[barmar]

pescetom, on 2024-October-05, 15:05, said:

It's not just awareness, but also willingness to violate the "social tolerance" blackmail.
Declarer leads to the Q in dummy, LHO pauses 10 seconds and then plays low, RHO covers with K and leads same suit to partner's A.
Nobody calls the Director.
But people are what they are, and games are what they are.
Bridge would be a much better and more realistic game if the pause of LHO was hidden from RHO as far as possible and penalized beyond that.

I don't consider this to be collusive cheating. Collusive cheating involves covert signals between partners (e.g. finger placement, coughing).

Taking advantage of UI like the above example is common, but I file it under ignorance of the law, not cheating.

[mycroft]

I agree with barmar - it happens, it happens a lot, there are pairs who I know read it very well, and are deliberately not very careful when they *don't* have a problem and help their partner read; but they haven't actually discussed it or even really know that's what they're doing.

Which makes it almost as nasty a director call as collusive when they *are* called on it, because "we would never have thought of that" and "how dare you accuse us of..." Yes, also because of "ignorance of the law".

However, I have a limit, beyond which "ignorance of the law" won't save you (from me as a director, or, at least at a game I couldn't reasonably be working, from me as a player.) After a certain amount of experience, if you haven't learned this yet, it's not due to lack of opportunity or lack of exposure. It might be due to lack of willingness of their opponents to call them on it - which is one of the reasons I do it, but in most cases it's just not important enough to learn.

I couldn't tell you where that limit is (I can tell you it can depend on where the player is from, and who the player is talking to). I do know that 2200 MPs and your district's GNT Flight B champion is well beyond it. No points for working out where I got that specific example from...

Yes, it's education. Yes, we need to do more of it. Yes, the amount of time a player (that avoids flight A at least) can muddle along in blissful ignorance "reading partner" (and, more importantly, offering chances to "be read") is years longer than it should be. OTOH, I can read them better than they can, and *I'm allowed* to use it :-).

[jillybean]

Early on, a mentor told me that he never looked above table level to avoid seeing partner's reaction to his bids and plays.
I wonder how much AI was available to my opponents in those days, no wonder I never scored well.

I think most of us learn to keep a poker face and avoid giving UI. For the rest, the only answer could be horse blinkers and canine muzzles.

[sanst]

 jillybean, on 2024-October-07, 18:56, said:

Early on, a mentor told me that he never looked above table level to avoid seeing partner's reaction to his bids and plays.
I wonder how much AI was available to my opponents in those days, no wonder I never scored well.

I think most of us learn to keep a poker face and avoid giving UI. For the rest, the only answer could be horse blinkers and canine muzzles.

Really? How did he manage never to do that? Neither do I believe that most of us learn to keep a poker face. Most poker players do not learn that and wear dark glasses and caps to keep their faces in the shadow.
It's completely unnatural not to expres yourselves through body language or to ignore it.

[pescetom]

 barmar, on 2024-October-07, 14:51, said:

I don't consider this to be collusive cheating. Collusive cheating involves covert signals between partners (e.g. finger placement, coughing).

Taking advantage of UI like the above example is common, but I file it under ignorance of the law, not cheating.

I agree with mycroft's response, but while he didn't explicitly disagree with you I think he was saying that above a certain level of player (and of directing) you cannot legitimately file it under ignorance of the law either. Unless you intend ignorance as the act of ignoring.

[pescetom]

And conversely, at the lower levels where the Laws are unheard of, even collusive cheating can be unrecognized as such by those engaging in it, to the point where they deserve education rather than punishment.
Overheard from one of our D flight pairs that play mainly friendly games in the kitchen: "Sorry about that, but you didn't really merit a reverse, did you?" "No but you should have known that, otherwise I would have walloped the Stop card!"

[jillybean]

 sanst, on 2024-October-08, 02:13, said:

Really? How did he manage never to do that? Neither do I believe that most of us learn to keep a poker face. Most poker players do not learn that and wear dark glasses and caps to keep their faces in the shadow.
It's completely unnatural not to expres yourselves through body language or to ignore it.

'Never' of course is an exaggeration but the message is clear, don't look at your partner's face.
I do believe players learn to minimize their reaction to unusual actions, explanations of alerts and other surprising events at the table.
The body language evident when people are expressing themselves is very different from maintaining a poker face.

