Protocol - non-skip jump

[Cyberyeti]

In the middle of an auction, partner bids 3♣ then RHO bids 4♦ without using the stop card.

 

Clearly LHO can't ask whether he meant to do it, but can you as opps ask if it was intended ? if it might make your judgment easier, and if he says "no and I didn't realise I'd done it" does he have the right to change it ?

 

In this case what actually happened when we asked after was that he'd seen the 3♣ bid as 4♣.

[pran]

In the middle of an auction, partner bids 3♣ then RHO bids 4♦ without using the stop card.

 

Clearly LHO can't ask whether he meant to do it, but can you as opps ask if it was intended ? if it might make your judgment easier, and if he says "no and I didn't realise I'd done it" does he have the right to change it ?

 

In this case what actually happened when we asked after was that he'd seen the 3♣ bid as 4♣.

From your description it is clear that the call was indeed intended, the "admission" that he had seen the 3♣ bid as 4♣ proves this.

 

Nothing in the laws permits you to ask a player if his call was intended, but you may certainly ask his partner for an explanation of the call. And if the player now discovers that he had made a truly unintended call he is entitled to change it under Law 25A1.

 

Be aware of

If the player’s original intent was to make the call selected or voiced, that call stands. A change of call may be allowed because of a mechanical error or a slip of the tongue, but not because of a loss of concentration regarding the intent of the action.

[Cyberyeti]

From your description it is clear that the call was indeed intended, the "admission" that he had seen the 3♣ bid as 4♣ proves this.

 

Nothing in the laws permits you to ask a player if his call was intended, but you may certainly ask his partner for an explanation of the call. And if the player now discovers that he had made a truly unintended call he is entitled to change it under Law 25A1.

 

Be aware of

 

I was aware of the legal situation in this case once after the board we asked, but it didn't help me to try to make a decision in the auction.

[sanst]

I was aware of the legal situation in this case once after the board we asked, but it didn't help me to try to make a decision in the auction.

Quite often an opponent makes a mistake and you have to deal with it. If you’re damaged, it’s just bad luck, but more often it’s to your advantage.

[Cyberyeti]

Quite often an opponent makes a mistake and you have to deal with it. If you’re damaged, it’s just bad luck, but more often it’s to your advantage.

 

I'm not sure what the phrase is for not using a stop card when you should. Is it an infraction ? a breach of etiquette or what ? It seems odd that you can't ask anything about it.

[blackshoe]

If there is a regulation requiring the use of the stop card, then failure to use the stop card is an infraction of the regulation and thus indirectly of the law under which the regulation is made (law 40 or one of its parts I think).

[sanst]

I'm not sure what the phrase is for not using a stop card when you should. Is it an infraction ? a breach of etiquette or what ? It seems odd that you can't ask anything about it.

And what would you ask? “Why didn’t your partner use the stop card?” Or “What are your agreements for a jump bid without the stop card?” :lol:

[Cyberyeti]

And what would you ask? “Why didn’t your partner use the stop card?” Or “What are your agreements for a jump bid without the stop card?” :lol:

 

More "did you realise you'd made a jump, you didn't use the stop card ?" or similar. It's better than commenting "they give you a stop card for a reason" which I've seen before.

[pran]

More "did you realise you'd made a jump, you didn't use the stop card ?" or similar. It's better than commenting "they give you a stop card for a reason" which I've seen before.

Regulations vary between organisations.

 

The Norwegian regulation explicitly states that it is correct procedure for the skip-bidder's LHO to wait 10 seconds before calling when STOP is not used or is retracted before the 10 seconds period has expired.

 

Here LHO should say nothing but just wait.

 

(It is the responsibility of the Skip bidder - not his LHO to time the STOP period!)

[Tramticket]

My perspective:

 

Failure to use a stop card is a breach of regulation. The proper procedure is to call the TD and there are penalties for failure to follow this regulation (which would start with warnings).

 

Your opponent is not obliged to tell you that they have made a mistake and they would be well advised not to tell you since they would be creating (further) UI for their partner. Failure to use the stop card properly is of course UI for their partner, but AI for you. But you would not be entitled to any redress if you drew a wrong inference from the failure to use the stop card.

