Is this acceptable?

[SimonFa]

EBU jurisdiction.

 

My partner has a bad habit of of forgetting to use the Stop card at higher levels or if he goes in to deep thought about his bid. One opponent, who happens to be a Director, has twice picked up out his own Stop card and thrown it in front of my partner.

 

This is in a club where hardly anyone follows the guidelines on its usage, not that that is an excuse for not using the Stop card, but to my mind shows some double standards. Anyway, I know it flusters partner and I get annoyed and am not sure I think clearly afterwards.

 

So, are his actions acceptable and if not can I do something about it or do I have to leave it to partner? As a first action I am thinking about having a quiet word with the club officials so as not to cause any trouble as this is is a regular club night in a friendly club.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Simon

[paulg]

I suggest you fix your partner. I can't believe you'd be any less flustered or annoyed if your opponent called the director every time your partner forgets.

[SimonFa]

I suggest you fix your partner. I can't believe you'd be any less flustered or annoyed if your opponent called the director every time your partner forgets.

 

Director calls don't bother me now, its part of the game and I prefer things to be done correctly, not least to be fair to the field. It goes without saying that I'm trying to fix partner, but he gets visibly nervous whenever he sees this player and I'm sure that doesn't help.

[pran]

EBU jurisdiction.

 

My partner has a bad habit of of forgetting to use the Stop card at higher levels or if he goes in to deep thought about his bid. One opponent, who happens to be a Director, has twice picked up out his own Stop card and thrown it in front of my partner.

 

This is in a club where hardly anyone follows the guidelines on its usage, not that that is an excuse for not using the Stop card, but to my mind shows some double standards. Anyway, I know it flusters partner and I get annoyed and am not sure I think clearly afterwards.

 

So, are his actions acceptable and if not can I do something about it or do I have to leave it to partner? As a first action I am thinking about having a quiet word with the club officials so as not to cause any trouble as this is is a regular club night in a friendly club.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Simon

I wouldn't be much concerned about the act of "throwing a stop card in front of another player", but I should be extremely concerned about the manner in which it is done.

 

A friendly reminder is IMHO OK, but when a player violates Law 74A2 (A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.) I think anybody at the table may call the Director to have that stopped.

 

That much said, a training of the player who forgets proper use of the stop card is of course in order.

[SimonFa]

I wouldn't be much concerned about the act of "throwing a stop card in front of another player", but I should be extremely concerned about the manner in which it is done.

 

A friendly reminder is IMHO OK, but when a player violates Law 74A2 (A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.) I think anybody at the table may call the Director to have that stopped.

 

That much said, a training of the player who forgets proper use of the stop card is of course in order.

 

Hmmmm, that's an interesting point. This guy is quite surly by nature so probably thinks it is meant to be a friendly reminder.

 

Thanks, I'll give it a bit more though.

 

Regards,

 

Simon

[gnasher]

Next time your opponent behaves like this, call the director, tell him what has happened, explain that his behaviour has caused you both annoyance and embarrassment, and say that you would like him not to do it again.

 

It's not your opponent's job to educate your partner. If your partner omits to use the stop card, your opponent's legal options are:

- Say nothing, pause for ten seconds as required by the regulations, then make his call.

- Call the director and tell him what has happened.

[pran]

Next time your opponent behaves like this, call the director, tell him what has happened, explain that his behaviour has caused you both annoyance and embarrassment, and say that you would like him not to do it again.

 

It's not your opponent's job to educate your partner. If your partner omits to use the stop card, your opponent's legal options are:

- Say nothing, pause for ten seconds as required by the regulations, then make his call.

- Call the director and tell him what has happened.

I am not too happy with this suggestion.

 

The objective of the STOP principle is to protect the skip-bidding side in case of improper BIT by, and possible resulting UI between opponents.

 

If a player fails to use STOP as prescribed he effectively waves this protection and has little or no recourse in case of an alleged BIT by his LHO.

 

So my advice for skip bidder's LHO (after a missing stop) is to simply take the time he (reasonably) needs to consider his call, and if this results in an allegation of BIT simply point out that STOP was not used properly.

 

I don't really see any reason for any player to call TD just because of a failure by an opponent to use STOP properly.

