[gnasher]

I wouldn't want an opponent to tell me that his hand arrived sorted. It's quite possible that the UI conveyed is of no consequence to him, but of importance to me. Telling me about it might render the board unplayable.

Suppose that it emerges during the bidding that my partner and I have close to slam values. If an opponent's hand is sorted but mine is not, that suggests an early claim rather than a post mortem.

In this case I think it's sensible to do what the rules say: call the director and tell him that you have UI about the hand. He should take you away from the table, find out what it is that you know, and then decide if it's OK for the board to be played.

[Jlall]

Maybe it's just me but I never thought that a sorted hand constituted much UI if any (except when you have a bal 9-11 and know it was a passout deal). I don't know how to infer anything from a sorted hand. Does it mean a trick 1 claim or they were looking at it after, and if they were looking at it after how can I deduce why etc etc. It all seems so vague that you can even gain some advantage from this knowledge and just a waste of time to call the director and go through all that.

I would feel fine if the system was just you said nothing about it and don't try to infer anything. I wonder how accurate people are at inferring why the hand was sorted in non passout hands, I would bet it was not very much at all even if they were trying.

[billw55]

Trinidad, on Oct 7 2009, 03:33 AM, said:

If a player volunteers the information that his hand was sorted (information that a not so ethical player could have conceiled easily without anyone noticing)

... lol

Also, the manner in which the cards were sorted (suits but not ranks) is not really consistent with the early claim hypothesis. Although I suppose there may be some players who play the hand with their cards sorted that way; a few rare birds do not sort at all.

[Trinidad]

billw55, on Oct 7 2009, 02:29 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Oct 7 2009, 03:33 AM, said:

If a player volunteers the information that his hand was sorted (information that a not so ethical player could have conceiled easily without anyone noticing)

... lol

Also, the manner in which the cards were sorted (suits but not ranks) is not really consistent with the early claim hypothesis. Although I suppose there may be some players who play the hand with their cards sorted that way; a few rare birds do not sort at all.

I don't really understand your post. You are quoting me and emphasizing part of my quote, but your comments (other than the vague " ... lol") seem to relate to other posts and don't have anything to do with my post.

Just in case you felt that my post had anything to do with your situation, I will clarify below. Otherwise, just ignore this post.

===
I didn't intend to imply in any way to that you or anybody else would be unethical and conceil the fact that you have UI.
===

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

Why they didn't insist on players shuffling their hands after taking them out the board and before looking at them I don't know, that would have solved this.

[billw55]

Trinidad, on Oct 7 2009, 09:51 AM, said:

I don't really understand your post. You are quoting me and emphasizing part of my quote, but your comments (other than the vague " ... lol") seem to relate to other posts and don't have anything to do with my post.

Just in case you felt that my post had anything to do with your situation, I will clarify below. Otherwise, just ignore this post.

===
I didn't intend to imply in any way to that you or anybody else would be unethical and conceil the fact that you have UI.
===

Rik

Thanks for clarifying Trinidad

I emphasized the part of your post that seemed to include me, by way of my stated actions, in a category as a possible unethical player. Hence the sheepish-looking smiley. I put "lol" as an indication that I did not think you meant me personally, and that I was taking it in good fun.

[mycroft]

Cyberyeti - we already insist on them counting their cards before looking at them (Law 7B2). Does it "solve the problem" of 12/14s?

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on Oct 7 2009, 04:34 PM, said:

Why they didn't insist on players shuffling their hands after taking them out the board and before looking at them I don't know, that would have solved this.

Would you really comply with this? I don't think many people would. Besides, it should be enough that the cards are shuffled before being put back in the board.

[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on Oct 7 2009, 12:28 PM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Oct 7 2009, 04:34 PM, said:

Why they didn't insist on players shuffling their hands after taking them out the board and before looking at them I don't know, that would have solved this.

Would you really comply with this? I don't think many people would. Besides, it should be enough that the cards are shuffled before being put back in the board.

I was suggesting that it should be done at the table by all 4 players on taking the hands out the boards, and that your opponents should wheel the man in if you don't, meaning that it is essentially enforcible.

Clearly it is not then necessary to do it at the previous table as well.

[peachy]

Cyberyeti, on Oct 7 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

Vampyr, on Oct 7 2009, 12:28 PM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Oct 7 2009, 04:34 PM, said:

Why they didn't insist on players shuffling their hands after taking them out the board and before looking at them I don't know, that would have solved this.

