[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2011-August-17, 10:31, said:

I suspect bluejak was mainly thinking of the cases where the player bids the intended denomination, but at an insufficient level. This is rarely due to a mechanical error, although they'll often claim it was. And that's why self-serving statements get such a bad reputation.

I have found that the intended denomination at the wrong level is quite common --just as easy to pull a touching card above or below the one intended as it is to pull a touching card beside it.

[jallerton]

campboy, on 2011-August-18, 04:13, said:

I agree with mfa1010. Law 23 needs the player to potentially be aware that the irregularity "could well damage the non-offending side". While damage of this form is possible, that possibility is too remote to say that it "could well" occur.

If it is not unusual for this player to fail to use the stop card then he should get a PP, but I don't see any reason to adjust the score.

Perhaps you might like to consider the full wording of Law 23:

Law 23 said:

Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the nonoffending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity*.
* as, for example, by partner’s enforced pass.

Note that there is no requirement for the offender to potentially be aware of how his irregularity could well damage the non-offending side, just that the irregualarity could well cause damage.

The 'stop' regulations are primarily there to reduce the scope for transmission of unauthorised information. In my opinion, a player who does not use the 'stop' card when required to do so by the regulations:

(i) is committing an irregularity; and
(ii) could have been aware than the failure to use the 'stop' card could well cause damage to the opponents: typically, it would put LHO under pressure to vary his tempo, transmit needless UI and compromise LHO's partner's options.

In any case, as I mentioned in my first reply to this topic, if Law 23 is not considered appropriate to thisscituation, then the TD can use Law 12A1 instead to adjust.

[bluejak]

mfa1010, on 2011-August-18, 10:24, said:

But they don't intend that it must not happen either. There is no bridge laws dogma saying that one is not allowed to get lucky or that his opponent is not allowed to make a mistake.

I said "gain because of it". That is not the same as "get lucky" nor "opponent making a mistake", unless the mistake is caused by the infraction.

[campboy]

In my opinion the possibility of causing damage by failing to use the stop card is too remote to say that it could well occur. By regulation, the failure to use the stop card does not change the tempo requirements on next hand.

I agree that you may adjust under 12A1 if you judge that applies. The distinction is important, though, because law 23 requires an adjustment whereas law 12A1 merely permits one.

[jallerton]

campboy, on 2011-August-19, 02:36, said:

In my opinion the possibility of causing damage by failing to use the stop card is too remote to say that it could well occur. By regulation, the failure to use the stop card does not change the tempo requirements on next hand.

Given that, in your opinion, the possibility of damage being caused by the failure to use the 'stop' card is "remote", are you saying that you consider the use of the 'stop' card to be a waste of time and effort?

You are quite correct that the next player is supposed to pause for the relevant length of time anyway, in practice many players do not know this. If you ask most players to explain the 'stop' procedure, they will tell you some akin to Orange Book paragraph 7.4:

Quote

Before making a jump bid (ie a bid at a higher level than the minimum in that denomination) a player should place the Stop card in front of him, then place his call as usual, and eventually remove the Stop card. His LHO should not call until the Stop card has been removed.

but few will explain that the LHO should pause anyway. In practice, when a 'stop' card has not been used, most players feel under pressure to call with the same tempo as over a non-jump bid.

[campboy]

jallerton, on 2011-August-22, 15:03, said:

Given that, in your opinion, the possibility of damage being caused by the failure to use the 'stop' card is "remote", are you saying that you consider the use of the 'stop' card to be a waste of time and effort?

No. I think the stop card is useful in reminding the next player to pause when he has nothing to think about. Most players seem quite willing to pause when they have something to think about whether or not the previous bid was a jump.

[Zelandakh]

campboy, on 2011-August-23, 03:40, said:

No. I think the stop card is useful in reminding the next player to pause when he has nothing to think about. Most players seem quite willing to pause when they have something to think about whether or not the previous bid was a jump.

And they are entitled to. OTOH their partner may suffer some restrictions.