Re: Lost

In Australia there is not any compulsory pause regulation. And although use of the Stop! card is currently optional, I believe that it is about to be deleted from the Aussie regulations.

However...

In an expert Aussie partnership one player had a typically deliberate tempo. This partnership had recently adopted the agreement that after a strong 2NT opening a 3NT response would promise 5 spades and 4 hearts. But after 2NT at the table, the deliberate player bid 3NT in faster than normal tempo. Opener therefore correctly deduced that partner had forgotten the convention, so passed, when rebidding 4S was a logical alternative. Hence the Director and Appeals Committee adjusted the score from 3NT making to 4S failing.

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

Sent from my iPad

> On 21 Jan 2018, at 11:22 PM, Volker Walther <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Just a little off-topic question: Was it common practice in ACBL-land to
> impose a procedural penalty or an adjusted score when a player did not
> wait the proper time after the stop card had been used? Calling during
> the forced pause is a common fault in German clubs, and it is seldom
> sanctioned.
> 
> When doing so the same problem arises: If West this time is thinking
> until the stop-card is removed, but usually ignoring it and bidding too
> early, East has the same UI. I think to get rid of the problem you have
> to penalize players each and every time they are calling to early.
> 
> But most players are only aware of UI problems, if some positive
> information is given, not when it is denied by a BOOT. So they will
> hardly accept these penalties.
> 
> Lost, too
> 
> Volker
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Am 21.01.2018 um 03:19 schrieb Robert Frick:
>> I had what would have been, last year, an easy ruling. In the auction, East responded 3C, South bid 4H, and West hesitated, giving unauthorized information to her partner.
>> 
>> West was supposed to hesitate (in ACBLland) after a jump bid. So there was no infraction.
>> 
>> Except West didn't know that -- her hesitation was real, she had something to think about; if she hadn't had anything to think about, she would have passed quickly. Her partner also didn't realize, so east correctly read her partner's hesitation as showing something to think about it.
>> 
>> So it's a little strange to rule no infraction (she appropriately hesitated) when there was flawless communication of UI.
>> 
>> The ruling was manageable last year. North puts down a stop card, and everyone's on the right page. If North doesn't put down the stop card, that's the original infraction and I'm comfortable not ruling against EW.
>> 
>> But there are no stop cards anymore. The ACBL eliminated them. So, EW managed to communicate information with flawless adherence to proper procedure. (So it's not EI according to the rules. Right? Can we call it UI when partner unexpectedly bids in proper tempo? I have ruled that way before, maybe that's the solution here.)
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> 
> 
> -- 
> Volker Walther
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml