Class of players

[akwoo]

This is a problem because they do pause, necessarily, whenever they have a problem that requires thought.

 

You misunderstand. For most of the poor players I know, there are no problems that require thought. At most, some of them are occasionally slightly curious why they don't do so well despite following rigidly all the rules they've been taught, counting trump correctly, and managing to keep track of the high card in each suit as the play progresses.

 

Maybe my definition of 'poor' is lower than yours.

[blackshoe]

We have a player here, one of the best in the area, in fact, who religiously puts out the stop card, makes her call, leaves the stop card out for (in her own words) "about six seconds", usually keeping a finger on it, and then picks it up. She gets upset when LHO calls before she picks it up. Why six instead of ten? "Six is long enough".

 

I put out the stop card, make my call, and then pick up the stop card. This is what the regulation says to do. I've given up complaining when LHO insta-calls, often before I pick up the stop card. I've tried leaving it out for a while. Doesn't matter. They stare at it, or at me, until it's gone, and then they insta-call or, in some cases, start their "thinking".

 

I once gave a "mini-lesson" at a local club on the why, wherefore, and how to of the stop card. That was probably two or three years ago. Those people have forgotten that lesson, if what they do at the table is any indicator. And if I gave the lesson again, the same C players would attend it - and thank me for it, and go on doing what they've been doing. The A and B players "don't need" such lessons. Just ask 'em. I think it's also a bit of "I'm not going to sit over there with the C players - that would be embarrassing".

 

The stop card regulation doesn't work. People don't follow it, and directors won't enforce it. Not to mention that many ACBL directors will tell you it's "optional". They may think so, and it may have been once upon a time, but the current regulation does not say it's optional - it says that failure to use it is an infraction. None the less, the myth persists.

[barmar]

You misunderstand. For most of the poor players I know, there are no problems that require thought. At most, some of them are occasionally slightly curious why they don't do so well despite following rigidly all the rules they've been taught, counting trump correctly, and managing to keep track of the high card in each suit as the play progresses.

 

Maybe my definition of 'poor' is lower than yours.

Hmm, the poor players I know often take time to think even when there's not really anything to think about, because they just generally aren't sure what to do. Very little is automatic for them.

[Vampyr]

Hmm, the poor players I know often take time to think even when there's not really anything to think about, because they just generally aren't sure what to do. Very little is automatic for them.

 

But they often do know immediately that they won't be bidding after a STOP card, because in most of the world this follows a skip bid, so the auction may well now be uncomfortably high.

 

A lot of poor players I know rarely take any time at all, because they don't really think before taking a call.

[barmar]

I think the general point is that whether a poor player takes time to think has little dependency on what their RHO did. Either they have an obvious bid and bid quickly, or they don't know what to do and take forever.

[aguahombre]

As player I am happy to obey our STOP regulation. (But I would not be happy with the ACBL STOP regulation as I now have learned it!)

As a player I am happy to hesitate more than my normal tempo in your jurisdiction or in ours. As a player or as a director I am unhappy with any exact number of seconds or with any particular person's estimate of those seconds, including my own.

 

I will obey whatever "stop" rules are in effect as best I can, but don't have to be happy about them, and certainly don't think they are very good anywhere. I am not sure they will ever be any good if they involve counting seconds.

[mycroft]

We have no problem with this in Norway: The skip bidder is responsible for maintaining the STOP card visible approximately (at least) ten seconds or to say "STOP" followed by "Continue" after an approximate (at least) ten seconds break.

Repeating my question from upthread: what happens when that approximate (at least) 10 seconds break is what my opponents think is 10 seconds when they're trying to adhere to the stop regulation in the ACBL - about 5.5? "Yes, Director, I took about 3 seconds after RHO put the STOP card away before I made my call. However, I was still well within my 10 seconds - I know, because in this case, I *had* nothing to think about, and was 'Happy Birthday'-ing my way to 10 seconds"

 

The player in turn to call is free to concentrate on his call withouot worrying about the duration of the timing, and he is supposed to call without further hesitation when the STOP card is retracted or "continue" is spoken (provided at least ten seconds have passed).

Of course, that last. And that always works well does it?

 

Having said that, I expect the people who use their fingers here, or count aloud, are the ones staring at the STOP card, obviously waiting for it to go away, or the ones who have their fingers on the card waiting for the "Continue".

 

I don't disagree that this is a *better* solution to the problem than we have in the ACBL; certainly a much better solution than the one in the ACBL works out to in practise; just that it does have its own problems.

[pran]

Repeating my question from upthread: what happens when that approximate (at least) 10 seconds break is what my opponents think is 10 seconds when they're trying to adhere to the stop regulation in the ACBL - about 5.5? "Yes, Director, I took about 3 seconds after RHO put the STOP card away before I made my call. However, I was still well within my 10 seconds - I know, because in this case, I *had* nothing to think about, and was 'Happy Birthday'-ing my way to 10 seconds"

To repeat my comment: We have very little problems with stop durations in Norway, in fact I cannot remember having any such conflict since I (many years ago) educated players that had been sitting watching the STOP card until it was taken away and only then started thinking on what to Call!

 

Your player who claimed that the stop card was only maintained for 5.5 seconds - "I know because in this case, I *had* nothing to think about, and was 'Happy Birthday'-ing my way to 10 Seconds" would be ruled against by most Directors because if he had time to do extraneous activities instead of planning his call then the stop period as controlled by his RHO must certainly have been sufficient. And if he had obeyed regulations and called at the end of that stop period then nobody would have had any claim on UI being passed by that player.

 

 

I don't disagree that this is a *better* solution to the problem than we have in the ACBL; certainly a much better solution than the one in the ACBL works out to in practise; just that it does have its own problems.

Obviously problems that we generally do not encounter.

[mycroft]

Ah, but I *always* pause for 10ish seconds, whether or not I have a problem. If I pass immediately when they pull away the card, then I obviously didn't have anything serious to think about. Others - not so much maybe.

 

So it turns out that if I *do* need 10 seconds to think about things, then I've clearly broken tempo (because it took me longer to bid than the stop card was out); if I don't need that time, then I have to show that I didn't need that time by passing when RHO thinks "enough time" has passed. Seems like I've been impaled on a different-than-traditional Morton's Fork. Nice.

 

Because obviously there's nothing we can do to control RHOs who can't count time.

 

As I said, I know which regulation I prefer, but I also know that it isn't perfect, and it certainly can be gamed. And if it can, then [redacted], and those like him, will do it.

[barmar]

The aphorism that this discussion brings to mind is "The perfect is the enemy of the good".

[nige1]

Your player who claimed that the stop card was only maintained for 5.5 seconds - "I know because in this case, I *had* nothing to think about, and was 'Happy Birthday'-ing my way to 10 Seconds" would be ruled against by most Directors because if he had time to do extraneous activities instead of planning his call then the stop period as controlled by his RHO must certainly have been sufficient. And if he had obeyed regulations and called at the end of that stop period then nobody would have had any claim on UI being passed by that player.

Pran's interpretation is surprising because, when you call prematurely, you

• Advertise the fact that you have nothing to think about.
• Deprive other players of thinking-time, perhaps forcing them to create UI.

[pran]

Pran's interpretation is surprising because, when you call prematurely, you

• Advertise the fact that you have nothing to think about.
• Deprive other players of thinking-time, perhaps forcing them to create UI.

Don't overlook that it is RHO who (primarily) controls when the call is expected. So a call at the time RHO ends the STOP period is not a premature call.

[pran]

Ah, but I *always* pause for 10ish seconds, whether or not I have a problem.

[...]

 

We do indeed experience players who invariably spends about 10 seconds on each call. They usually end up being "fined" PP for being late in each round.

[mycroft]

Sven, that calibre of misreading moves you from "misunderstood" to "troll". Thanks for making it clear.

 

If you can't see that whether or not it's a good or even a better idea than the alternative, allowing my opponent to decide how long I "should need to think" over a jump call has its problems, there's nothing more I can do to help you.

 

On topic: yes, barmar, "the perfect is the enemy of the good"; it's just that many who uphold the european style of STOP card regulation as better imply strongly that it *is* perfect, and instead of "well, yes, but it's better than the alternative, and we don't get many who do that accidentally or otherwise, and we do crack down on those who do", we get the kind of "there's no problem here" responses I'm seeing in this thread.