Think of Bob leaning back from the table and pursing his lips when his partner bids 4C/3H. Betty shaking her head when Bob explains her 2C response as Drury.
We don't need to wear costumes to conceal or limit exposure to that body language. I doubt that anyone is concerned about the very subtle reactions that you may detect if you were watching someone closely. In events where it is considered important, we sit behind screens.

[sanst]

In a regular partnership you pick up the signs, however small, even if you not aware of it. That's part of human nature. It's not so long ago that our ancestors lived on the African savanna and needed to be aware of what was happening just to survive.

[pescetom]

I guess we could evaluate such transmission of UI on a scale:
0 = consciously avoided, with success
1 = consciously avoided but failed
2 = unintentional, unaware
3 = unintentional, aware, concerned
4 = unintentional, aware, not concerned
5 = might well have known, hopes partner will not take advantage
6 = might well have known, not concerned if partner does take advantage
7 = might well have known, content if partner takes advantage
8 = intentional, hopes partner will take advantage
9 = intentional, undiscussed but knows partner will take advantage
10 = intentional, as discussed and agreed with partner.


To each to decide where to draw the line(s). Like Jillybean, I have a low opinion of anything above 2.

[mycroft]

I hope I can be allowed some 3. - I certainly don't *use it*, and have been chastised here in the past for my willingness to admit its presence unprompted, because sometimes it's an "I know it, you might not" situation - but there's some regular "oh, so *that's* what your problem was" when dummy comes down, and some "they can't have this card or partner wouldn't have had a problem. Oh, I can't continue that line of thinking, and in fact have to..."

I think we all do.

Transmission is inevitable. Bridge is a thinker's game, and sometimes you will have to think beyond your regular tempo (or you're so slow that you're picking up SP penalties greater than the UI could ever cost). Awareness is, I think, inevitable as well. Use thereof, and the "carefully avoiding" as necessary, is all we may reasonably be allowed to be concerned about.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2024-October-08, 06:16, said:

And conversely, at the lower levels where the Laws are unheard of, even collusive cheating can be unrecognized as such by those engaging in it, to the point where they deserve education rather than punishment.
Overheard from one of our D flight pairs that play mainly friendly games in the kitchen: "Sorry about that, but you didn't really merit a reverse, did you?" "No but you should have known that, otherwise I would have walloped the Stop card!"

Which is one of the main reasons ACBL got rid of the Stop card.

But are there actually places where the Stop card is used for reverses, not just jump bids?

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2024-October-07, 16:29, said:

I agree with barmar - it happens, it happens a lot, there are pairs who I know read it very well, and are deliberately not very careful when they *don't* have a problem and help their partner read; but they haven't actually discussed it or even really know that's what they're doing.

Which makes it almost as nasty a director call as collusive when they *are* called on it, because "we would never have thought of that" and "how dare you accuse us of..." Yes, also because of "ignorance of the law".

I remember once when the director was called regarding one of the club's "life novices" actions after a long hesitation. It was really hard for her to understand that she wasn't being accused of cheating. The laws are written in general terms -- when you receive UI, you're often not allowed to do something that someone who's actually taking advantage of it would do, even if that wasn't your intent or you didn't even notice the UI. The whole point is to avoid having to read the player's mind or depend on them being being able to explain their reasoning faithfully (they might not even be aware of the subconscious influences).

But no matter how much you try to explain the rationale, it's natural for them to feel bad when they're at the adverse end of such a ruling.

And not to mention that so many instances go uncaught and unpunished. It's like when a cop stops you for speeding and you know you were passed by others going even faster. That's life.

[mycroft]

Ah, that's a whole different story. And yes, it's a problem.

One of the joys (for me, at least) of that problem is this is one of the places where "peers of the player" are taken into account. More than once I have given a ruling that, "for the player involved", the UI simply meant they'd never seen this auction before (whereas, had the NOS done this, or me, it would clearly have meant [what they are upset about it meaning].) I have that famous (on these forums) call where "for you, the UI didn't suggest anything"; where it took 20 minutes of explaining what was going on to get them to "well, I know this because [of what partner did]", to the conclusion of "yes, and using that information isn't legal. But since it is clear that you had no clue about this at the table, *for you* the UI didn't suggest anything. Of course, now you'll notice, and it will."

Of course, frequently, even to the Life Novices, the UI obviously means X, and they go on/back off/pull because it does. They, frankly, *are* taking advantage of it, rather than carefully avoiding. And it doesn't help - I mean, it takes their 43% game to the 45% they usually get, but that doesn't mean anything. And more often than zero, the UI they used was actually Y ("I don't know what to do here") or Z ("I wish I hadn't ... before. Is there any way to say 'not an X' any more?") and it goes for 800.

