Hesitation after a jump bid

[blackshoe]

Not so in the ACBL. Skip bidder's LHO is still required to pause about ten seconds, so a pause of about that length is not a BIT, while a significantly shorter or longer one is, and shall be so ruled.

[barmar]

When a SO has issued regulations such that the Stop card is not held by the skip bidder for an appropriate amount of time and is in fact not even used, they have accepted and consented to the fact that tempos after skip bids will be wildly variable. Therefore the clear message is that no matter how long the next bidder takes it shall not be ruled as a BIT.

Haven't we had this discussion over and over ever since ACBL announced that they were making this change?

 

What they were accepting was that it was not actually serving its intended purpose, and was often being used in ways that are completely unrelated to the purpose (e.g. reminding partner, or distinguishing between strong and weak jumps).

 

Most players fell into two camps:

 

1. Players who never hesitated over a skip bid, even when the Stop card was used.

2. Players who always hesitated over a skip bid, even when the Stop card was not used.

 

I believe that the removal of the Stop card has not changed either of their behaviors. Almost no one in Group 2 thinks that the removal of the Stop card removed their obligation to hesitate. We've basically given up on trying to teach Group 1 the proper procedure; if the Stop card was supposed to do that, it clearly didn't work.

 

You're in the UK, where Stop card use works very well. You just can't understand how ineffective it was over here.

[pran]

Haven't we had this discussion over and over ever since ACBL announced that they were making this change?

We have indeed

What they were accepting was that it was not actually serving its intended purpose

The purpose is to relieve the next player from the duty to measure out his 10 seconds delay and allow him to concentrate on his own auction rather than the timing.

BTW, this is not a question of using STOP card, it is the question of signalling STOP followed by signalling PROCEED after (about) 10 seconds (where PROCEED is signaled by withdrawing the STOP card if used).

 

I am interested in the experience with ACBL players who fail to accurately delaying their call (more or less exactly) 10 seconds because they were more occupied selecting their own call? Does this often result in call for the Director with BIT allegations?

[Vampyr]

Haven't we had this discussion over and over ever since ACBL announced that they were making this change?

 

What they were accepting was that it was not actually serving its intended purpose, and was often being used in ways that are completely unrelated to the purpose (e.g. reminding partner, or distinguishing between strong and weak jumps).

 

Most players fell into two camps:

 

1. Players who never hesitated over a skip bid, even when the Stop card was used.

2. Players who always hesitated over a skip bid, even when the Stop card was not used.

 

I believe that the removal of the Stop card has not changed either of their behaviors. Almost no one in Group 2 thinks that the removal of the Stop card removed their obligation to hesitate. We've basically given up on trying to teach Group 1 the proper procedure; if the Stop card was supposed to do that, it clearly didn't work.

 

You're in the UK, where Stop card use works very well. You just can't understand how ineffective it was over here.

 

Perhaps I can’t, but I think that much of the trouble was that the Stop card was shown and then put away, very much reducing its effectiveness.by the time the bid is made, the flash of the Stop card is a distance memory. And one person’s ten seconds is the next person’s four seconds.

 

Are you really going to penalise opponents who may be slightly inattentive and/or not really interested in the auction to notice that a skip bid was made and they must hesitate? And require them, as well, to (still) judge how long?

 

Even here, it is mostly the better players and the keen beginners who are scrupulous about the Stop card procedure. The others are unlikely to gain an advantage anyway, but you can always hold the Stop card over their bidding box, preventing access to it 😼

 

I remember the procedure in the US way back when, when you stated, “I am going to make a skip bid; please hesitate”. That actually seemed to work pretty well.

 

What I find disappointing is that yet again the non-compliant ACBL players’ tail is wagging the ACBL regulations dog.

[barmar]

The purpose is to relieve the next player from the duty to measure out his 10 seconds delay and allow him to concentrate on his own auction rather than the timing.

There was never anything in the ACBL Stop card procedure that served that purpose. The procedure in the regulation was: Show the stop card, return it to the box, then make your bid.

 

It may have been a poor regulation, but it's what we had. And removing it didn't make any change to the specific goal you describe.

I am interested in the experience with ACBL players who fail to accurately delaying their call (more or less exactly) 10 seconds because they were more occupied selecting their own call? Does this often result in call for the Director with BIT allegations?

I have never in my entire bridge experience encountered a director call related the tempo of a bid over a skip bid. Maybe that's why I think this is much ado about nothing.

[blackshoe]

I have never in my entire bridge experience encountered a director call related the tempo of a bid over a skip bid. Maybe that's why I think this is much ado about nothing.

I have. Occasionally the director would say something to the effect of "you need to be careful here". Most often the director would shrug and walk away. :huh: :(

[pran]

The purpose is to relieve the next player from the duty to measure out his 10 seconds delay and allow him to concentrate on his own auction rather than the timing.