[sanst]

More "did you realise you'd made a jump, you didn't use the stop card ?" or similar. It's better than commenting "they give you a stop card for a reason" which I've seen before.

What good would that do? As Pran wrote, you can should wait for ten secs before you make your call, you can ask about the agreement, what more do you want and for what reason? You only make it possible for your opponents to give information to each other which would probably be UI and, even worse, you might give your partner the idea that you wanted to make a call you can’t make now, which also conveys UI.

[Cyberyeti]

My perspective:

 

Failure to use a stop card is a breach of regulation. The proper procedure is to call the TD and there are penalties for failure to follow this regulation (which would start with warnings).

 

Your opponent is not obliged to tell you that they have made a mistake and they would be well advised not to tell you since they would be creating (further) UI for their partner. Failure to use the stop card properly is of course UI for their partner, but AI for you. But you would not be entitled to any redress if you drew a wrong inference from the failure to use the stop card.

 

I did of course wait as if a stop card had been used.

 

A director call is clearly correct if you're going to say anything, I decided I wasn't.

 

I actually possibly should have probably made more of it, the offender bid 1♦ in response to 1♣ and then jumped to 4♦ over my partner's artificial 3♣ showing a raise of my spade overcall, his partner passed this out and it went -1 because we found our ruff. I suspect 4♦ with the use of the stop card should be forcing (and certainly with his partner holding KQx).

[Tramticket]

I did of course wait as if a stop card had been used.

 

A director call is clearly correct if you're going to say anything, I decided I wasn't.

 

I actually possibly should have probably made more of it, the offender bid 1♦ in response to 1♣ and then jumped to 4♦ over my partner's artificial 3♣ showing a raise of my spade overcall, his partner passed this out and it went -1 because we found our ruff. I suspect 4♦ with the use of the stop card should be forcing (and certainly with his partner holding KQx).

 

Yes 4♦ sounds forcing to me (unless they can show that they have the agreement that it is non-forcing), but even if it isn't I would think that bidding on is a logical alternative (from the limited information supplied) and the failure to use the stop card has suggested the pass.

[Cyberyeti]

Yes 4♦ sounds forcing to me (unless they can show that they have the agreement that it is non-forcing), but even if it isn't I would think that bidding on is a logical alternative (from the limited information supplied) and the failure to use the stop card has suggested the pass.

 

I haven't supplied the auction because I can't remember exactly what opener bid at his second turn. His hand was K, J9xx, KQx, AQxxx He opened 1♣ got a 1♦ response, I overcalled a spade, he bid something, partner bid a non jump 3♣ as a good spade raise and offender jumped to 4♦ actually holding xx, Q10x, Axxxxxx, x.

 

EDIT: I remember now, the initial club was 2+ so opener rebid 2♣

[blackshoe]

I suspect 4♦ with the use of the stop card should be forcing (and certainly with his partner holding KQx).

Two points:

1. Suspicions like this are the reason we poll the player's peers.

2. I don't think I've ever heard of an agreement where a bid is or is not forcing depending on what undisclosed assets his partner might or might not hold.

[Cyberyeti]

Two points:

1. Suspicions like this are the reason we poll the player's peers.

2. I don't think I've ever heard of an agreement where a bid is or is not forcing depending on what undisclosed assets his partner might or might not hold.

 

OK, 2 was lazy terminology from me, we have some bids which are "forcing unless you have a misfitting minimum", basically what I meant was any hand opener may hold that contains ♦KQx should bid.

[pescetom]

Regulations vary between organisations.

 

The Norwegian regulation explicitly states that it is correct procedure for the skip-bidder's LHO to wait 10 seconds before calling when STOP is not used or is retracted before the 10 seconds period has expired.

 

Here LHO should say nothing but just wait.

 

(It is the responsibility of the Skip bidder - not his LHO to time the STOP period!)

 

The italian regulations say only that the stop card should be exhibited and then (in a separate sentence) that the LHO should wait 10 seconds. So presumably he has to time it himself, whereas it is unclear if he should wait if the card is not exhibited.

[pran]

Regulations vary between organisations.

 

The Norwegian regulation explicitly states that it is correct procedure for the skip-bidder's LHO to wait 10 seconds before calling when STOP is not used or is retracted before the 10 seconds period has expired.

 

Here LHO should say nothing but just wait.