And again, they feel like they're being accused of something because they are - and they're guilty of it. But they don't understand what the problem is.

And yeah, since "everybody does it", especially against them, because they don't notice, or because "we don't play that way here", it hits hard. Not sure what I can do about that, except open their eyes to see how badly *they* are being taken, and maybe they'll call and make my awful ruling someone else's bad time.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2024-October-09, 13:49, said:

Which is one of the main reasons ACBL got rid of the Stop card.

But are there actually places where the Stop card is used for reverses, not just jump bids?

They call a jump bid a reverse.

I hear you on the ACBL logic, but it still looks like baby with the bathwater to me.
People who remain at this level and are blissfully unaware of the implications have been playing in lawless unsanctioned games for too long.
Take them aside and explain the Laws, wait a year and see if they are at least starting to understand, throw them out if necessary.
That 10 seconds pause is more important.

[mycroft]

Oh, they agree with you; they kept the 10 second pause, they just got rid of the Stop Card.

And as proof of its ineffectiveness and "only useful for passing information", the frequency of pauses after skip bids since the Stop Card was removed has not decreased.

It hasn't increased either, of course :-).

And yes, I have repeatedly heard that "we no longer have to pause now" rather than "we no longer use the stop card". Which, I think, crosses the threads a bit with "don't know the Laws/regulations, don't know why the Laws/regulations, and definitely know How Bridge Should Be Played, which overrules the Laws/regulations or what they (don't) read." Many of these also know that they don't have to Announce 15-17 any more either.

[barmar]

 mycroft, on 2024-October-09, 18:54, said:

Oh, they agree with you; they kept the 10 second pause, they just got rid of the Stop Card.

And as proof of its ineffectiveness and "only useful for passing information", the frequency of pauses after skip bids since the Stop Card was removed has not decreased.

It hasn't increased either, of course :-).

And yes, I have repeatedly heard that "we no longer have to pause now" rather than "we no longer use the stop card". Which, I think, crosses the threads a bit with "don't know the Laws/regulations, don't know why the Laws/regulations, and definitely know How Bridge Should Be Played, which overrules the Laws/regulations or what they (don't) read." Many of these also know that they don't have to Announce 15-17 any more either.

In my experience, the Stop card rarely served its purpose of getting the next player to pause. I'm sure that also went into getting rid of it: it wasn't really having the intended purpose, and it was too often used in an undesirable way. The players who know you're supposed to pause after a skip bid don't need the card as a reminder, and the players who don't know also didn't understand that this is what the Stop card was all about.

There are some countries where the Stop card is used differently -- the player holds it over the next player's bidding cards, which makes it really clear that they shouldn't bid yet. But this has never been the practice in ACBL territory.

I've also long thought it was strange that we single out skip bids like this. They're hardly the only bids where we need to mask whether the next player really needs something to think about. Shouldn't doubles, with all their varied meanings, fall in this category as well?

[axman]

 barmar, on 2024-October-11, 14:54, said:

In my experience, the Stop card rarely served its purpose of getting the next player to pause. I'm sure that also went into getting rid of it: it wasn't really having the intended purpose, and it was too often used in an undesirable way. The players who know you're supposed to pause after a skip bid don't need the card as a reminder, and the players who don't know also didn't understand that this is what the Stop card was all about.

There are some countries where the Stop card is used differently -- the player holds it over the next player's bidding cards, which makes it really clear that they shouldn't bid yet. But this has never been the practice in ACBL territory.

I've also long thought it was strange that we single out skip bids like this. They're hardly the only bids where we need to mask whether the next player really needs something to think about. Shouldn't doubles, with all their varied meanings, fall in this category as well?

A couple things.

1. Players have a duty to figure what good tempo is for themselves and strive to maintain it. iow, a pace that is readily maintainable (most of the time- like 90+%) . For many their good tempo will irritate themselves for a while- however, that extra time gets utilized becoming proficient so good tempo will tend to speed up with practice.

2. players ought bite off no more than they can comfortably chew. In terms of #1, their good tempo ought to allow for solving expected problems. The 'special attention' attributed to skips relates to the severe reduction of bidding room and the risks to score that entails. It is reasonable to presume that a chunk of time will be needed by at least one player to adjust their thinking. A skip is a clear line, easy to apply, and is relevant. Non jumps are 'expected problems'.