[bluejak]

Ok, pran, how do you suggest you persuade opponents to follow the rules?

 

I agree with gnasher, telling them the rules yourself is unacceptable.

 

Failure to use the Stop card as required is an infraction so of course it is acceptable to call the TD. Too many people take it on themselves to tell the opponents the rules: the correct way is as gnasher describes.

 

Note that the fact that the opponent about whom we are talking is a TD is irrelevant unless he is the TD for the night.

[pran]

Ok, pran, how do you suggest you persuade opponents to follow the rules?

 

I agree with gnasher, telling them the rules yourself is unacceptable.

 

Failure to use the Stop card as required is an infraction so of course it is acceptable to call the TD. Too many people take it on themselves to tell the opponents the rules: the correct way is as gnasher describes.

 

Note that the fact that the opponent about whom we are talking is a TD is irrelevant unless he is the TD for the night.

If my RHO fails to produce STOP when required I usually do not bother:

I may call immediately if I have nothing to think about, I spend up to ten seconds if I need it.

 

Our regulation gives me the right to delay my call up to ten seconds regardless of any STOP by RHO when STOP is required. It gives me the right to call at any earlier time unless STOP is in force when I call.

 

If the mood at the table calls for it I may make a friendly comment that "you should have used STOP here".

 

Do I have any problem with this? NO!

 

When as TD I am called to a table because of alleged BIT in a situation where STOP is required I first of all ascertain whether STOP was indeed used.

If not my ruling will usually be "no rectification" unless the BIT is shown to having been really excessive.

 

I expect this to have the beneficial side-effect that the players will be more observant on the STOP regulation in the future.

[barmar]

Your behavior is fine, pran, but what does it have to do with fixing this particular opponent's behavior?

 

Just as you shouldn't try to teach an opponent the proper way to use the STOP card, you also shouldn't try to teach an opponent the proper way to deal with the STOP card not being used. In both cases, if you want someone to tell an opponent proper procedure or behavior, call the TD.

[pran]

Your behavior is fine, pran, but what does it have to do with fixing this particular opponent's behavior?

 

Just as you shouldn't try to teach an opponent the proper way to use the STOP card, you also shouldn't try to teach an opponent the proper way to deal with the STOP card not being used. In both cases, if you want someone to tell an opponent proper procedure or behavior, call the TD.

If you with "this particular opponent" means the player throwing the stopcard at the player failing to use STOP properly I would (unless the action appeared as being a friendly reminder) frown and consider calling TD for break of Law 74A2, particularly if the action caused bad mood at the table.

 

If instead you mean the player failing to use STOP I would probably act precisely as I described in my post.

 

I do not agree that we shall not try to teach opponents anything. When a player infringe a law or regulation, probably because of ignorance, I consider it just polite to teach him (or her) in a friendly manner if the player seem susceptible to such learning. What we must never do is throwing the book at them for every minor "misdemeanor" when no real harm is caused. That will be interpreted as a clear message that we do not want them in the club.

 

A different but similar case:

 

I don't know how often I meet a dummy failing to position the trump suit at his right. Do I call the director? NEVER! But I ask him politely to please position the trump suit correctly, "I have so often distracted myself suddenly forgetting which suit is trump".

The correction is then done with a smile and nobody feels hurt.

[barmar]

I meant the guy throwing the stop card.

 

And the first time someone makes a little mistake, I agree that we just deal with it politely at the table. But if this guy is a habitual offender, it's time to call for help.

[blackshoe]

I agree with Barmar. I would add that different jurisdictions take different approaches to the use of the Stop card. For example, it's mind-boggling to me that Norwegian regulations allow a player to deliberately break tempo by bidding quickly if the Stop card is not used. In North America, the LHO of the player making a skip bid is supposed to pause about ten seconds regardless of Stop card usage. B-)

[pran]

I agree with Barmar. I would add that different jurisdictions take different approaches to the use of the Stop card. For example, it's mind-boggling to me that Norwegian regulations allow a player to deliberately break tempo by bidding quickly if the Stop card is not used. In North America, the LHO of the player making a skip bid is supposed to pause about ten seconds regardless of Stop card usage. B-)

I know that different jurisdictions have different implementations of the STOP protocol.

