Stop Card Problem

[kb49]

EBU

 

My partner opened 1C. Right hand opponent bid 2D. I bid 1NT (insufficient bid). It was not accepted. I then bid 2NT. I went down two. It was totally my fault and I should have been paying attention. However, I would like to clarify the situation in case a similar problem occurs in the future. Right hand opponent did not put down the Stop Card before bidding 2D. Had he done so it is unlikely that I would have made an insufficient bid. Had I called the Director immediately that I bid the 1NT what would be the ruling? I realise a Stop Card is not a call but there must be some ruling regarding it not being used at the appropriate time.

[dave251164]

A score is adjusted if an infraction damages the non-offenders. A TD or Appeals Committee will give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offending side and will adjust the score in its favour if they feel it has gone wrong as a result of pressures created by an infraction. [Laws 12;23;84 -directors' discretionary powers; awareness of potential damage; ruling on agreed facts, director's option]

[Vampyr]

Had I called the Director immediately that I bid the 1NT what would be the ruling?

 

When did you call the director?

[weejonnie]

Although the lack of a stop card is against EBU recommended procedure (page 11 of the White book) there is no irregularity in the laws themselves if it is not used and law 21A presumably kicks in. "No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding". At best a procedural penalty might be considered.

 

You (or someone) should have called the director immediately (9B) once the insufficient bid had been made and attention drawn to it since you have other options than just making it good (assuming 2NT is also natural) if it is not accepted - and the director would have explained these before the bid was accepted/ rejected.

 

('should' - failure is an infraction jeopardising the infractor's rights but not often penalised)

 

Had you called the director immediately he would have a) asked everyone to be quiet, (to avoid giving UI) then

 

b) explained to your LHO that he has the ability to accept the bid (27A), but if he does not then he will ask you (away from the table) whether you wish to replace it with a bid of the same denomination at the lowest permissible level (if natural) when there would be no further rectification (unless the NOS were damaged) (27B1a), replace it with a call that is more precise than the bid you made was intended to be (if one is available)(27B1b) or replace it with another bid or pass (27b2) (double is not acceptable (27B3) unless it has a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid (27b1b)) in which case your partner would be silenced for the rest of the auction, lead penalties might ensue and an adjusted score might be applied if he believes you could have known when you made the irregularity that this could damage the other side. He would also advise your LHO that he must make his decision without consulting his partner (10C1) before knowing how you will change your call.

 

Note that the call you make has to SHOW a hand more precisely than the insufficient bid. You do not need to have the actual hand you describe - but you cannot have a system where replacing an insufficient bid with, say, the lowest sufficient bid shows the same hand as the insufficient bid.

 

 

c) assuming LHO does not accept the bid, he then does what he has just said he would do.

 

Once you make the 2NT replacement bid then the Director cannot give you any of the other options back when he arrives at the table (27C)

 

In fact you should make it good practice to call the Director whenever attention is drawn to an irregularity - most bridge players do NOT know how the laws are applied and those that do probably don't know all the ramifications. On no account accept 'explanations' from your opponents. No one should regard a call to the Director as being 'cheating' (unless under 73B2) 'putting pressure on' or being rude or unfriendly. Many altercations at the table stem from arguments resulting when the TD was not called at the appropriate time, to the detriment of the enjoyment of the game by the players at one, or probably more, tables.

[paulg]

Although the lack of a stop card is against EBU recommended procedure (page 11 of the White book) there is no irregularity in the laws themselves if it is not used and law 21A presumably kicks in. "No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding". At best a procedural penalty might be considered.

 

You (or someone) should have called the director immediately (9B) once the insufficient bid had been made and attention drawn to it since you have other options than just making it good (assuming 2NT is also natural) if it is not accepted - and the director would have explained these before the bid was accepted/ rejected.

 

('should' - failure is an infraction jeopardising the infractor's rights but not often penalised)

Instead of reading the White Book, which is for TDs rather than players, OP may rely on the published EBU Bidding Box regulations where it says (with my emphasis), "Before making a jump bid (i.e. a bid at a higher level than the minimum required) a player must place the Stop card in front of him, then place his call as usual, and eventually remove the Stop card."

[Vampyr]

Instead of reading the White Book, which is for TDs rather than players, OP may rely on the published EBU Bidding Box regulations where it says (with my emphasis), "Before making a jump bid (i.e. a bid at a higher level than the minimum required) a player must place the Stop card in front of him, then place his call as usual, and eventually remove the Stop card."