 

BTW, this is not a question of using STOP card, it is the question of signalling STOP followed by signalling PROCEED after (about) 10 seconds (where PROCEED is signaled by withdrawing the STOP card if used).

There was never anything in the ACBL Stop card procedure that served that purpose. The procedure in the regulation was: Show the stop card, return it to the box, then make your bid.

 

It may have been a poor regulation, but it's what we had. And removing it didn't make any change to the specific goal you describe.

It must indeed have been a (very) poor regulation and ACBL apparently never really understood the STOP procedure.

 

I fully agree that the ACBL regulation in question obviously served no purpose at all and could as well be removed, but I pity the apparent ignorance within ACBL on the real purpose of a STOP procedure.

[blackshoe]

The reg served, and still serves, the purpose of reminding skip bidder's LHO of his obligation to pause about ten seconds before making his call.

[sanst]

The reg served, and still serves, the purpose of reminding skip bidder's LHO of his obligation to pause about ten seconds before making his call.

The LHO is supposed to think about his call, or at least make that impression. You’re not supposed to look to the ceiling and count to ten or look at your watch for 10 secs or make whatever impression that you’ve nothing to think about.

[blackshoe]

Of course not.

[pran]

The reg served, and still serves, the purpose of reminding skip bidder's LHO of his obligation to pause about ten seconds before making his call.

This purpose is nonsense as ACBL apparently has realized by removing the regulation.

 

The skip bidder has nothing to think about during the presumed ten seconds pause before the subsequent call from his LHO.

Can somebody provide a good reason why not he (rather than his LHO) should be responsible for the timing of this pause?

 

I have never understood why the next caller, who really has something to think about, in addition to his consideration shall be responsible for measuring out the proper timing. Fortunately he is not - outside ACBL (as fae as I know).

[pescetom]

What they were accepting was that it was not actually serving its intended purpose, and was often being used in ways that are completely unrelated to the purpose (e.g. reminding partner, or distinguishing between strong and weak jumps).

 

Most players fell into two camps:

 

1. Players who never hesitated over a skip bid, even when the Stop card was used.

2. Players who always hesitated over a skip bid, even when the Stop card was not used.

 

I believe that the removal of the Stop card has not changed either of their behaviors. Almost no one in Group 2 thinks that the removal of the Stop card removed their obligation to hesitate. We've basically given up on trying to teach Group 1 the proper procedure; if the Stop card was supposed to do that, it clearly didn't work.

 

You're in the UK, where Stop card use works very well. You just can't understand how ineffective it was over here.

 

The British have a culture of following the rules, at least when they know they are enforced B-)

 

In Italy the Stop card doesn't work at all well, and not just because the national regulations are little better than the old ACBL ones. The regulations say that one "must show the Stop card before any jump bid and that LHO cannot bid until after 10 seconds of pause" - so no requirement or even endorsement for the jump bidder to keep the card out for 10 seconds. Opponents will react with puzzlement or intolerance if jump bidder does so. Just like the old times in ACBL land, there are many who do not use the card at all and a small but significant number who use it to cheat. Calling the Director leads to a shrug of shounders.

 

Having said that, the best solution is not clear. EBU rules make a lot of sense but seem impossible to enforce, at least here. The new ACBL rules seem to me just sweeping the dust under the carpet. One possibility might be to oblige LHO (and not the bidder himself) to expose the Stop card, thus demonstrating that he has recognised a jump bid and that he understands he is bound to "think" for 10 seconds. All sorts of things might happen, but the responsibility should be clear and there is at least no opportunity for the jump bidder to cheat.

[pran]

The British have a culture of following the rules, at least when they know they are enforced B-)

 

In Italy the Stop card doesn't work at all well, and not just because the national regulations are little better than the old ACBL ones. The regulations say that one "must show the Stop card before any jump bid and that LHO cannot bid until after 10 seconds of pause" - so no requirement or even endorsement for the jump bidder to keep the card out for 10 seconds. Opponents will react with puzzlement or intolerance if jump bidder does so. Just like the old times in ACBL land, there are many who do not use the card at all and a small but significant number who use it to cheat. Calling the Director leads to a shrug of shounders.

 

Having said that, the best solution is not clear. EBU rules make a lot of sense but seem impossible to enforce, at least here. The new ACBL rules seem to me just sweeping the dust under the carpet. One possibility might be to oblige LHO (and not the bidder himself) to expose the Stop card, thus demonstrating that he has recognised a jump bid and that he understands he is bound to "think" for 10 seconds. All sorts of things might happen, but the responsibility should be clear and there is at least no opportunity for the jump bidder to cheat.

