvertent, but there has been no attempt to change it.

 

Taking a literal interpretation of the wording of Law 25A, I'd have to agree with you, as Law 25A says:

 

"Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought."

 

However, many Regulatory Authorities seem to allow a change under Law 25A even when there has been a significant pause for thought. They allow a change as long as the player attempts to change his call as soon as he realises his error.

 

The situation here is potentially more complicated, as (if the 3♦ call was unintended) East may well not have realised he had pulled out the wrong bidding card until either:

 

(i) the point where North or West called the TD, causing East to review the auction. East might be aware of the general advice given to players that they once the TD has been called they should not take any action until the TD arrives at the table; or even

 

(ii) at some point after the TD has arrived at the table, for example whilst the auction is being recounted to the TD.

[mjj29]

However, many Regulatory Authorities seem to allow a change under Law 25A even when there has been a significant pause for thought. They allow a change as long as the player attempts to change his call as soon as he realises his error.

 

If the player has not realised his error, there has not been a pause for thought. There may have been a pause for other reasons, but he wasn't thinking about whether he'd made the right call.

 

The situation here is potentially more complicated, as (if the 3♦ call was unintended) East may well not have realised he had pulled out the wrong bidding card until either:

 

(i) the point where North or West called the TD, causing East to review the auction. East might be aware of the general advice given to players that they once the TD has been called they should not take any action until the TD arrives at the table; or even

 

If by 'general advice' you mean 'required by law 9B2 as a "shall" directive, which is the second strongest form of direction', then yes.

[gnasher]

Even if 3♦ was unintended, East isn't obliged to attempt to change it. Other things being equal, he'd probably prefer to leave NS to cope with the consequences of the insufficient bid.

[iviehoff]

Hm. I had trouble parsing that, ivie. I think perhaps you're suggesting that if 3♦ was unintended, we could allow overcaller to change it to 2♦, not that the TD should somehow "roll it back". Am I right?

What I am saying is that the overcaller probably "intended" to make a simple (not jump) overcall in diamonds. But for it to be an "unintended" bid within the laws, the player would have had to think that they had the 2D card in their hand when they made the call. It is more likely that they miscalculated what was a simple overcall of 2C than that they made a 2D call with the 3D card. And, as has been pointed out, if they realised what they had done before the TD was called, it is too late to apply Law 25A.

[mfa1010]

4. Also at the end of the hand, consider whether the failure to use the 'stop' card may have damaged North/South. It seems to me that South's contention is valid: had East used the 'stop' card, South would probably not have made the insufficient bid. East "could have known" that his failure to use the 'stop' card might cause damage so I suggest using Law 23 (or maybe Law 12A1) and Law 12C to adjust the score:

With such loose application of Law 23 the "could have known" condition loses its content completely.

 

Basically you are making the general deduction that a player could know that breaking a rule might cause damage and use that to conclude that the player is liable for whatever his opponent comes up with of silliness, if just we could establish some link to the infraction.

[shyams]

1. There was also a time when one of my partners (who claimed he never used the Stop card) stared at his hand for 30+ seconds as dealer and eventually put down a 4♠ bid without the stop card. The next person overcalled 2♣.

 

Partner was obviously to blame.

 

2. Once in the middle of an auction (I recall I had passed twice), I raised partner to 6♦ as a sacrifice. But instead of pulling out 27 cards out of the box, I selectively pulled out the 6♦ card and placed it on the table. The next person bid 6♣ and claimed he was confused by the absence of many cards and thought I had bid 5♦.

 

I was obviously to blame.

[bluejak]

Taking a literal interpretation of the wording of Law 25A, I'd have to agree with you, as Law 25A says:

 

"Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought."

 

However, many Regulatory Authorities seem to allow a change under Law 25A even when there has been a significant pause for thought. They allow a change as long as the player attempts to change his call as soon as he realises his error.

In such case there has been no pause for thought, so the Law allows a change.

 

The situation here is potentially more complicated, as (if the 3♦ call was unintended) East may well not have realised he had pulled out the wrong bidding card until either:

 

(i) the point where North or West called the TD, causing East to review the auction. East might be aware of the general advice given to players that they once the TD has been called they should not take any action until the TD arrives at the table; or even

 

(ii) at some point after the TD has arrived at the table, for example whilst the auction is being recounted to the TD.

Law 25A applies if a player changes his call or attempts to change it. No change or attempt to change, no Law 25A.

[blackshoe]

What I am saying is that the overcaller probably "intended" to make a simple (not jump) overcall in diamonds. But for it to be an "unintended" bid within the laws, the player would have had to think that they had the 2D card in their hand when they made the call. It is more likely that they miscalculated what was a simple overcall of 2C than that they made a 2D call with the 3D card. And, as has been pointed out, if they realised what they had done before the TD was called, it is too late to apply Law 25A.