3. Personally, I rarely use as much as a second or two to contemplate after a skip. However, I have found that everyone does better (particularly regarding slow play, tempo, fewer UI problems, fewer MI problems) when I aim for a 12 sec pause after a skip.

4. skip bid warnings are bossy- particularly irritating as they are unnecessary

[mycroft]

I absolutely agree with most of this - especially the theory. Of course, so does the ACBL, and all other RAs, as have the Lawmakers for at least 30 years (Law 73D1). This isn't a revelation to anybody on this thread.

You "rarely" need to think more than a second or so after a skip. Strangely enough, neither do I (especially if you include the "boring" skip bids like 1NT-3NT(*) or 4NT-5x-6♥ or 1♠-2♠-4♠).

But I bet that when you do, you'll need to think 5 or 6 seconds; and in maybe one skip in two sessions, more than that.

The *whole point* behind the pause after skip is to make all your responses to skip bids past "rare" and to "almost never, and I'm willing to commit my partnership to the dreaded UI restrictions to think about this one."

Because otherwise, you're doing what everybody does, which is "yes, it took 6 seconds, but he's allowed 10, so it's not out of tempo", while still allowing partner to know that this time it's not an automatic call." And if your opponents call you on the instabid, not only do your opponents not understand, but neither does the director(**) (especially the sixth time that opponent calls someone on the instacall, which is why, despite being lauded for it occasionally, I don't make a habit of it. Well, that and most of the time I'm playing they know who I am, and it's a club, and it's "bridge lawyer"ing).

And also, if there's a consistent, expected, pause after the skip bid, skip bidder's partner - who also "rarely" has to think about things - gets to use that time to work out what to do. Hence your "fewer UI problems, slow play,...". Again, you know this (but many don't. In fact, many just love to instapass over RHO's preempt, then call the director on LHO's "pause" after. I will admit to little sympathy, in my mind or at the table, to this play).

Now, I know you know this, and I know that you have decided that your tempo is "about 12 seconds" for reasons. They don't seem to be "that's what the RA expects you to do", but there's a reason *I* self-label as the SB, not you. I will admit that frequently "everyone doesn't do better" in my experience; mostly due to the "stare at RHO wondering why he isn't doing anything, then when he makes the obvious pass, *then* start to think". But it does help, and *eventually* the opponents stop wondering WTH mycroft is doing (***).

(*) Although I have used all of my 10 seconds more than once in exactly this auction...
(**) tying us back to barmar's "depends on which club you're in today" thread.
(***) "Ten seconds, Richie [Coren]. Like he's supposed to. [to me] You know you're the only one in this room who would do that, right?"

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2024-October-11, 14:54, said:

The players who know you're supposed to pause after a skip bid don't need the card as a reminder, and the players who don't know also didn't understand that this is what the Stop card was all about.

WRT this I agree 100% with Mycroft below. But as many players are in the grey area between knowing this and not (see repeated discussions about player education and willful avoidance of learning the Laws) then I think that the authorities do well to wave a red flag.

barmar, on 2024-October-11, 14:54, said:

In my experience, the Stop card rarely served its purpose of getting the next player to pause. I'm sure that also went into getting rid of it: it wasn't really having the intended purpose, and it was too often used in an undesirable way.
...
There are some countries where the Stop card is used differently -- the player holds it over the next player's bidding cards, which makes it really clear that they shouldn't bid yet. But this has never been the practice in ACBL territory.

So make it the practice in ACBL territory
In this country it's wielded for less than 10s, but players have no doubt that they shouldn't bid yet.
And only a naive few (who will never be in competition for the top places, and risk severe punishment) use it in an undesirable way.

barmar, on 2024-October-11, 14:54, said:

I've also long thought it was strange that we single out skip bids like this. They're hardly the only bids where we need to mask whether the next player really needs something to think about. Shouldn't doubles, with all their varied meanings, fall in this category as well?

I agree much more with this.
If the regulations are not oriented (for comprehensible reasons) towards alert or announcement of many doubles, then a Stop of some kind would make sense.
Another occasion where regulations should ensure a due pause is Declarer's first play from dummy (our regulations recommend a pause, but I can't punish who does not).

[barmar]

I've long been of the opinion that I should be relieved of the requirement to hesitate if the skip bidder took a long time to make their bid. Players should use that time to contemplate what they'll do after different kinds of bids, and shouldn't have to think some more.