[bluejak]

Vampyr, on Jul 13 2010, 03:40 AM, said:

I live in the South East also, and it seems to me that people who state that they are "reserving their rights" are being at least a little belligerent and hostile. After all, it is a meaningless phrase, so what reason, other than to annoy your opponent, exists for uttering it?

It is not meaningless: it is a matter of Law. Of course, you could explain it better, and people use in unsuitable situations.

The simplest reason for using the clause is that you trust your opponents and you say it to simplify a conversation and pass information to my opponents. If I thought Paul hesitated I might say "I am reserving my rights, ok?" and would expect Paul to either say "Yes" or "No, I do not agree, let's get the TD".

Against a lesser player this conversation would take more time because I would have to go through the moves of explaining I thought he hesitated, no, I did not say he cheated, no, Steffie, I am sure you have your bid really, and so on.

I am reserving my rights means that something has happened in my view which might need a TD call at the end of the hand. Sensible and knowledgeable opponents know this and either agree it has happened or call the TD. It is a time-saver.

Law 16B2 refers. Incidentally, it's a clause.

[mjj29]

bluejak, on Jul 13 2010, 06:35 AM, said:

Against  a lesser player this conversation would take more time because I would have to go through the moves of explaining I thought he hesitated, no, I did not say he cheated, no, Steffie, I am sure you have your bid really, and so on.

This is why I always say "Are you happy to agree that your partner took some time before making that call?", doesn't take much longer to say and just sounds a whole lot nicer.

[pran]

mjj29, on Jul 13 2010, 01:39 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 13 2010, 06:35 AM, said:

Against  a lesser player this conversation would take more time because I would have to go through the moves of explaining I thought he hesitated, no, I did not say he cheated, no, Steffie, I am sure you have your bid really, and so on.

This is why I always say "Are you happy to agree that your partner took some time before making that call?", doesn't take much longer to say and just sounds a whole lot nicer.

Why exclude the player hesitating from the conversation?

"Do we agree that there was a pause here?" takes even less time and is IMHO equally polite and pleasant?

[zenko]

Years ago, late great Bobby Goldman was pushing hard for a similar type of modification. The idea has a lot of merit but the key problem is to define well "stop" situations without slowing the game too much.

I think this issue appears to be more important in theory than in reality. Every player good enough to beat you knows the rule, and will stay away from taking the advantage of UI. Lesser players might, just because they do not know any better, so the focus should be on educating them in friendly manner, not scaring them away.

[gnasher]

zenko, on Jul 13 2010, 02:15 PM, said:

I think this issue appears to be more important in theory than in reality. Every player good enough to beat you knows the rule, and will stay away from taking the advantage of UI.

The purpose of the stop procedure isn't to stop people taking advantage of UI: it is to prevent the existence of UI. Other things being equal, every law-abiding player would prefer not to have UI, rather than to have UI and be constrained by it.

[zenko]

gnasher, on Jul 13 2010, 11:10 AM, said:

zenko, on Jul 13 2010, 02:15 PM, said:

I think this issue appears to be more important in theory than in reality. Every player good enough to beat you knows the rule, and will stay away from taking the advantage of UI.

The purpose of the stop procedure isn't to stop people taking advantage of UI: it is to prevent the existence of UI. Other things being equal, every law-abiding player would prefer not to have UI, rather than to have UI and be constrained by it.

Of course, that is all self evidently true, but the other things are not equal. To further reduce UI situations you really have probably only two options, either severely slow down the game (like in that "Norway" solution) or to create more defined, meaning more complex set of rules, when to use Stop, etc. Both options are pretty hard sell IMO, so my vote is to instead more detailed regulation, we should to go completely other direction, along the lines of what Andrew Robson did in his club, for example.

[NickRW]

bluejak, on Jul 13 2010, 11:35 AM, said:

Against a lesser player this conversation would take more time because I would have to go through the moves of explaining I thought he hesitated, no, I did not say he cheated, no, Steffie, I am sure you have your bid really, and so on.