 

In this scenario, 25A does not apply, because at the time he made the bid, he intended 3♦, so 25A does not apply at all.

 

 

1. There was also a time when one of my partners (who claimed he never used the Stop card) stared at his hand for 30+ seconds as dealer and eventually put down a 4♠ bid without the stop card. The next person overcalled 2♣.

 

Partner was obviously to blame.

 

2. Once in the middle of an auction (I recall I had passed twice), I raised partner to 6♦ as a sacrifice. But instead of pulling out 27 cards out of the box, I selectively pulled out the 6♦ card and placed it on the table. The next person bid 6♣ and claimed he was confused by the absence of many cards and thought I had bid 5♦.

 

I was obviously to blame.

 

It's not all that obvious to me, particularly in the second case, in which your LHO's claim sounds like pure bullshit.

 

In such case there has been no pause for thought, so the Law allows a change.

 

 

Law 25A applies if a player changes his call or attempts to change it. No change or attempt to change, no Law 25A.

 

So if a player makes an unintended call, and another player calls the TD before he realizes he's done so, he's screwed? Doesn't seem right to me.

[bluejak]

Well, perhaps you might argue he tried to change it. But the present method of certain TDs to totally ignore that bit of the Law does not sound right to me.

 

The Law allows you to change it. It never feels right to me to offer such a change which is clearly not part of the Law.

[mjj29]

Well, perhaps you might argue he tried to change it. But the present method of certain TDs to totally ignore that bit of the Law does not sound right to me.

 

The Law allows you to change it. It never feels right to me to offer such a change which is clearly not part of the Law.

But if the TD has been called, the laws require him to 'take no action' - to encourage players to take action without waiting for the TD complicates life the rest of the time (because they won't see a distinction and shouldn't have to know when they should and shouldn't be waiting for the TD). Provided the player has indicated that it was inadvertant and we are happy with that, we cannot require an actual attempt to change when there was no time between the realisation and the call for the TD for them to do so. Often this will be because the TD being called (for an IB) is what caused the realisation.

[bluejak]

Oh, I don't think so. In my experience - remember, I see far more of these cases than anyone else - Law 25A cases are basically never insufficient bids.

 

All the same, there seems to be an argument that since it is not fair for the poor player we should ignore what the Law says. As ever, I don't like this, especially when it is the player who has made the mistake who “suffers”.

 

Compare a player who mispulls and then there are two calls. He cannot change it now – the Law says so. Are you going to say, if he only realised after two calls, that it is unfair on the poor player so we should ignore the Law? No, I did not think so.

[blackshoe]

Precisely. I think we have to allow a player in this situation to tell the TD, when he arrives (or more likely when the player gets the floor, since whoever called gets to talk first) that the call was unintended, and he realized it when the TD was called. The TD should then, IMO, allow a Law 25A change. If the scenario is different, somebody points out that it's insufficient, bu no one has yet called the TD, then the player needs to indicate that he wants to change it because it isn't the call he intended.

[mjj29]

Oh, I don't think so. In my experience - remember, I see far more of these cases than anyone else - Law 25A cases are basically never insufficient bids.

 

All the same, there seems to be an argument that since it is not fair for the poor player we should ignore what the Law says. As ever, I don't like this, especially when it is the player who has made the mistake who “suffers”.

 

Compare a player who mispulls and then there are two calls. He cannot change it now – the Law says so. Are you going to say, if he only realised after two calls, that it is unfair on the poor player so we should ignore the Law? No, I did not think so.

Sorry, I meant "of the cases where the TD will be called before the player can attempt to change per law-25A, most of these will be insufficient bids", obviously, most 25A cases don't fall into that category and then clearly the player must attempt to change for 25A to be used.

[pran]

Oh, I don't think so. In my experience - remember, I see far more of these cases than anyone else - Law 25A cases are basically never insufficient bids.

[...]

(Enhancement made by me). I am somewhat surprised by this statement?

Although I agree that insufficient bids in most cases will not satisfy Law 25a as inadvertent calls I cannot dismiss the possibility. In fact I have had situations where I have accepted that the IB was indeed inadvertent and subject to Law 25A rectification.

 

One example could be the auction 1♥ - 1♣ when the intended call was for instance 1♠ and all the circumstances around the auction (including body language) support this as a fact.

 

So I think it is a bit too "handy" to just state that an insufficient bid can never be inadvertent.

[blackshoe]

Never, like ever, is a very long time. :)