Would you really comply with this? I don't think many people would. Besides, it should be enough that the cards are shuffled before being put back in the board.

I was suggesting that it should be done at the table by all 4 players on taking the hands out the boards, and that your opponents should wheel the man in if you don't, meaning that it is essentially enforcible.

Clearly it is not then necessary to do it at the previous table as well.

It is just as effective and just as possible to enforce whether the shuffle is done after play, before putting cards back, or before the play of a new hand. There already exists a law that says to shuffle one's hand before returning it to the pocket; therefore, change in the procedure is unnecessary. IMO.

[Cyberyeti]

peachy, on Oct 7 2009, 05:29 PM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Oct 7 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

Vampyr, on Oct 7 2009, 12:28 PM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Oct 7 2009, 04:34 PM, said:

Why they didn't insist on players shuffling their hands after taking them out the board and before looking at them I don't know, that would have solved this.

Would you really comply with this? I don't think many people would. Besides, it should be enough that the cards are shuffled before being put back in the board.

I was suggesting that it should be done at the table by all 4 players on taking the hands out the boards, and that your opponents should wheel the man in if you don't, meaning that it is essentially enforcible.

Clearly it is not then necessary to do it at the previous table as well.

It is just as effective and just as possible to enforce whether the shuffle is done after play, before putting cards back, or before the play of a new hand. There already exists a law that says to shuffle one's hand before returning it to the pocket; therefore, change in the procedure is unnecessary. IMO.

The point I was trying to make is that who is going to care at the table that is passing the board on if an opponent shuffles his hand or not, but if the board is about to be played at your table, it would be in your interest to ensure opponents do so.

Hence I suspect you'd get better compliance by doing it that way.

[peachy]

Cyberyeti, on Oct 7 2009, 05:41 PM, said:

peachy, on Oct 7 2009, 05:29 PM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Oct 7 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

Vampyr, on Oct 7 2009, 12:28 PM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Oct 7 2009, 04:34 PM, said:

Why they didn't insist on players shuffling their hands after taking them out the board and before looking at them I don't know, that would have solved this.

Would you really comply with this? I don't think many people would. Besides, it should be enough that the cards are shuffled before being put back in the board.

I was suggesting that it should be done at the table by all 4 players on taking the hands out the boards, and that your opponents should wheel the man in if you don't, meaning that it is essentially enforcible.

Clearly it is not then necessary to do it at the previous table as well.

It is just as effective and just as possible to enforce whether the shuffle is done after play, before putting cards back, or before the play of a new hand. There already exists a law that says to shuffle one's hand before returning it to the pocket; therefore, change in the procedure is unnecessary. IMO.

The point I was trying to make is that who is going to care at the table that is passing the board on if an opponent shuffles his hand or not, but if the board is about to be played at your table, it would be in your interest to ensure opponents do so.

Hence I suspect you'd get better compliance by doing it that way.

I assume that everyone at the bridge table is responsible for his own actions and is acting ethically - meaning, playing by the rules. If enforcement of shuffling laws or any other laws about proper procedure, require that players "police" each other for compliance, it will be a bad regulation because AFAIK most players do not want to assume that responsibility and some, if reminded, feel like the reminding player should "MYOB".

[JoAnneM]

I like the idea of sorting the hands into suits before they go back in the pockets. There are a few advantages:

1. It helps those with sight problems at the next table. We already do this for one person at our club and it has sped up playing time at her table a lot. She would not be required to resort them. But maybe those who have already played the hand would put the cards into the correct suits for others. How often are spades mixed with clubs, etc.

2. It would lessen the risk of the 12-14 card mixup at the next table. I don't know why people insist on throwing their last few cards on the table and then you end up with fouled boards. If the boards were sorted and counted before they traveled on it would be so much easier on the director.

For those who don't like their hands sorted or don't like the way they are sorted they can mix them up anyway they like once they get them.

[peachy]

JoAnneM, on Oct 8 2009, 10:54 AM, said:

I like the idea of sorting the hands into suits before they go back in the pockets. There are a few advantages:

1. It helps those with sight problems at the next table. We already do this for one person at our club and it has sped up playing time at her table a lot. She would not be required to resort them. But maybe those who have already played the hand would put the cards into the correct suits for others. How often are spades mixed with clubs, etc.

2. It would lessen the risk of the 12-14 card mixup at the next table. I don't know why people insist on throwing their last few cards on the table and then you end up with fouled boards. If the boards were sorted and counted before they traveled on it would be so much easier on the director.