 

In Norway (and I believe in at least all of Scandinavia) the skip bidder alone has the full responsibility of measuring out the stop period.

His LHO shall not be burdened with that because the purpose of the stop period is to give him time for considering his call without any distraction.

 

So, when STOP is required in Norway (applies to competitive auctions in addition to skip bids):

The stop period begins when all (legal) questions on the auction at this time have been answered.

The stop period shall last for approximately ten seconds controlled by the skip bidder.

LHO is entitled to ten seconds even if the stop card is withdrawn earlier, and he must not call before the stop card is withdrawn if it is left faced for more that ten seconds.

If STOP is not used then LHO is free to call at any time within the ten seconds available to him after the skip bid.

[blackshoe]

Yeah, you said most of that already. Like I said, coming from a different jurisdiction, with a different interpretation, Norway's boggles my mind, at least that last bit. I wouldn't be averse to a regulation here that put control of the pause in the hands of the skip bidder rather than his LHO, but we don't have that now, and aren't likely to have it, afaics, in the future.

[Trinidad]

I understand Blackshoe that it boggles his mind when not using a stop card means that LHO can make his call "whenever he likes". But it really is just a logical consequence of making the skip bidder control the length of the mandatory pause. Not using the stop card simply means not using the length-of-mandatory-pause-control-tool. Then it shouldn't be strange that there is no control over the length of the pause anymore.

 

Rik

[pran]

I understand Blackshoe that it boggles his mind when not using a stop card means that LHO can make his call "whenever he likes". But it really is just a logical consequence of making the skip bidder control the length of the mandatory pause. Not using the stop card simply means not using the length-of-mandatory-pause-control-tool. Then it shouldn't be strange that there is no control over the length of the pause anymore.

 

Rik

Exactly.

 

And I would be very uncomfortable with a regulation that requires me as the skip bidder's LHO to spend a significant part of my attention to make sure I do not deviate too much from the 10 seconds delay required. The delay is there for me to consider my next call, not for acting as an accurate stopwatch. What on earth is the purpose of a pause for thought when I cannot afford to consentrate on my thought?

 

I was astonished and initially didn't believe my eyes when I first learned about the ACBL regulation on STOP.

[blackshoe]

Different strokes. :D In any case, we (players and TDs alike) have to deal with the regulations we're given. Or, in posting on forums like this, with the regulations in place where the problem occurred.

[Vampyr]

I know that different jurisdictions have different implementations of the STOP protocol.

 

In Norway (and I believe in at least all of Scandinavia) the skip bidder alone has the full responsibility of measuring out the stop period.

His LHO shall not be burdened with that because the purpose of the stop period is to give him time for considering his call without any distraction.

 

 

This regulation is so sensible; I wish it were in force everywhere.

[SimonFa]

Thanks all.

 

On reading the replies I'll be having another word with partner and also a quiet word with the Chairman.

 

Simon

[barmar]

The Laws say that a player may not make a bid with undue haste. Can the local regulations on STOP card use really override this law? I guess what they're trying to do is specify what constitutes "undue haste", and they're effectively saying that the skip bidder decides what's undue. Is that really legal?

[blackshoe]

Interesting question. It seems to me that a BIT might be in either direction — too short, or too long. A well written stop card regulation should handle both cases equally well.

[pran]

The Laws say that a player may not make a bid with undue haste. Can the local regulations on STOP card use really override this law? I guess what they're trying to do is specify what constitutes "undue haste", and they're effectively saying that the skip bidder decides what's undue. Is that really legal?

I assume that you are referring to

Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick.

(My emphasis)

 

What legal problem do you see?

[pran]

Interesting question. It seems to me that a BIT might be in either direction — too short, or too long. A well written stop card regulation should handle both cases equally well.

According to your criteria the Norwegian stop card regulation is indeed well written!

[barmar]

What legal problem do you see?

Does allowing the RA to require mandatory pauses in some cases effectively give them full authority to determine what constitutes "undue hesitation or haste"? And does failure of one side to use the STOP card really mean that the other side can't be considered to have called with undue haste even if they do it instantaneously after the bid?

 

Suppose their normal tempo is 1-2 seconds per call, but this time they pass in a fraction of a second. Shouldn't that be considered a BIT even if the STOP card isn't used?