[Hanoi5]

...and when I look at them I see they're sorted by suits. What do I do?

[gordontd]

Call the director. There may be a sensible reason (the first time a board is dealt by machine with a new pack it will be sorted) or it may be that someone needs to have law 7C drawn to their attention.

[Hanoi5]

Ok, what will the Director rule? Would he only penalize the previous holder of the cards?

[gordontd]

It would be very unusual to penalise anyone - the normal thing, as mentioned above, would be to explain L7C to the previous player.

[nigel_k]

Hanoi5, on Oct 7 2009, 08:52 AM, said:

Ok, what will the Director rule? Would he only penalize the previous holder of the cards?

He might penalize the previous holder of the cards or just warn them.

Assuming it's not the first board the sorted hand might imply that either the hand was passed in last time or there was a claim at trick one. If that could affect the bidding or play at your table the director might rule that the board cannot be played so you'd get average plus.

Anyway you need to call the director as the opponents could be disadvantaged.

[mycroft]

As I said on the similar thread in general options, it's not just the opponents who can be damaged. Law 16C is much much different from L16B, and it's the TD's responsibility to deal with the fallout.

[shintaro]

gordontd, on Oct 6 2009, 02:59 PM, said:

Call the director. There may be a sensible reason (the first time a board is dealt by machine with a new pack it will be sorted) or it may be that someone needs to have law 7C drawn to their attention.

Gordon yes first time with new deck they will be in suit order : but all packs I have seen lately seem to have suits running Ace down to 2 and next 2 up to Ace repeated for remaining suits

[shyams]

A personal trait. Even if the previous table forgot to shuffle, it may escape my attention. My habit (done fairly unconsciously):

Pull cards from board. Count three cards from the top & drop them on the table (face down). Count three more & stack them on top of the first three already on the table. Count three more & stack them on top of the previous six. Count the last 4; put them on top of the previous pile; pick up the entire pile of 13 cards and sort them

So if a hand was already sorted:
(top) ♠AQ432 ♥43 ♣5432 ♦43 (last card)
After the process above, when I look at my hand (for the first time) I see:
♣32 ♦43 ♥3 ♣54 ♠32 ♥4 ♠AQ4 !

While reading this thread, it struck me that I had never ever picked up a sorted hand in a real-world tournament -- not even at a "first table". Then it struck me why!

[Hanoi5]

shyams, on Oct 9 2009, 12:18 PM, said:

A personal trait. Even if the previous table forgot to shuffle, it may escape my attention. My habit (done fairly unconsciously):

Pull cards from board. Count three cards from the top & drop them on the table (face down). Count three more & stack them on top of the first three already on the table. Count three more & stack them on top of the previous six. Count the last 4; put them on top of the previous pile; pick up the entire pile of 13 cards and sort them

So if a hand was already sorted:
(top) ♠AQ432 ♥43 ♣5432 ♦43 (last card)
After the process above, when I look at my hand (for the first time) I see:
♣32 ♦43 ♥3 ♣54 ♠32 ♥4 ♠AQ4 !

While reading this thread, it struck me that I had never ever picked up a sorted hand in a real-world tournament -- not even at a "first table". Then it struck me why!

Who taught you to count cards like that? I know someone who did the same in our club...

[skjaeran]

Hanoi5, on Oct 11 2009, 03:35 AM, said:

shyams, on Oct 9 2009, 12:18 PM, said:

A personal trait. Even if the previous table forgot to shuffle, it may escape my attention. My habit (done fairly unconsciously):

Pull cards from board. Count three cards from the top & drop them on the table (face down). Count three more & stack them on top of the first three already on the table. Count three more & stack them on top of the previous six. Count the last 4; put them on top of the previous pile; pick up the entire pile of 13 cards and sort them

So if a hand was already sorted:
(top) ♠AQ432 ♥43 ♣5432 ♦43 (last card)
After the process above, when I look at my hand (for the first time) I see:
♣32 ♦43 ♥3 ♣54 ♠32 ♥4 ♠AQ4 !

