STOP - non jump...

[jules101]

Nightmare session last night for you as playing director.

 

This one happened at your table......

 

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sq82hkj54d874ckj4&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1n(12-14)2d(spades%20%26%20another%20suit)p2sp3h(STOP%20-%202nd%20suit%20hearts)p4hppp]133|200[/hv]

 

 

East's used of "STOP" card to make her "non-STOP" bid.

 

Is the use of the STOP card intended to show "extra values or extra distribution"?

 

Or should we give the East LOL (who claims to be a tad confused) the benefit of the doubt here?

 

[There is history here, but not in this session of bridge. Your prior experience suggests the former, but one should of course treat every situation the same way?]

 

 

After the use of STOP card (suggesting "I have extras") 4♥ seems automatic for West.

 

West should of course should ignore the unauthorised information her partner has transferred during the auction.

 

 

Does West still have an automatic raise to 4♥ if the STOP card had not been used?

 

 

You are playing director and these oppos are at your table.

 

How are you going to handle this?

[paulg]

This looks fairly simple since there is no doubt about the facts. As there is no need to make an immediate ruling, I would tell the opponents that you will ask one of the senior players with directing experience to make a ruling, during the break or at the end of the evening, as to whether the misuse of the Stop card could have affected West's bidding.

 

Given that three hearts must really show extra values in some form, and West has a big fit in both suits, I would be astonished if the table result were changed. In fact, I would not even bother to ask someone to make a ruling and just move on.

[Codo]

I agree with Paul, I would prefer a slam try to a pass, but 4 ♥ looks clear cut.

[bluejak]

Is the use of the STOP card intended to show "extra values or extra distribution"?

Unless you are very sure of your position, accusing people of cheating is a total no-no. What are you trying to do? Just rule it as a UI case.

 

After the use of STOP card (suggesting "I have extras") 4♥ seems automatic for West.

That is completely irrelevant. The question is what the bid suggests without the Stop card.

 

West should of course should ignore the unauthorised information her partner has transferred during the auction.

A common misconception. West is to do his best to avoid gaining from the UI - ignoring it is not good enough.

 

Does West still have an automatic raise to 4♥ if the STOP card had not been used?

Do a poll at the end of the night, giving players the auction without the STOP card. The question is not whether West's raise is automatic, but whether pass is an LA, since the UI from the STOP card suggests bidding 4♥ over passing. If at least two out of ten of the people you ask would consider passing, and some of them would pass, then pass is an LA, and you rule 4♥ back to 3♥.

 

How are you going to handle this?

Tell them you will rule at the end of the night after consultation and consideration - as you would with a judgement ruling not at your table.

[CamHenry]

Do a poll at the end of the night, giving players the auction without the STOP card. The question is not whether West's raise is automatic, but whether pass is an LA, since the UI from the STOP card suggests bidding 4♥ over passing. If at least two out of ten of the people you ask would consider passing, and some of them would pass, then pass is an LA, and you rule 4♥ back to 3♥.

 

I confess I am curious about this use of "automatic". To me, if a raise is automatic, then passing is either never considered or at the least never selected. It's therefore not an LA.

 

Of course, it is possible for pass NOT to be an LA without the raise being automatic: the choice could be between a raise to game and a slam try, for example.

 

Formally:

Raise automatic implies pass not an LA.

Pass not an LA does not imply raise automatic.

 

The test for the automatic nature of the raise is sufficient, but not necessary, for pass not to be an LA.

[jallerton]

The question is not whether West's raise is automatic, but whether pass is an LA, since the UI from the STOP card suggests bidding 4♥ over passing.

 

You are right in theory, but I agree with CamHenry: in this case, don't these questions come to the same thing?

 

If pass is a logical alternative, then the implication is that raising is not automatic.

If pass is not a logical alternative, then the implication is that raising is automatic.

[mycroft]

Well, only if there are two potential LAs. Pass can be not an LA, but raising isn't automatic - possibly raising partner's other suit is, or 3NT Choice-of-Games, or Codo's slam try.

 

Here, of course, it doesn't much matter - and if you show that raising (or at least doing something) is auto (I would think so - 3♥ must show extras on this auction), that does confirm that passing is not logical.

[bluejak]

I confess I am curious about this use of "automatic". To me, if a raise is automatic, then passing is either never considered or at the least never selected. It's therefore not an LA.

 

Of course, it is possible for pass NOT to be an LA without the raise being automatic: the choice could be between a raise to game and a slam try, for example.

 

Formally:

Raise automatic implies pass not an LA.

Pass not an LA does not imply raise automatic.

 

The test for the automatic nature of the raise is sufficient, but not necessary, for pass not to be an LA.

Sure, but all you are doing is complicating matters unnecessarily. It is perfectly possible for a raise not to be automatic, but to be so likely that pass is not an LA. Sure, if a raise is automatic, pass is not an LA, but if a raise is not automatic you have no idea whether pass is an LA or not, so now you have to go about finding our whether pass is an LA having wasted time and effort.

 

You are right in theory, but I agree with CamHenry: in this case, don't these questions come to the same thing?

 

If pass is a logical alternative, then the implication is that raising is not automatic.

If pass is not a logical alternative, then the implication is that raising is automatic.

Absolutely not.

 

If pass is not a logical alternative, then the implication is that raising is either automatic or not. Very helpful.

 

Suppose you poll ten people. Nine raise and do not consider pass, one passes. Now pass is not an LA, and a raise is not automatic.