FWIW: We have no problem in Norway: The skip bidder says "STOP" or shows the STOP card, and after approximately 10 seconds says "CONTINUE" or retracts the STOP card (if that was used).

The skip bidder's LHO is not allowed to call during this delay but is supposed to make his call immediately on "CONTINUE" or retraction of the STOP card.

 

However, LHO is always entitled to at least 10 seconds delay, so if the STOP card is retracted or "CONTINUE" is announced before 10 seconds have passed then for LHO to delay his call further is itself no violation of procedure unless the total delay amounts significantly to more than 10 seconds.

 

Whenever the Director is called on an allegation of BIT his first question shall always be: "Was STOP used?". If the answer is NO then the TD call is dismissed immediately unless the total delay was significantly longer than 10 seconds.

 

Our experience (as far as I know): Excellent.

[blackshoe]

This purpose is nonsense as ACBL apparently has realized by removing the regulation.

 

The skip bidder has nothing to think about during the presumed ten seconds pause before the subsequent call from his LHO.

Can somebody provide a good reason why not he (rather than his LHO) should be responsible for the timing of this pause?

 

I have never understood why the next caller, who really has something to think about, in addition to his consideration shall be responsible for measuring out the proper timing. Fortunately he is not - outside ACBL (as fae as I know).

ACBL did not remove the regulation. They removed the part of the regulation dealing with the stop card/skip bid warning. You may think that's a stupid move. Hell, I may think that was a stupid move. But they did not remove the regulation and you do yourself no favors by claiming they did.

[pran]

ACBL did not remove the regulation. They removed the part of the regulation dealing with the stop card/skip bid warning. You may think that's a stupid move. Hell, I may think that was a stupid move. But they did not remove the regulation and you do yourself no favors by claiming they did.

OK, they didn't remove the entire regulation, they removed that part of the regulation that this is all about. What is the important difference?

I don't really care as I don't play within ACBL. But I still pity this situation for your players.

[barmar]

Can somebody provide a good reason why not he (rather than his LHO) should be responsible for the timing of this pause?

This obsession with the precise timing of the pause has always baffled me. I know the regulations generally recommend "10 seconds", but there's nothing magical about that time. What matters is that the player gives the appearance that he has something to think about, so he has to pause noticeably longer than he would with a boring hand. I fully admit that my hesitations are probably more like 5-7 seconds, as 10 seconds feels interminably long. But I think I achieve the goal of the required hesitation.

[blackshoe]

I would say that "about ten seconds" means roughly 8-12 seconds. 7 seconds is close, 5 is nowhere near close.

 

There are a couple of problems here:

 

1. People who have no problem will perceive anything longer than about 5 seconds as too long.

2. People who really do have a problem may need more that 10 or even 12 seconds.

3. People who do have a problem and are also required to time their own tempo now have two problems, each of which will exacerbate the other.

 

There may be more.

 

I do think that having the skip bidder time the period is better than having his LHO do it, for all the reasons above. I don't think it solves all problems though.

[barmar]

I would say that "about ten seconds" means roughly 8-12 seconds. 7 seconds is close, 5 is nowhere near close.

 

There are a couple of problems here:

 

1. People who have no problem will perceive anything longer than about 5 seconds as too long.

2. People who really do have a problem may need more that 10 or even 12 seconds.

3. People who do have a problem and are also required to time their own tempo now have two problems, each of which will exacerbate the other.

 

There may be more.

 

I do think that having the skip bidder time the period is better than having his LHO do it, for all the reasons above. I don't think it solves all problems though.

If they really have a problem, they don't have to time their tempo, since they'll likely take at least 10 seconds, as you say in #2.

 

I think there's another problem with the whole premise behind the required hesitation. When I make the required hesitation, I try to feign concentration, as required. But I have a feeling that my "pretend" thinking may be too exaggerated, and doesn't look like the real thing. I squint, cock my head, stare at my cards, etc. But when I'm really thinking, it's hard to be cognizant of my mannerisms, so I have no idea if this is at all similar. Maybe it's better than showing obvious disinterest, but probably doesn't really accomplish the goal of hiding whether I actually have something to think about.

[pescetom]

There are a couple of problems here:

 

1. People who have no problem will perceive anything longer than about 5 seconds as too long.

2. People who really do have a problem may need more that 10 or even 12 seconds.

3. People who do have a problem and are also required to time their own tempo now have two problems, each of which will exacerbate the other.

That is more than a couple B-)

I would also add:

4. People who do have a problem and know that tempo is being monitored independently and will only be about 10 seconds now have two problems, each of which will exacerbate the other.

 

In other words, it's still a stress if RHO is going to decide the end of normal tempo. Even the 30 seconds limit for every bid in BBO automatic tournaments is a stress at times.

