[akwoo]

My partner has definitely called the TD regarding a fast bid over a weak 2.

[sanst]

I don’t know about the rest of the world, but I do know that over here more often than not the stop card is used as a obligatory and symbolic gesture, not a serious reminder for the LHO to take her or his time. You see auctions like 1♠-2♠-4♠ and there are three passes on the table before the stop card has been removed from the box. I don’t see much use in it as the players don’t observe the 10 secs and give at least the impression that they are thinking. In the example given it’s unlikely that the LHO has something to think about and the same goes for the 2♠ bidder, who has a hand with 9 HCP at most.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2020-January-13, 15:24, said:

I don’t know about the rest of the world, but I do know that over here more often than not the stop card is used as a symbol, not a serious reminder for the LHO to take her or his time. You see auctions like 1♠-2♠-4♠ and there are three passes on the table before the stop card has been removed from the box. I don’t see much use in it as the players don’t observe the 10 secs and give at least the impression that they are thinking.

No idea of your regulations, but ours say that the STOP card should be removed from the box and displayed BEFORE the 4♠ bid, not after. It does tend to get ignored, but at least it is there (and when not, the Director knows which pair to keep an eye on).

[mycroft]

We didn't need to get rid of it. We did get rid of it, after a massive lack of education (which led to some - interesting - old wives' tales), a half-hearted attempt at enforcement ("If you use it, you must use it all the time. It's not mandatory, but we *suggest* you use it. But don't forget, even once" (wink, wink)), and a total and utter lack of consideration of its intent by LHO. Plus a bad (as explained here) method of using the card and lack of interest (or ability, but definitely interest) in enforcing violations (of the users and their opponents).

We now no longer have a Stop card procedure. There is still a massive lack of education, and a total and utter lack of consideration by LHO; increase in interest in enforcing the current regulation is obvious in its silence. WeaSeL still reigns supreme over preempts, but woe betide you if you take three seconds after 1♠-3♦-4♠-(shotgunned) 5♦...

I understand why the ACBL did it. As one of the 2% of players who used it and used it consistently (even over 1NT-p-3NT or [5 rounds of bidding leading to]-5NT-7♠) even knowing how useless it was, it was not my preferred solution to the problem. But I follow the new regulation as well.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2020-January-13, 21:21, said:

but woe betide you if you take three seconds after 1♠-3♦-4♠-(shotgunned) 5♦...

This is why I usually keep the Stop card out if LHO has bid before it is removed.

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2020-January-13, 15:30, said:

No idea of your regulations, but ours say that the STOP card should be removed from the box and displayed BEFORE the 4♠ bid, not after. It does tend to get ignored, but at least it is there (and when not, the Director knows which pair to keep an eye on).

The regulations are clear enough (every jump bid should be preceded by the stop card or you should say “stop”, and leave it on the table for 10 secs after you have made the call, the LHO should anyway wait for ten secs before making his call), but these are just not followed. Most players don’t care, at least not enough to call the TD, and you would probably be considered a fanatical kind of SB if you do. You might even be refused membership of some clubs or asked to leave. And frankly, I don’t think the average director at a club, who is usually playing too, would be pleased if called, provided there’s no UI problem.

[gwnn]

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.

What I do right now is use the stop card out of inertia about 50% of the time and remember not to use it 50% of the time. Is that also fine? It's not like I can give UI to a partner who is going to declare or become dummy in a second 99.9% of the time?

(I am definitely not talking about 1S-4S or 2S-4S or similar, and also not about jumps to slam where lead-directing doubles are more common.)

[pran]

mycroft, on 2020-January-13, 21:21, said:

......... after a massive lack of education .........

You have a point here:
Very early Directors in Norway were encouraged to enforce the STOP regulation by dismissing any claim on BIT (hesitation) after a skip bid unless STOP was used.

In fact our first question on such claims was (and still is): "Was STOP used?".
If the answer was "no" then we immediately dismissed the claim.

This (together with the fact that the skip bidder alone is responsible for administering "STOP") has resulted in a general respect for the STOP regulation here.

[sanst]

pran, on 2020-January-14, 05:05, said:

You have a point here:
Very early Directors in Norway were encouraged to enforce the STOP regulation by dismissing any claim on BIT (hesitation) after a skip bid unless STOP was used.

In fact our first question on such claims was (and still is): "Was STOP used?".
If the answer was "no" then we immediately dismissed the claim.

This (together with the fact that the skip bidder alone is responsible for administering "STOP") has resulted in a general respect for the STOP regulation here.

So you ignored part of the laws, i.e. to answer the question whether UI was used, to enforce a local regulation. Maybe effective, but not legal.

[pran]

sanst, on 2020-January-14, 05:18, said:

So you ignored part of the laws, i.e. to answer the question whether UI was used, to enforce a local regulation. Maybe effective, but not legal.

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

[pescetom]

gwnn, on 2020-January-14, 04:42, said:

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]

pran, on 2020-January-14, 06:24, said:

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]

pescetom, on 2020-January-14, 07:28, said:

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]

gwnn, on 2020-January-14, 07:42, said:

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
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]

jhenrikj, on 2020-January-14, 07:47, said:

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]

pescetom, on 2020-January-14, 08:02, said:

It might be a slight overstatement, although mikeh would probably write you a book
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.

Quote

- 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.

Quote

- 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]

gwnn, on 2020-January-14, 08:29, said:

But opener already made the 4♠ bid.

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

[gwnn]

pescetom, on 2020-January-14, 10:16, said:

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).