Ignoring the stop card

[pescetom]

An unrelated question, is it OK to never use the stop card for "obvious signoff bids" bids like:

1S-2S

4S

 

1NT-3NT

 

1m-1M

1NT-3NT

 

? Once in 100 boards, my LHO will think about making a lead-directing double (if they're even on lead) and that will help them on defence, I'm fine with that and I realise I waived my rights. On the other 99 boards, we will have saved 10 seconds and will put it to better use.

 

I assume you are semi-serious, in any case I think the answer is no :)

The rules make no such exception, also as you say, the opponents are entitled to that think time to evaluate a double or a sacrifice.

Those 10 (or less) seconds are not wasted whatever happens, everyone at the table has plenty to think about.

[jvage]

There was no UI because there was no evidence of BIT.

I am not familiar with the previous instructions to Norwegian TD's which Sven mentions, but I would assume this was only about disputed hesitations. If there was no consensus on wether or not there had been a hesitation a general advice to rule no UI if there had not been a required stop-warning seems sensible.

 

 

Here is an extract of the relevant current regulation covering this (my translation from Norwegian):

"A BIT clearly longer than 10 seconds (or clearly shorter than 10 seconds) is therefore presumed to possibly submit UI, even if RHO did not use the stop-card or say "stop"."

 

 

John

[gwnn]

I assume you are semi-serious, in any case I think the answer is no :)

The rules make no such exception, also as you say, the opponents are entitled to that think time to evaluate a double or a sacrifice.

Those 10 (or less) seconds are not wasted whatever happens, everyone at the table has plenty to think about.

Plenty to think about during

1S-2S

4S?

 

Like what? Sure, the opening leader needs to pick a lead (which most people don't do during the 10 seconds), but others?

[jhenrikj]

What would the effect be with the Norwegian regulation if the stop card is removed after 8 seconds and the next player calls 5 seconds later? Or if the stop card is removed after 5 seconds and the next player calls 5 seconds later, or if the stop card is removed after 5 seconds and the next player calls at once?

 

The two first situations is not suppose to render any UI, the last one might be. The most important thing is that you should never be able to tell if the player is still thinking or not if the stop card is removed to soon. That's why the responsibility for keeping time should be on the player making the next call since he still is responsible to think for a total of 10 seconds even if the stop card is removed after 5.

[pescetom]

Plenty to think about during

1S-2S

4S?

Like what? Sure, the opening leader needs to pick a lead (which most people don't do during the 10 seconds), but others?

It might be a slight overstatement, although mikeh would probably write you a book B-)

But to state the obvious:

- Opener might be undecided between jump to game and some more cautious action.

- his LHO has to plan what he will do following any action of partner and declarer, then start to think about a lead.

- his RHO has to evaluate a lead-directing double and check just where it does direct, maybe consider some other action.

[jvage]

What would the effect be with the Norwegian regulation if the stop card is removed after 8 seconds and the next player calls 5 seconds later? Or if the stop card is removed after 5 seconds and the next player calls 5 seconds later, or if the stop card is removed after 5 seconds and the next player calls at once?

 

The two first situations is not suppose to render any UI, the last one might be. The most important thing is that you should never be able to tell if the player is still thinking or not if the stop card is removed to soon. That's why the responsibility for keeping time should be on the player making the next call since he still is responsible to think for a total of 10 seconds even if the stop card is removed after 5.

The regulations are not as detailed as this. They only say that 10 seconds is the correct time to take, wether or not stop has been used. I don't think this is a big problem in practice, at least we have not had any appeals to the national level concerning such small deviations.

[gwnn]

It might be a slight overstatement, although mikeh would probably write you a book B-)

But to state the obvious:

- Opener might be undecided between jump to game and some more cautious action.

But opener already made the 4♠ bid. That's what I am talking about, what are people thinking about during those 10 seconds? It's too late to think about other bids.

- his LHO has to plan what he will do following any action of partner and declarer, then start to think about a lead.

Any action of declarer? Declarer just bid 4♠. Partner? Partner will 99.9% always pass. They passed over 2♠ already.

- his RHO has to evaluate a lead-directing double and check just where it does direct, maybe consider some other action.

Yes, lead-directing double, sure, I admitted that already. It comes up less than 1% of the time (probably way less, given the pass first round).

[pescetom]

But opener already made the 4♠ bid.

Sorry yes, I was thinking about after the 2♠ bid of course.

[gwnn]

Sorry yes, I was thinking about after the 2♠ bid of course.

In fact, a stop card for the 2♠ bid would make a lot more sense than for the 4♠ bid.

[mycroft]

Gwnn, I totally understand. After 4 rounds of bidding (totally unopposed) and then a jump to 6♠, what could anybody be thinking about?

 

And yes, there is an exception for 1NT-p-3NT - more than once I have used all 10 of my seconds working out whether I can afford to try a double or a sacrifice.

 

But it's a *very small* step between what you want (and, frankly, what a lot of people (including world-class experts) did in the ACBL when the STOP card was required "all the time or none of the time") and not using the STOP card when you jump to what you "expect" will be the final contract - but the opponents might still compete more (of course, if you're still investigating, a very similar jump might use the STOP card. It's obviously clear from your system notes that *this one* is forcing, and *that one* is to play, partner knows this already, what's the problem?) That is *really* dangerous, because you might not even know you're doing it.