[pescetom]

I think there's another problem with the whole premise behind the required hesitation.

There's also another and more fundamental problem, come to that, if we must play Devil's Advocate.

Not all Jump bids require extra tempo and some non-Jump bids do.

An interference of 1NT or Michaels over a major can require more thought than a weak 2 or 3 level interference, for instance.

 

This argues for elimination of the whole concept of required hesitation, although that is probably throwing the baby out with the water and it doesn't sound like the concept works badly in all the world.

[axman]

There's also another and more fundamental problem, come to that, if we must play Devil's Advocate.

Not all Jump bids require extra tempo and some non-Jump bids do.

An interference of 1NT or Michaels over a major can require more thought than a weak 2 or 3 level interference, for instance.

 

This argues for elimination of the whole concept of required hesitation, although that is probably throwing the baby out with the water and it doesn't sound like the concept works badly in all the world.

 

If your points are valid, and they probably are not valid, maybe you have a case, but maybe you don't.

 

My experience is that most players contemplate after a skip bid, even if they are in second, or third position. But you seem to be neglecting that a key to avoiding/minimizing improper inferences is achieved by consistent tempo. So, there is no 'Not all Jump bids require extra tempo time and some non-Jump bids do'. For instance, I rarely need as much as 2sec after a skip bid, yet I strive to take at least 12sec because my experience supports that when I do then the other players, and that includes RHO, thereafter have a more even tempo- making it more fair for everyone.

 

And, I don't put any stock in there being non jump situations that 'require uneven tempo'. Each player ought to find a cadence that he can maintain most of the time including those 'supposed competitive auctions that need more thought.' If a player needs 9sec then he ought to aim for 9sec- but if he does aim he probably discovers that he rather needs 8sec, then 6sec …. Me, I aim for 1/4sec, but when the system is unfamiliar- half the turns I need as much as 2sec but aim for 5sec so I might be consistent whether in competition or uncontested.

[barmar]

There's also another and more fundamental problem, come to that, if we must play Devil's Advocate.

Not all Jump bids require extra tempo and some non-Jump bids do.

An interference of 1NT or Michaels over a major can require more thought than a weak 2 or 3 level interference, for instance.

 

This argues for elimination of the whole concept of required hesitation, although that is probably throwing the baby out with the water and it doesn't sound like the concept works badly in all the world.

I've pointed out the same thing in the past.

 

The skip bid hesitation was almost certainly created just out of simplicity. A detailed enumeration of all the situations where we need to hide whether the next player has something to think about would be difficult to create and for players to remember. Jump bids are very obvious.

 

If we weren't worried about slowing down the game too much, we could require all calls to take a certain amount of time. Screen regulations generally incorporate something like this; if the bids are quick, you delay pushing the board through the screen. And we regularly get suggestions that BBO should delay showing your partner's bid until after RHO has bid.

 

Even if we did this, it probably would only be partially effective. If you have an auction where the opponents pass throughout, assuming that any delays were due to partner is likely to be correct (I said "likely", so no need to point out that there are exceptions).

[Vampyr]

If they really have a problem, they don't have to time their tempo, since they'll likely take at least 10 seconds, as you say in #2.

 

I think there's another problem with the whole premise behind the required hesitation. When I make the required hesitation, I try to feign concentration, as required. But I have a feeling that my "pretend" thinking may be too exaggerated, and doesn't look like the real thing. I squint, cock my head, stare at my cards, etc. But when I'm really thinking, it's hard to be cognizant of my mannerisms, so I have no idea if this is at all similar. Maybe it's better than showing obvious disinterest, but probably doesn't really accomplish the goal of hiding whether I actually have something to think about.

 

Seriously, do you do all this because you are taking the piss? Virtually all people just look at their cards with no mannerisms whatsoever.

 

I've pointed out the same thing in the past.

 

The skip bid hesitation was almost certainly created just out of simplicity. A detailed enumeration of all the situations where we need to hide whether the next player has something to think about would be difficult to create and for players to remember. Jump bids are very obvious.

 

Some jurisdictions also use the Stop card for competitive bids at the three level or above. This at least covers more situations, that of course not all of them.

[pran]

Some jurisdictions also use the Stop card for competitive bids at the three level or above. This at least covers more situations, that of course not all of them.

We do use the STOP procedure in Norway also with competitive calls at the three level or above.

[barmar]

Seriously, do you do all this because you are taking the piss? Virtually all people just look at their cards with no mannerisms whatsoever.

I'm trying not to show disinterest.

 

When people really have a problem, they have all sorts of mannerisms. They fidget, they fold their hand and reopen it, they furrow their brow.

 

They also often do this significantly longer than 10 seconds. 10 seconds is longer than "I have absolutely nothing to think about", but not really as along as "I have a problem".