For those who don't like their hands sorted or don't like the way they are sorted they can mix them up anyway they like once they get them.

In cumulative, sorting cards after play would lengthen a club night by at least 15 minutes, probably more.

[H_KARLUK]

Once the game is over, the Aces and the deuces go back into the same box.

[Hanoi5]

H_KARLUK, on Oct 8 2009, 01:36 PM, said:

Once the game is over, the Aces and the deuces go back into the same box.

So not on topic I think, hahaha. But it's quite a nice phrase, showing how we're all equal.

[JoAnneM]

peachy, on Oct 8 2009, 04:03 PM, said:

JoAnneM, on Oct 8 2009, 10:54 AM, said:

I like the idea of sorting the hands into suits before they go back in the pockets.  There are a few advantages:

1.  It helps those with sight problems at the next table.  We already do this for one person at our club and it has sped up playing time at her table a lot.  She would not be required to resort them.  But maybe those who have already played the hand would put the cards into the correct suits for others.  How often are spades mixed with clubs, etc.

2.  It would lessen the risk of the 12-14 card mixup at the next table.  I don't know why people insist on throwing their last few cards on the table and then you end up with fouled boards.  If the boards were sorted and counted before they traveled on it would be so much easier on the director.

For those who don't like their hands sorted or don't like the way they are sorted they can mix them up anyway they like once they get them.

In cumulative, sorting cards after play would lengthen a club night by at least 15 minutes, probably more.

Why would it change the length of the game? You aren't going to sort them at the start of the next round again.

[Vampyr]

JoAnneM, on Oct 8 2009, 09:49 PM, said:

Why would it change the length of the game?  You aren't going to sort them at the start of the next round again.

• Players might prefer their hands sorted in a different way than the person who had just held the hand.
  
• People often sort their hands during the auction, so a special "sorting" time would be in addition to the time already taken now.
  
• Sorting would delay the passage of the boards. Would exceptions be made for people who are behind at the end of the round?
  
• There would be numerous instances of non-compliance (particularly by those who have just had a poor board), all of which would have to be dealt with by the director.
  
• Who would sort dummy's hand if the latter went to the toilet/to the bar/for a smoke?
  
• Revisiting the hands would inevitably lead to more at-the-table postmortems.

Anyway, it seems to me that it is an unreasonable thing to ask people to do.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on Oct 8 2009, 07:42 PM, said:

[*]Players might prefer their hands sorted in a different way than the person who had just held the hand.

If the hand is already sorted one way, it should be pretty quick to sort it a different way. If you like your suits in a different order, it's a simple matter to rearrange them. Reordering the cards within a suit will take a little longer, but still much faster than sorting a shuffled hand.

Quote

[*]People often sort their hands during the auction, so a special "sorting" time would be in addition to the time already taken now.

Yeah, there's some overlap. If the slow sorter is the dealer, everyone else will be done by the time they get their bid on the table. But on the other hand, the whole hand is delayed waiting for him.

Quote

[*]Sorting would delay the passage of the boards. Would exceptions be made for people who are behind at the end of the round?

Probably. On the other hand, if they received their hands sorted, they might not be as far behind.

Quote

[*]There would be numerous instances of non-compliance (particularly by those who have just had a poor board), all of which would have to be dealt with by the director.

There are numerous instances of non-compliance now, too. Receiving a non-sorted board in the proposed environment probably provides less UI than receiving a sorted board does now.

Quote

[*]Who would sort dummy's hand if the latter went to the toilet/to the bar/for a smoke?

Dummy isn't supposed to leave. If he does, whoever was playing his cards will deal with it.

[the hog]

jdonn, on Oct 6 2009, 10:52 PM, said:

pooltuna, on Oct 6 2009, 10:26 AM, said:

I often sort my hands after playing them to speed the game up as well as to cause problems for those who try to analyse presorted hands.

WHAT!!!! Who are you the Davey Crockett of bridge? It's not your business to go off on a vigilante mission to punish people you think deserve it. It doesn't speed up the game either since everyone sorts their hands differently but I can't believe what I just read after that. Have you considered one of those 'cheaters' you are trying to catch may draw an inference you didn't imagine and accidentally make a correct decision, all because of your perverted sense of justice? That when you 'catch' someone you are handing an unfair advantage to the opponents of the player?

I feel passing along a sorted hand should be a mild but clear offense.

Why? One of my ex partners always sorts his hand afterwards. Nothing wrong with it, Josh.