 

Another step (somewhat larger) is moving to "use the STOP card when we're preempting the opponents, and they may have to think, but not when we're bidding to make, because then they won't" which I can assume you can see is also a real problem.

 

A step from there is "the STOP card is used for preempts only", which, besides the terminological issue behind "what's a preempt" (and what about "could be preempts, could be sound" bids like Texas transfers and 2♠-4♠?), leads very quickly to people believing that "the STOP card shows a preeempt, if you don't use it, it's strong" for the same 2♠ opener (a *common* complaint of the "STOP cards are for cheaters" brigade over here, because frankly, there were enough people who did believe that (almost always not on purpose doing something illegal, just lack of education again).

[gwnn]

In fact you will note that I specifically excluded jumps to slam :P But you make good points, definitely.

 

And even if I want to pretend that "my" stop card avoidance rules are perfectly judicious and optimal, there is the danger of setting the wrong example to my opponents, who will not know my perfectly judicious rules and/or apply them inconsistently, and we'll end up down the slippery slope you sketched.

[mycroft]

I had a colleague at work who, to work on one of his clients, had to take a banking ethics course (at their expense, including flight to New York and hotel on Wall Street. Yes, that kind of client).

 

It basically was a three day course in how to defraud the financial system. "You will follow the procedures to the letter, every time. We know they look inefficient; we're going to show you that those inefficiencies are there for a reason, and how each one, if bypassed, can allow some other kind of fraud. Note that almost all of the inefficiencies here were put in place *after* someone figured out how to do that kind of fraud and did it."

 

When it comes to the Laws and Regulations the WBF and NBOs have put in place for Bridge, I am frequently reminded of this story.

 

Oh, there was a part of the course that explained in great detail the process that occurs when someone defrauding the financial system is caught. I'm not reminded of that part of the story as often...

[barmar]

Once in 100 boards, my LHO will think about making a lead-directing double (if they're even on lead) and that will help them on defence, I'm fine with that and I realise I waived my rights. On the other 99 boards, we will have saved 10 seconds and will put it to better use.

The whole point of the STOP procedure is because of these "1 in 100" boards -- the idea is that they shouldn't seem any different from the normal situations where there's nothing to think about in a common auction.

 

If you normally insta-pass, and once in a blue moon you think before passing, partner has a significant amount of UI that time (there's something unusual).

 

And if you insta-double instead of hesitating before doubling, partner also has UI that the double was really clear-cut.

[barmar]

Oh, there was a part of the course that explained in great detail the process that occurs when someone defrauding the financial system is caught. I'm not reminded of that part of the story as often...

Like the tiny handful of bankers (half from Iceland, only one in the US) who went to jail as a result of the 2008 financial crisis?

[mycroft]

Cynical mode ON:

 

It's a bad thing to take money from the financial industry. Defrauding your employer or the banks in general will cause much headache to you.

 

Defrauding society is what the financial industry is *for*. That's fair game - see all the criminal time paid by the people who played with LIBOR.

 

Note that being in charge of financial institutions when the current game goes Toes Up, even if the game itself isn't actually illegal, can cost you tens of millions of dollars and your job. It won't, however, affect much else - including the eventual stability of said financial institution.

 

Cynical mode OFF.

[gwnn]

The whole point of the STOP procedure is because of these "1 in 100" boards -- the idea is that they shouldn't seem any different from the normal situations where there's nothing to think about in a common auction.

 

If you normally insta-pass, and once in a blue moon you think before passing, partner has a significant amount of UI that time (there's something unusual).

 

And if you insta-double instead of hesitating before doubling, partner also has UI that the double was really clear-cut.

No lol, the idea is that jump bids (as a rule) cause an unusual amount of tempo-sensitive situations. A normal auction would have (say) 20%, jump bids have 50% (say). However, these particular jump bids are unfortunate side effects, with much less tempo-sensitive potential than normal jump bids but even normal non-jump bids.

 

I have seen tanking after:

(1S)-?

1H-(2C)-?

1D-(X)-?

1D-(1S)-?

approximately 1000 times more often than after

1S-2S

4S-?

(I have seen 2S bidders tanking over 4S because they initially miscounted or because they are bad at bridge. But never opener's LHO.)

 

And this is not to mention all of the non-jump competitive bids such as

1H-(1S)-2H-(2S)

etc

which come in at about 100 million more common pauses than 1S-2S; 4S.

(numbers not exact)

And don't explain UI to me, I said it in the post already, I am 100% happy with opponents passing UI to each other through tanking over 4S those 1 of 100 hands. As a general rule, when a poster shows that they understand the implications, don't explain the implications to them. In fact, that can be generalised to if someone understands X, don't explain X to them. You'll just get them irritated.

 

There are good reasons to have a simple rule, and bending rules have good reasons against them, but the fact that 4S causes tanks less often than almost any other bid in bridge is not a reason for using the STOP card, lol. wow

 

Here are some good arguments for using the STOP card without exceptions:

1) slippery slope (either by me or by opponents) and sets a bad example

2) it can cause discomfort to LHO who could feel like I am rushing them

3) it makes rules easier

etc

 

But could you try to treat my position with at least a modicum of respect? Tell me with a straight face, is this more or less of a tempo-sensitive situation than, say,

1H-(1S)-?

 

This post reminds me why I stopped posting a while ago (and will probably stop posting soon).