[el mister]

Be interested to know how the laws come to bear on this sequence: I held a balanced 14 pt hand with ♠AKx. I opened and we had the checkback sequence 1D, 1S, 1NT, 2C, 2S, 4S.
Prior to my 2S bid, I had the urge to bid 3S, and grabbed the stop card and put it down in preparation. Then quickly changed my mind and put it back and bid 2S.

Partner was solid for his 4S bid, and this was a normal contract in the room that made without incident.

Seems like I erred in my bidding mechanics, if that is the correct terminology, but was there any harm done?

[wank]

you gave unauthorised info. if partner had a marginal decision he could be forced into taking a conservative action.

[mycroft]

Post 2 is correct, but remember that is in context of your agreements. With one partner we play NMF as INV+, and that 3♠ says "I'm accepting an invitation in NT, and I have 3 spades." This allows us to get out in the Moysian if 2NT is going to suck worse. So with this hand, and that agreement, it's an auto 3♠, and when I go Stop-2♠, partner has to take me for my UPOC ("usual pile...") - a flat 12, maybe 11 if the cards are in the right place. If he still has a GF, great.

If what your 3♠ would mean is "if I knew you had 5 spades I would have opened this a 15-17 NT", then Stop-2♠ needs to be treated as "I have three spades, and the same 11+-14 I claimed", and if partner now has a dodgy invitation, he can't make it. If partner has a heavy invitation (could treat it as GF, could treat it as INV) opposite a straight 2♠, and bids 4, and the defence would have been more successful opposite an obvious "both limited" auction, then you may be assigned the score for the invitational auction and the better defence.

[barmar]

Doesn't this really depend on what we think starting to pull the Stop card implies? It could be "I was about to bid 3♠, but changed my mind" (what happened to the OP) or it could be "I mistakenly thought 2♠ would be a jump, but then realized my mistake" (I've done this -- it's a variation on using the Stop card and then making a non-jump bid). If it could easily be either, then partner shouldn't be constrained.

[jillybean]

Pulling the stop card and then putting it back or pulling it and making a non skip bid is an infraction. Partner has UI and could be constrained. I think the fact that the infraction could have been caused by a. or b. is irrelevant.

[aguahombre]

Going with Jilly on this one. In the OP case, pard with the UI had a clear acceptance anyway, so it didn't matter. If the decision were closer and he went to game, then it should be presumed that the UI suggested more strength.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2013-September-05, 09:16, said:

Doesn't this really depend on what we think starting to pull the Stop card implies? It could be "I was about to bid 3♠, but changed my mind" (what happened to the OP) or it could be "I mistakenly thought 2♠ would be a jump, but then realized my mistake" (I've done this -- it's a variation on using the Stop card and then making a non-jump bid). If it could easily be either, then partner shouldn't be constrained.

I think that it is safe to assume your first meaning, since it is so overwhelmingly likely.

[GreenMan]

After 1♦ 1♠; 1NT 2♣; you'd have to do some real good explaining to persuade me (or probably anyone) that you thought 2♠ would be a jump. At the table I might not be able to stop myself from laughing.

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2013-September-05, 10:09, said:

Going with Jilly on this one. In the OP case, pard with the UI had a clear acceptance anyway, so it didn't matter. If the decision were closer and he went to game, then it should be presumed that the UI suggested more strength.

"Could demonstrably have been suggested" is what the law requires, not presumption. But I think we can demonstrate how the BIT could have suggested more strength.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2013-September-05, 10:53, said:

"Could demonstrably have been suggested" is what the law requires, not presumption. But I think we can demonstrate how the BIT could have suggested more strength.

I was beyond "could demonstrably have been suggested" and into presumed. Presumption is a subset at the far end of it.
At the table I would use the more discrete wording.

Edit: However, in my post, "presumed" seemed appropriate to get the point across that, even though we might think it possible the player simply used aggressive judgement in proceeding to game, we would "presume" UI could have had an influence rather than presume it didn't and further presume that the UI showed more strength, not inattention to the auction.

[iviehoff]

 jillybean, on 2013-September-05, 09:49, said:

Pulling the stop card and then putting it back or pulling it and making a non skip bid is an infraction. Partner has UI and could be constrained. I think the fact that the infraction could have been caused by a. or b. is irrelevant.

It is an irregularity, just as detaching a card from your hand and putting it back, or failing to keep to an even tempo, or making extraneous remarks, is an irregularity. But if you believe that an infraction is an action that results in rectification, as I do, then it is not an infraction: these irregularities are things that you are allowed to do - but are discouraged from doing - and there is no direct rectification. But, as with all irregularities that fall short of being an infraction, (and some other things that aren't even irregularities), there can be a UI consequence.

[campboy]

 barmar, on 2013-September-05, 09:16, said:

Doesn't this really depend on what we think starting to pull the Stop card implies? It could be "I was about to bid 3♠, but changed my mind" (what happened to the OP) or it could be "I mistakenly thought 2♠ would be a jump, but then realized my mistake" (I've done this -- it's a variation on using the Stop card and then making a non-jump bid). If it could easily be either, then partner shouldn't be constrained.

Even if it could easily be either (which in this auction isn't so plausible, but could be) it doesn't follow that partner shouldn't be constrained. If the two alternatives both suggest the same action, then their disjunction also suggests that action.

An auction I've actually had was something like (1♣) dbl (1♠) STOP 2♥. Here it was clear that I either thought 2♥ was a jump bid, then realised it wasn't, or considered bidding 3♥ and then changed my mind. But if I was considering 3♥ then I have extra values, and if I was willing to bid 2♥ even if it was a jump bid then I have extra values. So partner was constrained.

[barmar]

 campboy, on 2013-September-09, 05:21, said:

Even if it could easily be either (which in this auction isn't so plausible, but could be) it doesn't follow that partner shouldn't be constrained. If the two alternatives both suggest the same action, then their disjunction also suggests that action.

Your point may be true in some cases, but I don't think it's likely that the two causes for pulling and returning the Stop card are likely to suggest the same action in this case. I wasn't making a general statement about all cases where there may be multiple reasons for UI, just this particular situation.

[campboy]

 barmar, on 2013-September-09, 09:42, said:

Your point may be true in some cases, but I don't think it's likely that the two causes for pulling and returning the Stop card are likely to suggest the same action in this case. I wasn't making a general statement about all cases where there may be multiple reasons for UI, just this particular situation.

I don't see why the same doesn't apply: whether the player was thinking about jumping to 3♠, or was willing to bid 2♠ believing it to be a jump, he is likely to have a better hand than he otherwise might. With a minimum neither real nor imaginary jumps would be in the frame.