I am reserving my rights means that something has happened in my view which might need a TD call at the end of the hand. Sensible and knowledgeable opponents know this and either agree it has happened or call the TD. It is a time-saver.

Law 16B2 refers. Incidentally, it's a clause.

In my experience this is a law makers naive view of human nature. In practice even people who know the laws and that it is not an accusation in theory react as if it is. It is no good - and I mean really no good - the TD saying it is not an accusation when an old lady is already in tears or two male players are about to thump one another - the session's enjoyment has already been ruined for everyone in earshot.

[blackshoe]

that's all fine and dandy, but what's your solution to the problem? Cancel the game and send everyone home? Let people get away with murder? Something less drastic (I hope)?

[pran]

zenko, on Jul 14 2010, 01:24 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jul 13 2010, 11:10 AM, said:

zenko, on Jul 13 2010, 02:15 PM, said:

I think this issue appears to be more important in theory than in reality. Every player good enough to beat you knows the rule, and will stay away from taking the advantage of UI.

The purpose of the stop procedure isn't to stop people taking advantage of UI: it is to prevent the existence of UI. Other things being equal, every law-abiding player would prefer not to have UI, rather than to have UI and be constrained by it.

Of course, that is all self evidently true, but the other things are not equal. To further reduce UI situations you really have probably only two options, either severely slow down the game (like in that "Norway" solution) or to create more defined, meaning more complex set of rules, when to use Stop, etc. Both options are pretty hard sell IMO, so my vote is to instead more detailed regulation, we should to go completely other direction, along the lines of what Andrew Robson did in his club, for example.

Similar to what I consider a severe over-estimation of time saved with claims, my experience is that the "extra time lost" because of the "Norwegian" STOP regulation is grossly exaggerated.

Frankly I suspect that in total we save time because we can eliminate many of those Director calls with BIT allegations.

[NickRW]

blackshoe, on Jul 14 2010, 04:56 PM, said:

that's all fine and dandy, but what's your solution to the problem? Cancel the game and send everyone home? Let people get away with murder? Something less drastic (I hope)?

My point, in my original post in this thread, was that the Norwegian rules seem to cover some of the real situations where a small amount of time is needed. The present rules about using a stop card if there is a jump bid does - for the most part - absolutely nothing - most of those situations provide time where none is actually needed. And all the while the really contentious situations ("there was a pause", "no there bl**dy wasn't" types) are non jump competitive auctions.

Nick

[NickRW]

My other point, I suppose, is that players seem to be able to reserve their rights over what is, in reality, about a 2 second pause over and above the 1 second or so that most people take to pull a card out of the box - and TDs obviously must be letting them do so. Bridge, real bridge, to me, is not speedball. Why should I or anyone else as the supposed pauser's partner feel constrained because p took literally a total of 3 seconds to come up with their bid - god knows what they were thinking about - it might not have been anything even to do with the hand - it might have been "god, I could do with a cup of tea", or "how will I be able to pay my mortgage this month" or whatever.

Nick

[Fluffy]

at local LEVEL stop card is known by people to make partner know that our jumps are weak.

If the opponents have nothing to think about before passing they will just ignore the stop card anyway and pass quickly. Or then there are others nice fellows who will pull the pass out of the bidding box and wait with it in the hand for the 10 seconds.

Stops are more than useless at local level, at least in my coutnry.

But at higher level, I find these rules plenty useful, there are zounds of BITs and UIs on bridge, and getting rid of the ones on compettive situations seems like a good improvement. And the 10 seconds are nothing really, after all, everyone should think a bit on competitive sitations.

[NickRW]

Fluffy, on Jul 14 2010, 10:33 PM, said:

Stops are more than useless at local level, at least in my coutnry.

Precisely. Well intentioned maybe, but at best a farce in practice, and they don't even cover the real problem.

[bluejak]

Many players in England use the Stop cards fairly well in clubs. Where they do it helps the flow of the game. The fact that many do not use them correctly is unfortunate but it would be worse if no-one did.

