[FrancesHinden]

The main reason I've seen for a hand being sorted before being put in the slot is the opponents having some conversation such as:

"Why did you open 1NT on a 13-count?"
"I didn't I had 16"
"no, you didn't"
"Yes I did, look, here's my full hand..."

etc etc

I really don't think you can read anything into this at all

[Cascade]

There is a change in the 2007 laws requirement that players shuffle their cards before returning them to the board:

"Law7C. Returning Cards to Board

After play has finished, each player should shuffle his original thirteen cards, after which he restores them to the pocket corresponding to his compass position. Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present."

compared with the 1997 version

"Law7C. Returning Cards to Board
Each player shall restore his original thirteen cards to the pocket corresponding to his compass position. Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present."

Its interesting that the word "should" is used. This is interpreted as "“should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized),"

[helene_t]

FrancesHinden, on Feb 2 2008, 08:51 PM, said:

The main reason I've seen for a hand being sorted before being put in the slot is the opponents having some conversation such as:

"Why did you open 1NT on a 13-count?"

Too bad bridgebrowser cannot give us the relevant statistics in this case

[gwnn]

I usually count my cards like 5-4-4, i.e. partially shuffling them (the order will be like jklmfghiabcde) and then even perfectly sorted hands will be unrecognizable. Saves me all the mental anguish about the 5-0 split.

[EricK]

Aren't there as many (if not more) inferences to be possibly gleaned from a non-sorted hand? How likely is it that this represents the order the tricks were played

[cherdano]

I think the most likely inference is that it was a trick one claim.

[blackshoe]

Or the hand was passed out.

The 1997 laws don't require a shuffle. That it is common practice to shuffle does not mean not doing it is an infraction, so there's nothing to call the TD about, unless you think you can make a useful inference from the fact that it's sorted, in which case you apply Law 16B, call the TD, and let him worry about it.

Under the 2007 laws, if the hand wasn't shuffled, that's an infraction. Now you call the TD, who will probably just remind the player who didn't shuffle that the rules have changed.

There is a school of thought that one should always sort one's hand before putting it back in the board, but that school has been closed with the new laws.

[helene_t]

cherdano, on Feb 3 2008, 04:24 PM, said:

I think the most likely inference is that it was a trick one claim.

Oh yes, if the board was claimed early and then not shuffled (or shuffled carelessly) the chances of a coincidental ordering is much higher than the figures I posted, of course.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Feb 3 2008, 08:12 AM, said:

EricK, on Feb 3 2008, 04:01 AM, said:

Aren't there as many (if not more) inferences to be possibly gleaned from a non-sorted hand? How likely is it that this represents the order the tricks were played

People are supposed to shuffle up their hand after they play it, and I believe most do. Even if they don't, you'd have to know they don't, and even if you did know this you'd have to have some superhuman memory to remember this and then apply something from it to the play (I can think of some situations theoretically where it would help, but they're obscure).

Way easier than "superhuman memory." You just bid the hand without sorting it. That's not difficult. If you end up declaring or defending, check whether the order of your cards is in a plauisble order of play at the other table and thereby get reads (like where the Queen is).

I had a similar occurrence to this occur at IMPs for a massive gain, although I had not intentionally set out to gather information. When I picked up my hand and turned it over, I happened to notice that I had a lot of clubs and that the A-K-Q of clubs were together with red cards on either side. Not consciously, but unconsciously.

When I ended up declarer in 3NT, I noticed something amusing. I had AKQxxxx in clubs, opposite a doubleton, with no other entry. I also had AKQxxx of spades in dummy, but plenty of entries. If I gave up a trick at some point, the opponents might be able to cash five winners, but that seemed odds-off, and even if available, extremely difficult defense. The odds of one of the black suits running seemed high, but...

So, I ducked a club and caught J10xx. The opponents could not cash four more. Any other line would have failed (spades split 5-0 or something messy like that), for a big vulnerable game swing.

Now, I might have gone for the safety play anyway, and I might have spotted the need anyway, but this flashback memory made it certain. The ethical issue is there, albeit very slight IMO, but I certainly would not want to par a difficult hand, where I expect to excel, simply because the other team made a blunder. That would encourage a really neat trick of sorting disaster hands intentionally to induce an ethical "average plus" for the opponents rather than a disaster.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Feb 3 2008, 01:19 PM, said:

I happened to notice that I had a lot of clubs and that the A-K-Q of clubs were together with red cards on either side. Not consciously, but unconsciously.

In the case of most people, I would assume they meant subconciously. But I think you really did mean unconsciously

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Feb 3 2008, 01:26 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Feb 3 2008, 01:19 PM, said:

I happened to notice that I had a lot of clubs and that the A-K-Q of clubs were together with red cards on either side.  Not consciously, but unconsciously.

In the case of most people, I would assume they meant subconciously. But I think you really did mean unconsciously

[jtfanclub]

pclayton, on Feb 2 2008, 11:44 AM, said:

In an important match you pick up ♠AKQ3 ♥752 ♦763 ♣A83. Not a remarkable hand, but it was perfectly sorted in the board.

What would you do?

I say "Hmm, that's odd, my hand is sorted" and play on.
At least everybody now has the same UI.

Not saying it's right, but it's what I do.

[pclayton]

After reading this I like the concept of shuffling the cards before I get them.

It's doing the job of the other table, but it avoids this dilemma altogether.

[helene_t]

Another solution would be to stipulate that the cards must be sorted (or at least suited) before they re-enter the board. Since almost all players sort their cards anyway, it costs no time, it just means that you sort the next players cards instead of your own.

[mycroft]

I have been told that it is (or was) common teaching in England to do just that - sort the cards before putting them away (I think it had to do with curtain cards - sort your cards, compare against the card, confirm, put away).

I remember someone calling - indignantly, they always do - that their cards were sorted on the first board of the second round. Thanks for the information, try not to take advantage of it, and so on, and so on. By the third or fourth sorted hand in a row, he got the joke...Yes, his hand at the next table was held by an Englishman.

Michael.