sdsearch

What's better in one country is worse in another, and what the assumption are for bank issuing a "normal" card may different for a bank issuing a T&E card (well, at last that's the way Diners Club was traditionally marketed, and I don't know if's been "marketed" during the BMO era at all).

In the US, restaurants that don't have customer-facing PIN pads may have problems with PIN priority, but in some other countries, merchants that don't have paper in the register or pens may have similar problems with signature priority. It's all relative to local expectations.

Is there a way that one card can be made to satisfy both issues at the same time? Or does a bank have choose between making the card work better in places where no one (local) has a card ask for a signature or making it work better in places where no one (local) has a card ask for a PIN?

IIMHO it's the terminal makers who are bonkers (or the restaurants that aren't choosing the right terminals). They shouldn't be outfitting merchants who can't provide customers PIN access with terminals that offer PIN! (What's the point?) If the terminal says it doesn't support PIN, a DC MC USA should proceed to signature (CVM list from my Professional card):

• Apply succeeding CV rule if this rule is unsuccessful: Enciphered PIN verified online - If unattended cash
• Apply succeeding CV rule if this rule is unsuccessful: Enciphered PIN verification performed by ICC - If terminal supports the CVM
• Apply succeeding CV rule if this rule is unsuccessful: Plaintext PIN verification performed by ICC - If terminal supports the CVM
• Fail cardholder verification if this CVM is unsuccessful: Signature (paper) - If terminal supports the CVM
• Apply succeeding CV rule if this rule is unsuccessful: Enciphered PIN verified online - If terminal supports the CVM
• Fail cardholder verification if this CVM is unsuccessful: No CVM Required - If terminal supports the CVM

It seems to me that the terminals the OP ran into weren't implementing "bypass" properly (ie, "bypass" was not telling the card that the terminal doesn't support the CVM, but rather that the terminal failed the CVM).

tmiw

With signature preferring cards in PIN-preferring countries, the card isn't typically rejected (as the transaction's already approved when the slip prints out). In the US, however, PIN-preferring cards have a good likelihood of declining due to merchant attempts at bypassing PIN--a significantly worse result IMO.

In theory it's possible to create a card that is signature preferring for USD transactions and PIN-preferring for other currencies. I haven't heard of anyone creating such a card (or really any card that can differentiate based on currency), however.

On the other hand, the contactless interface is actually signature preferring over $50-100 or local equivalent. That'd also theoretically help with OP's situation but contactless cards aren't really a thing in the US either (assuming that it's even enabled at all on the restaurant's terminal, which it probably isn't since customers aren't going to be using it).

Terminals support whatever the merchants (or their processors) want. The reason why I think MC should have had better rules is that it'd make it no longer the merchant's choice, thus reducing issues.

BF263533

My card will be declined without the PIN. I often go with the waiter to enter the PIN or use a non PIN credit card. I got robbed in Paris a few weeks ago and thank God for the PIN. No illegal charges on my stolen Diners! Calling Citi from the Paris Police station was difficult and there were about $1000 of charges before the Citi Visa card was cancelled. All credit cards should have a PIN. I would have tackled the robber but am in my mid 60s and was concerned about being stabbed.

France is unsafe and more concerned about pampering the poor criminals.

tmiw

I feel like a lot of places (including most of Europe) are actually safer than the US, but that's a topic for another thread.

Also, while it might have been more inconvenient to get the Citi card canceled, you weren't held liable in the end, right? Plus I imagine you'd still want to call the issuer if you lose any card, since the details on the front and back can still be used for online purchases.

Speaking of online purchases, it'd be nice if Diners Club supported SecureCode. However, I feel like the networks are moving away from 3D Secure in the US altogether, so I don't know how likely that'd be.

tmiw

To update this thread, Diners Club (at least the consumer cards) now approve domestic PIN bypass transactions as mentioned in the EMV thread. No idea yet if international ones will also be approved, assuming there are any non-US merchants that will even allow an attempt. There's a chance that it's something made mandatory for issuers by MC but I'm also not sure on that.

To be honest, the more surprising thing is that it didn't happen sooner. They were one of the first EMV-enabled cards in the US, after all, so they'd have been the first to run into customer complaints and transaction issues. However, I think I would have preferred that PIN support be disabled at the terminal level instead for those merchants that don't want to bother properly asking for one.

BTW, they were declining bypass as recently as June, so this change is something extremely recent. (County fair vendor kept the PIN pad on their side of the counter but handed it to me when it declined to allow me to re-attempt with PIN entry.)

smith80678

I was wondering why they hadn't asked for my PIN on the last transactions. That explains it. Thanks

tmiw

Note that there's a difference between the terminal not supporting PIN (where it simply doesn't ask) and the PIN actually being bypassed; the latter was what was getting declined before in my experience. It's very possible that places you've been going to are getting rid of PIN support entirely, especially since it's now a lot more clear that cards like Diners Club are an exception to the US' de-facto chip and signature standard.