Interestingly, no-one [waits for normal shower of abuse] here uses them to indicate a weak bid. I wonder if this is a historical problem in other countries harking back to how and when they were introduced?

[NickRW]

bluejak, on Jul 15 2010, 12:28 PM, said:

Interestingly, no-one [waits for normal shower of abuse] here uses them to indicate a weak bid.

No abuse from me on that one - if that is your experience then that is your experience. Where I am they are religiously pulled out for all skip bids.

My gripe is not that the cards exist - or that they are not used (at least perfunctorally) when the regs say they should be. It is

1. Primarily, the regs say to use them in situations where people often do not need a lot of time (what is the point, for example, of using them in a 2NT-4NT-6NT auction! Even preemptive openings are sufficiently common that most players most of the time, even not very experienced ones, do not need long to think about whether they will or will not act). And the regs say not to use them in a lot of other situations (typically competitve ones) where a little time is frequently needed. This, in turn, leading to contentious situations where a player has taken a couple of seconds longer than might otherwise be the case.

2. The other problem arising, is that because the time is allowed but usually not needed in skip bid situations, players widely do not leave the card out for 10 seconds. And even if they do, LHO ignores it.

The EBU, lately, has done a lot of soul searching about why it can't attract more people to its events. The bad feeling that can sometimes be generated in a competitive environment is, IMO, the biggest factor putting off a lot of people and this area of regulation is the worst problem in that area.

I've said my piece. Perhaps I'll shut up now.

Nick

[jvage]

jallerton, on Jul 11 2010, 02:36 AM, said:

On another thread, there has been a reference to Norwegian STOP bid regulations.  How do they work exactly?

1. When do these apply?  For example, if the auction starts: 2♠-P-P-3♣ is Opener expected to pause?

2.  If a player doubles (or redoubles) a bid at the 3-level, does that count as a STOP?

3.  How long are players expected to pause for?  If the 3-level bidder displays the STOP card for only a very short period of time (or fails to use the STOP card at all) is the next player obliged to pause anyway?

4.  Are all players expected to pause in a competitive auction at the 3-level or is it just the RHO of the bidder?

5.  Are the STOP rules properly observed by most players?

6.  Do you find that some auctions take a long time to complete?  Suppose the auction goes:
1♥-1♠-2♥-2♠
3♣-3♦-3♥-3♠
4♥-4♠-Dbl-Pass
Pass-Pass

Being away I saw this thread late. Sven has quoted our regulation, but here are my opinions on the questions asked, which seems to have been only partly answered:
1. Yes, in theory. This is however a position where many players would ignore the regulations in practice, since the next player will almost never have a problem (even more so than after 1NT - (p) - 3NT which has been discussed regarding traditional stop-regulations). One should however try to be consistent. The main advantage of having a pause here would be that the next two players (who will more often have a problem) can prepare and reduce possible UI later.

2. Yes, but see above.

3. 10 seconds. Yes. As after traditional "jump-stops" 10 seconds feels like a long time and in practice the pause will often be somewhat shorter, like 6-8 seconds.

4. Only the RHO (same as traditional jump-stops).

5. At higher levels it is observed by most, at lower levels by very few. I noticed that you and Frances are coming to the Norwegian Festival (hope to meet you there ). I am afraid that many of your opponents will not follow this regulation correctly No-one would expect a pair of foreign players to get it correctly, my guess is that some of your opponents will be very impressed

6. I would expect the example-auction to take a relatively long time even without the Norwegian stop-regulations Without the regulation under discussion one could easily imagine that some of the bids are very fast and some very slow, with loads of UI generated as a result. One may say that the object of the regulation is to even out these pauses, the total time needed may not be much longer.

John

[bluejak]

NickRW, on Jul 15 2010, 02:40 PM, said:

My gripe is not that the cards exist - or that they are not used (at least perfunctorily) when the regs say they should be.  It is

1.  Primarily, the regs say to use them in situations where people often do not need a lot of time (what is the point, for example, of using them in a 2NT-4NT-6NT auction!  Even preemptive openings are sufficiently common that most players most of the time, even not very experienced ones, do not need long to think about whether they will or will not act).  And the regs say not to use them in a lot of other situations (typically competitve ones) where a little time is frequently needed.  This, in turn, leading to contentious situations where a player has taken a couple of seconds longer than might otherwise be the case.

It is very difficult to teach people regulations, and the first rule of a new regulation is that it should be simple. Despite the alleged problems with English alerting, I think the problems would be far greater if they were more correct, because more correct means more complicated, and that means that players would be less likely to bother. The advantage of the English Stop regulation is that it is absurdly simple, simple enough that people do know even in clubs when it applies [even if not how to do it] and I do not think it annoys players nearly as much as it would if it was made more efficient, but more complicated.

NickRW, on Jul 15 2010, 02:40 PM, said:

The EBU, lately, has done a lot of soul searching about why it can't attract more people to its events.  The bad feeling that can sometimes be generated in a competitive environment is, IMO, the biggest factor putting off a lot of people and this area of regulation is the worst problem in that area.

I have no doubt that the bad feeling is a great put-off. Personally, I am finding more and more people are rude to me. Not when I am directing, which while in theory not acceptable in practice every TD does expect somewhat, but when I am playing. I do get sick of it. In the last year I have had about four incidents at the table plus a lot of rudeness away from it. Now, I am not asking for sympathy: what I think is that if I were a weaker character or if my life was not so bound up with bridge, some of these incidents might drive me away.

I do not think anyone will be driven away from bridge by Stop, alerting or system regulations, but by attitude of a minority, yes.

[pran]

jvage, on Jul 15 2010, 03:06 PM, said:

jallerton, on Jul 11 2010, 02:36 AM, said:

4.  Are all players expected to pause in a competitive auction at the 3-level or is it just the RHO of the bidder?

4. Only the RHO (same as traditional jump-stops).

I didn't notice this before, but we still proceed clockwise, not counterclockwise in auction (and play)!

[NickRW]

bluejak, on Jul 15 2010, 03:11 PM, said:

I do not think anyone will be driven away from bridge by Stop, alerting or system regulations.

Well, you might not think so - it certainly has driven me away.

I do not want to have anything to do with being in the situation with a relatively inexperienced partner at a table of a relatively tournament wise pair and it goes any non jump bid on my left - pass after a couple of seconds - pass on my right and I have something I want to make a noise with - because far too often I am going to hear some sort of grump from one of the other two. And I certainly don't want to pay money for the privilege of being subjected to that. The regs on UI have, in effect, become bid quickly or the opps will take advantage of you and they think the rules support them. No thank you - I want nothing to do with it.

[zenko]

NickRW, on Jul 15 2010, 11:08 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 15 2010, 03:11 PM, said:

I do not think anyone will be driven away from bridge by Stop, alerting or system regulations.

Well, you might not think so - it certainly has driven me away.

I do not want to have anything to do with being in the situation with a relatively inexperienced partner at a table of a relatively tournament wise pair and it goes any non jump bid on my left - pass after a couple of seconds - pass on my right and I have something I want to make a noise with - because far too often I am going to hear some sort of grump from one of the other two. And I certainly don't want to pay money for the privilege of being subjected to that. The regs on UI have, in effect, become bid quickly or the opps will take advantage of you and they think the rules support them. No thank you - I want nothing to do with it.

On my case, and I am sure the same goes for many payers, a majority of clearly bad decision I make in competitive bidding are result of bidding too fast, sometimes (rarely) because I do not bother to think bit more, sometimes (more often) because I rushed the bid to not give up too much info to opponents, and sometimes (most often) because I am trying to protect my partner from dealing with possible UI implications.
Maybe that is the way is has to be, but I do not believe it is the best interest of the game that a non-card play issue is such a big factor in a result outcome.

Having said that I am very sceptical that any the problem can be solved with additional layers of regulations.