 

I wish it went further and stipulated that if the Stop card is removed prematurely, LHO is not deemed to have created UI no matter what tempo they make their next call. Although the real problem is people bidding before the Stop card is removed.

[Vampyr]

Instead of reading the White Book, which is for TDs rather than players,

 

A lot is in there that players need though. When the Tangerine Book was created, I thought that the EBU (if there is any oversight of the L&EC) had a golden opportunity to create an expanded Orange Book so that serious players could learn more about the regulations and applications of the Laws. Unfortunately this opportunity was allowed to slip by.

 

So now these serious players need to have a White Book, which they must also print out themselves.

[nige1]

Although the lack of a stop card is against EBU recommended procedure (page 11 of the White book) there is no irregularity in the laws themselves if it is not used and law 21A presumably kicks in. "No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding". At best a procedural penalty might be considered ....

Instead of reading the White Book, which is for TDs rather than players, OP may rely on the published EBU Bidding Box regulations where it says (with my emphasis), "Before making a jump bid (i.e. a bid at a higher level than the minimum required) a player must place the Stop card in front of him, then place his call as usual, and eventually remove the Stop card."

A lot is in there that players need though. When the Tangerine Book was created, I thought that the EBU (if there is any oversight of the L&EC) had a golden opportunity to create an expanded Orange Book so that serious players could learn more about the regulations and applications of the Laws. Unfortunately this opportunity was allowed to slip by. So now these serious players need to have a White Book, which they must also print out themselves.

IMO L23 might also apply but I agree with vampyr that it would be clearer and simpler for players if the rules of bridge were collected into one book, rather than spread over WBF laws/minutes and local blue books/white books/COCs/misc regulations :)

[Vampyr]

IMO L23 might also apply but I agree with vampyr that it would be clearer and simpler for players if the rules of bridge were collected into one book, rather than spread over WBF laws/minutes, and local blue books/white books/COCs/misc regulations.

 

I didn't say that, I said that details of all of the EBU regulations should be in a book intended for players and not directors.

 

Obviously the WBF minutes that pertain to the Laws should be collected in one place. I don't know how the WBFLC think that people are aware of/can find them considering how poorly they are disseminated.

[nige1]

I didn't say that, I said that details of all of the EBU regulations should be in a book intended for players and not directors. Obviously the WBF minutes that pertain to the Laws should be collected in one place. I don't know how the WBFLC think that people are aware of/can find them considering how poorly they are disseminated.

Please forgive me, Vampyr. It was a feeble joke. I've inserted a belated smiley. Sorry.

[barmar]

Going back to the original question, AIUI the purpose of the Stop card is to remind the next player to hesitate. It's not intended to warn them to look more carefully at the bid so that they notice that it's a level higher than they expected.

 

If you had bid too quickly, the lack of a Stop card would be taken into account when ruling on potential UI from the failure to maintain proper tempo (note that this does not apply in ACBL -- our Stop card regulation says that the player is required to pause even if the skip bidder fails to use it). But there's no similar indemnification for insufficient bids.

[weejonnie]

Instead of reading the White Book, which is for TDs rather than players, OP may rely on the published EBU Bidding Box regulations where it says (with my emphasis), "Before making a jump bid (i.e. a bid at a higher level than the minimum required) a player must place the Stop card in front of him, then place his call as usual, and eventually remove the Stop card."

 

But there is no prescribed penalty in the EBU regulations about not using the stop card - thus there is no rectification available for the NOS - which is why I suggested a procedural penalty since it comes obviously under 'violates correct procedure' 90A

 

I suppose a sympathetic TD might use 12A1 (judges that the laws do not provide indemnity to the NOS for the type of violation committed by the opponent)

[gnasher]

But there is no prescribed penalty in the EBU regulations about not using the stop card - thus there is no rectification available for the NOS - which is why I suggested a procedural penalty since it comes obviously under 'violates correct procedure' 90A

 

I suppose a sympathetic TD might use 12A1 (judges that the laws do not provide indemnity to the NOS for the type of violation committed by the opponent)

 

He might, but he would be wrong to do so, since Law 23 does in fact provide indemnity to the NOS for this particular type of violation.

[gnasher]

Going back to the original question, AIUI the purpose of the Stop card is to remind the next player to hesitate. It's not intended to warn them to look more carefully at the bid so that they notice that it's a level higher than they expected.

But if an opponent's failure to follow proper procedure contributes to your mis-seeing the auction, haven't you been damaged?

[barmar]

But if an opponent's failure to follow proper procedure contributes to your mis-seeing the auction, haven't you been damaged?