 

(It is the responsibility of the Skip bidder - not his LHO to time the STOP period!)

The italian regulations say only that the stop card should be exhibited and then (in a separate sentence) that the LHO should wait 10 seconds. So presumably he has to time it himself, whereas it is unclear if he should wait if the card is not exhibited.

Yes, I am aware that several jurisdictions hold LHO responsible for timing the delay.

We have in our regulation that this responsibility is with the skip bidder who has nothing else to consider after he has made his skip bid.

LHO may need all the 10 seconds he is allotted to consider his own call and shall not be burdened with timing the delay in addition to this.

 

(The skip bidding side usually forfeits any BIT claim on a delay where they have failed to use the STOP procedure correctly unless the BIT was extreme.)

[barmar]

What good would that do? As Pran wrote, you can should wait for ten secs before you make your call, you can ask about the agreement, what more do you want and for what reason? You only make it possible for your opponents to give information to each other which would probably be UI and, even worse, you might give your partner the idea that you wanted to make a call you can’t make now, which also conveys UI.

It seems like the questioner is trying to find out whether the 4♦ bidder intended to jump or misbid because he misread the auction. A jump presumably has a different meaning than 4♦ over 4♣.

 

Sometimes UI is an unfortunate result of actions you feel are necessary (not to mention some that are legally required).

[pescetom]

It seems like the questioner is trying to find out whether the 4♦ bidder intended to jump or misbid because he misread the auction. A jump presumably has a different meaning than 4♦ over 4♣.

 

Sometimes UI is an unfortunate result of actions you feel are necessary (not to mention some that are legally required).

 

Yes, but he's right that in this case the question is inappropriate. Something I had not considered until now, as I tend to ask with the intention of chastising the player and encouraging him to follow the laws.

[pescetom]

Yes, I am aware that several jurisdictions hold LHO responsible for timing the delay.

We have in our regulation that this responsibility is with the skip bidder who has nothing else to consider after he has made his skip bid.

LHO may need all the 10 seconds he is allotted to consider his own call and shall not be burdened with timing the delay in addition to this.

Makes sense, I think our own regulation is poorly written in this respect.

[sanst]

It seems like the questioner is trying to find out whether the 4♦ bidder intended to jump or misbid because he misread the auction. A jump presumably has a different meaning than 4♦ over 4♣.

 

Sometimes UI is an unfortunate result of actions you feel are necessary (not to mention some that are legally required).

AFAIK there’s nothing in the Laws that allows you to find out whether a call or play was intended or a mistake. Law 75C implicitly states so IMO. If screens are in use, S asks W about the agreement without E knowing that - well, that’s the idea, anyway - so nobody will find out what it was till the board is played or the hand of the dummy is on the table.

As I wrote before, a misbid or any other mistake by your opponents might damage you, but there’s no redress. And more often it’s advantageous to the NOS.

[barmar]

Consider the other way around: the player puts out the STOP card and then makes a non-jump bid. I think many would draw attention to the inconsistency.

[pran]

Consider the other way around: the player puts out the STOP card and then makes a non-jump bid. I think many would draw attention to the inconsistency.

When STOP was originally introduced in Norway it was to be used not only with skip bids, but also (if I remember correct) with "weak" 1NT opening bids.

 

What happened?

Pretty soon you could see system declaration for 1NT opening bids: "Alone: 15-17 HCP, together with STOP: 12-14 HCP".

 

As the chairman of the Norwegian Law Committee told me: It was completely impossible to make these players understand that this was abuse of the STOP procedure, so we simply had to delete STOP for unusually weak 1NT opening bids altogether!

[barmar]

When STOP was originally introduced in Norway it was to be used not only with skip bids, but also (if I remember correct) with "weak" 1NT opening bids.

 

What happened?

Pretty soon you could see system declaration for 1NT opening bids: "Alone: 15-17 HCP, together with STOP: 12-14 HCP".

 

As the chairman of the Norwegian Law Committee told me: It was completely impossible to make these players understand that this was abuse of the STOP procedure, so we simply had to delete STOP for unusually weak 1NT opening bids altogether!

Even without that kind of declaration, this procedure seems inherently problematic. If you play variable NT, you couldn't avoid using the STOP card to remind your partner of which range you had.