[Vampyr]

barmar, on Oct 9 2009, 06:44 AM, said:

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.

It is my experience that people have got used to the idea of shuffling their cards, and rarely pass sorted hands. Remember that if the cards are not shuffled they may also be left in the order in which they were played, which again gives UI.

The_Hog said:

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

Nothing wrong with it? So Law 7C is optional, then?

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Oct 9 2009, 01:20 AM, said:

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.

You have completely missed the point. Look WHY he is doing it.

And sorry, if you want to give reasoning or back yourself up then by all means, but "One of my ex partners always sorts his hand" is not an argument. Vampyr gave a good explanation for why it doesn't speed up the game at all.

[the hog]

jdonn, on Oct 9 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Oct 9 2009, 01:20 AM, said:

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.

You have completely missed the point. Look WHY he is doing it.

And sorry, if you want to give reasoning or back yourself up then by all means, but "One of my ex partners always sorts his hand" is not an argument. Vampyr gave a good explanation for why it doesn't speed up the game at all.

Your time of the month, is it Josh?
Nothing in Law 7C covers this, except in your imagination, Vampyr.

[blackshoe]

Law 7C requires a player to shuffle his hand before he puts it back in the board. This law uses the word "should", which means that failure to do it is an infraction of law, but one that will seldom be penalized. Nonetheless, it is illegal to sort your hand before replacing it in the board. Law 7C certainly covers that much, and it is not optional.

[the hog]

blackshoe, on Oct 10 2009, 11:31 AM, said:

Law 7C requires a player to shuffle his hand before he puts it back in the board. This law uses the word "should", which means that failure to do it is an infraction of law, but one that will seldom be penalized. Nonetheless, it is illegal to sort your hand before replacing it in the board. Law 7C certainly covers that much, and it is not optional.

Can you quote the regulation which says "You should not sort your hand"?

[skjaeran]

The_Hog, on Oct 10 2009, 07:38 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Oct 10 2009, 11:31 AM, said:

Law 7C requires a player to shuffle his hand before he puts it back in the board. This law uses the word "should", which means that failure to do it is an infraction of law, but one that will seldom be penalized. Nonetheless, it is illegal to sort your hand before replacing it in the board. Law 7C certainly covers that much, and it is not optional.

Can you quote the regulation which says "You should not sort your hand"?

What's the point of this?

L7C clearly says that you should shuffle your hand before you return it to the board. Shuffling is more or less the opposite of sorting (I'm aware that shuffling a hand could result in it being sorted into suits, but what's the odds of that happening???). So it should be pretty clear that sorting the hand after play is an infraction.

[dburn]

skaeran, on Oct 10 2009, 08:01 AM, said:

L7C clearly says that you should shuffle your hand before you return it to the board. Shuffling is more or less the opposite of sorting (I'm aware that shuffling a hand could result in it being sorted into suits, but what's the odds of that happening???).

A back-of-an-envelope calculation gives the odds as roughly 0.006%. This accords with personal experience - if you play, as I have, an average of three sessions a week with 24 boards a session for 50 weeks of the year, it ought to happen to you about six times in the course of thirty years.

Law 7C is indeed clear - you must shuffle your hand before returning it to the board. This may have been introduced in order to prevent a manoeuvre that certain teams were said to operate, although I have not seen any direct evidence. The notion was that if your opponents could make a slam, you sorted your cards before returning them to the board. When your team-mates observed that their opponents did not sort their cards after removing them from the board at the other table, they would bid the slam.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Oct 9 2009, 08:57 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 9 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Oct 9 2009, 01:20 AM, said:

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.

You have completely missed the point. Look WHY he is doing it.

And sorry, if you want to give reasoning or back yourself up then by all means, but "One of my ex partners always sorts his hand" is not an argument. Vampyr gave a good explanation for why it doesn't speed up the game at all.

Your time of the month, is it Josh?
Nothing in Law 7C covers this, except in your imagination, Vampyr.

Insisting on something completely wrong again? How unusual.

[blackshoe]

Law 7C said:

After play has finished, each player should shuffle his original 13 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.

No, it doesn't explicitly say "you should not sort your hand". So what? Of "should", the laws say

Introduction to the Laws said:

Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized), “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized)...

If you wish to argue that it's "okay" to sort your hand, you go right ahead, but you'll be wrong.

The emphasis in both quotes is mine.