 

:ph34r:

 

You have a standard for UI based on an LA, so you have to determine LAs. What on earth is the point of using a different standard that may come to a different answer when UI is not based on that different standard?

[CarlRitner]

Did anyone bother to ask why the STOP card was used? Maybe the East "LOL" had a brain fart and goofed up the order of the suits. Or something in her head just said 2S- 3H was a jump. To say it "suggests" much of anything about her hand is presumptive, in a somewhat accusatory manner, if I am reading this right. If not, then never mind.

[barmar]

To say it "suggests" much of anything about her hand is presumptive, in a somewhat accusatory manner, if I am reading this right. If not, then never mind.

The OP said that there's history of her doing this kind of thing before. So even if she did it inadvertently this time, her partner may be aware that spurious STOP cards suggest she has extra values.

[CarlRitner]

The OP said that there's history of her doing this kind of thing before. So even if she did it inadvertently this time, her partner may be aware that spurious STOP cards suggest she has extra values.

 

Yeah, I caught that part too. Was curious if the director asked why she did it then, or even if the director was called.

I assume using the STOP card and then not making a jump bid to be an irregularity.

[barmar]

I assume using the STOP card and then not making a jump bid to be an irregularity.

It's extraneous information, but I don't think it's an infraction.

[blackshoe]

irregularity ≠ infraction.

[gnasher]

I assume using the STOP card and then not making a jump bid to be an irregularity.

Yes, it's an irregularity, which is defined as a "deviation from correct procedure".

[mr1303]

Getting back to the actual ruling, after due consideration as specified by David (Bluejak), I think that pass is not an LA. If partner is a LOL, 3NT as a choice of games bid is not a call I would make under any circumstances.

 

Therefore, like Paul, I rule no adjustment.

[bluejak]

It's extraneous information, but I don't think it's an infraction.

It is certainly an infraction, though I am not sure it is relevant to the problem.

 

If it were not an infraction then she can use the STOP card any time she feels like it, jump or not.

[blackshoe]

It is certainly an infraction, though I am not sure it is relevant to the problem.

 

If it were not an infraction then she can use the STOP card any time she feels like it, jump or not.

The EBU regulation says that "before making a jump bid… a player should place the stop card…". The laws say that when a player "should" do something, failure to do it is an infraction of law.

 

Interestingly, the ACBL regulation says "Players should protect their rights and the opponent's by announcing, prior to making any subsequent bid that skips one or more levels of bidding" and in the next paragraph "Place the stop card so that LHO sees it…". The first uses "should", so failure to protect one's rights and the opponent's rights is an infraction. However, the second bit falls under the laws' provision that when the rules say a player "does" something, this establishes correct procedure, but does not suggest that violation be penalized. I think this means that failure to do whatever is an irregularity rather than an infraction. So in the EBU, it's an infraction to fail to use the stop card. In the ACBL, if you fail to use the stop card, it's an irregularity, but if you fail to protect your opponent's rights (and your own) that's an infraction. Strange way of looking at it, IMO, but then a lot of the ways the ACBL looks at things are pretty strange.

[barmar]

Interestingly, the ACBL regulation says "Players should protect their rights and the opponent's by announcing, prior to making any subsequent bid that skips one or more levels of bidding" and in the next paragraph "Place the stop card so that LHO sees it…". The first uses "should", so failure to protect one's rights and the opponent's rights is an infraction. However, the second bit falls under the laws' provision that when the rules say a player "does" something, this establishes correct procedure, but does not suggest that violation be penalized. I think this means that failure to do whatever is an irregularity rather than an infraction. So in the EBU, it's an infraction to fail to use the stop card. In the ACBL, if you fail to use the stop card, it's an irregularity, but if you fail to protect your opponent's rights (and your own) that's an infraction. Strange way of looking at it, IMO, but then a lot of the ways the ACBL looks at things are pretty strange.

The way I interpret that is that the first sentence is describing WHAT the player is supposed to do, and the second explains HOW they do it. What I think this means is that not providing a skip bid warning violates the SHOULD. But giving the warning verbally (e.g. saying "Skip bid, please wait") rather than by using the STOP card, only violates a DOES.

 

But we're not talking about failure to give the warning, we're talking about giving the warning when none is required. Do either the ACBL or EBU regulations address this directly?

[blackshoe]

The way I interpret that is that the first sentence is describing WHAT the player is supposed to do, and the second explains HOW they do it. What I think this means is that not providing a skip bid warning violates the SHOULD. But giving the warning verbally (e.g. saying "Skip bid, please wait") rather than by using the STOP card, only violates a DOES.

That would be my take as well.

 

But we're not talking about failure to give the warning, we're talking about giving the warning when none is required. Do either the ACBL or EBU regulations address this directly?

Nope.

[Finch]

But we're not talking about failure to give the warning, we're talking about giving the warning when none is required. Do either the ACBL or EBU regulations address this directly?

 

Yup.

 

The EBU regulations say that the STOP card is not a call so you aren't forced to make a jump bid if you use it (and it isn't a call out of turn if you play it out of turn) but using it & not jumping gives UI to partner.

[Finch]

Getting back to the actual ruling, after due consideration as specified by David (Bluejak), I think that pass is not an LA. If partner is a LOL, 3NT as a choice of games bid is not a call I would make under any circumstances.

 

Therefore, like Paul, I rule no adjustment.

 

3NT "choice of games" isn't a call I'd make with any partner, it sounds natural to me.

[blackshoe]

I guess I should have said "not the ACBL". B-)