I don't think so. If he held his hand over the bidding card to make it hard to see, that might constitute such damage (although you can easily ask him to move his hand).

 

Your inattention to the bidding card is the primary reason you mis-saw the auction. Perhaps the improper procedure made it more likely, but it's hardly causative.

[lamford]

He might, but he would be wrong to do so, since Law 23 does in fact provide indemnity to the NOS for this particular type of violation.

I think the stop card is designed to prevent you from giving UI to your partner, not to help you notice whether the bid is a jump bid. We can't have every SB making an insufficient bid because you did not use the stop card, and then expecting a free correction. And, judging by the number of stop cards missing at some clubs, there would be Law 23 adjustments every day of the week if we followed that approach.

[blackshoe]

I don't think so. If he held his hand over the bidding card to make it hard to see, that might constitute such damage (although you can easily ask him to move his hand).

 

Your inattention to the bidding card is the primary reason you mis-saw the auction. Perhaps the improper procedure made it more likely, but it's hardly causative.

Yesterday, at one table, I was dummy on two of three boards. Three times I asked my LHO to hold or place her cards so I could see them (she had a habit holding them tilted in my partner's direction). The first time she said "oh, sorry" and flashed it at me for about half a second. After that, she ignored me. :(

[gnasher]

I suppose a sympathetic TD might use 12A1 (judges that the laws do not provide indemnity to the NOS for the type of violation committed by the opponent)

He might, but he would be wrong to do so, since Law 23 does in fact provide indemnity to the NOS for this particular type of violation.

I think the stop card is designed to prevent you from giving UI to your partner, not to help you notice whether the bid is a jump bid. We can't have every SB making an insufficient bid because you did not use the stop card, and then expecting a free correction. And, judging by the number of stop cards missing at some clubs, there would be Law 23 adjustments every day of the week if we followed that approach.

My point was that whatever redress the NOS are entitled to is already provided by Law 23, so they're not entitled to a second bite of the cherry via Law 12A1. That's true even if applying Law 23 leads to no redress.

[aguahombre]

What a miserable excuse. Sorry, I would be embarrassed to even mention it after my own mistake.

[Vampyr]

What a miserable excuse. Sorry, I would be embarrassed to even mention it after my own mistake.

 

I have a bit more sympathy. An opponent's making a skip bid without using the Stop card is highly unusual and unexpected. We have all been in attentive at times. But I really am curious as to when the director was called.

[blackshoe]

An opponent's making a skip bid without using the Stop card is highly unusual and unexpected.

It ought to be, and it England it probably is, from what I remember. Around here, not so much. :blink:

[barmar]

It ought to be, and it England it probably is, from what I remember. Around here, not so much. :blink:

Maybe that's why we're not as sympathetic. On this side of the pond, I think less than half the players use the Stop card, so we're used to actually looking at the bidding cards; we can't be complacent.

 

On the other side, where Stop card use is the norm, it's easier to fall into the bad habit of assuming non-jump bids when it's not used. And I can then understand why directors would throw the book at the non-Stopper, rather than the inattentive player.

[mycroft]

s/use/recognize/

 

I'd suggest that somewhere around 3-5% use it, and many of those use it incorrectly. I think that's why there's such a backlash from many strong players about its use (all it seems to do for them is alert the bidder's partner). There's also a backslash from many Eeeeeexperts, but that's because they *like* their partner knowing that they have a problem this time</snark>

[blackshoe]

Heh, too true, Mycroft, too true.

 

The regulation says that players "should" use the stop card. The Laws say that failure to do what one "should" do is an infraction. The ACBL says that "should" means use of the stop card is optional. I think the ACBL is wrong - not that the 500 pound canary cares what I think.

[barmar]

Heh, too true, Mycroft, too true.

 

The regulation says that players "should" use the stop card. The Laws say that failure to do what one "should" do is an infraction. The ACBL says that "should" means use of the stop card is optional. I think the ACBL is wrong - not that the 500 pound canary cares what I think.

But the Laws also say that failing a "should" is not normally penalized. So ACBL's logic is that if there's no penalty for not using the Stop card, it's effectively optional. The purpose of using the Stop card is stated to be to "protect their rights and the opponent's"; so if they don't use it, I guess their rights aren't protected, and that's considered to be a built-in punishment.

 

The current version of the regulation says that experienced players are expected to maintain proper tempo (i.e. hesitate after a skip bid) whether the Stop card is used or not. Has that "experienced" qualifier always been there?