While reading this thread, it struck me that I had never ever picked up a sorted hand in a real-world tournament -- not even at a "first table".  Then it struck me why!

Who taught you to count cards like that? I know someone who did the same in our club...

It's a very common way to count the cards - I see many doing it like that.

There's a drawback to this method, if there's one or more cards face up in your pile, all the players at the table can see it/them.

I always count my cards below the table, so I'm the only one able to see the cards while counting them.

[jallerton]

gordontd, on Oct 6 2009, 08:59 PM, said:

Call the director. There may be a sensible reason (the first time a board is dealt by machine with a new pack it will be sorted) or it may be that someone needs to have law 7C drawn to their attention.

One player told me recently that he always sorts his cards at the end of the hand. If he shuffles his cards before sorting them, is he complying with the Law?

[gordontd]

When the new laws first came in, a number of players told me that they always sort their hands before passing them on, and didn't see why they should stop. I told them they were free to sort their hands as long as they then complied with L7C by shuffling their cards afterwards.

[jeremy69]

Quote

One player told me recently that he always sorts his cards at the end of the hand. If he shuffles his cards before sorting them, is he complying with the Law?

I don't think so. Law 7C tells him to shuffle and then place then back in the board. I agree it dosn't specifically forbid intermediate steps like cutting them in half but I think the intent is there to suggest that shuffling is the last act prior to returning them to the board.
One occasional partner, who has sorted his cards at the end of a hand for about 37 years, irrespective of whether they are to be played again or not told me he would sort and then shuffle after this law came in. I have noticed that, unusually for him, common sense has now taken over.

[gordontd]

jeremy69, on Oct 11 2009, 07:06 PM, said:

I have noticed that, unusually for him, common sense has now taken over.

Has he perhaps now found other battles to fight?

[gwnn]

Hanoi5, on Oct 11 2009, 01:35 AM, said:

Who taught you to count cards like that? I know someone who did the same in our club...

I do 5-4-4 or 6-7. Both have the advantage of usually masking the previously sorted hands and avoiding headaches. In round 1 if I know they're predealt I change the procedure somewhat to keep them sorted.

[Vampyr]

skaeran said:

It's a very common way to count the cards - I see many doing it like that.

There's a drawback to this method, if there's one or more cards face up in your pile, all the players at the table can see it/them.

Yes, I count my cards this way and have had this happen before. It is very rare, though.

But it raises another question -- should a penalty be assessed against the player who returned some cards to the board face-up?

[bluejak]

In general terms one of the few things I give PPs for at any level is where a board cannot be played. But in a club I generally allow people to play boards if a card has been seen.

So I would penalise a player who returned cards face up if it was impossible to play the board, or if I had warned him a couple of times before, or after one warning if he was a good player.

[cherdanno]

I had a team game where for one set, my counterpart at the other table clearly wasn't shuffling the cards before putting them back.
Would you still call the TD? Would it have been ethical to draw inferences from the sorted cards?

[Vampyr]

cherdanno, on Oct 13 2009, 03:36 AM, said:

I had a team game where for one set, my counterpart at the other table clearly wasn't shuffling the cards before putting them back.
Would you still call the TD? Would it have been ethical to draw inferences from the sorted cards?

I don't think it can be "ethical" or "unethical" to draw inferences from sorted cards -- sometimes it will simply become obvious why they are sorted and you can't help realising it. Of course, there are no inferences available if the opponent has sorted every hand.

Now, if the cards have been neither shuffled nor sorted, there is information available on every hand, and I have heard the opinion that in this case it is unethical to attempt to draw conclusions based on the order in which the cards have been played. But again this can't be right, because even if you didn't wish to know something in the first place, you can't "unknow" it once the knowledge has been made available to you.

[gnasher]

cherdanno, on Oct 13 2009, 03:36 AM, said:

I had a team game where for one set, my counterpart at the other table clearly wasn't shuffling the cards before putting them back.
Would you still call the TD? Would it have been ethical to draw inferences from the sorted cards?

I'd start shuffling them before I looked at them.