[gordontd]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-08, 04:18, said:

Can't you just apply the Humpty Dumpty Fudge? You could simply say that the rules have to be interpreted in a way that makes the game playable, and that the phrase "during the auction and play" is generally understood to mean something other than "during the auction and during the play".

Yes, that would solve it, but I'm afraid it's way above my pay-grade to make such a pronouncement.

[gordontd]

 nige1, on 2012-August-08, 05:02, said:

keep publishing new editions of the law-book on the web, for a few weeks,

A new law-book every few weeks doesn't strike me as an improvement on what we have.

[TimG]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-07, 14:57, said:

You don't have to quote massive chunks of Law at us. We all know where to find them if we need to refresh our memories.

I think it's convenient to have them quoted in the threads where they are being discussed.

[TimG]

 gordontd, on 2012-August-07, 12:08, said:

L74C5 says "during the auction and play", not during the auction period.

Auction is defined "....It begins when the first call is made." If L74C5 said "auction period" we wouldn't have a problem, but unfortunately it doesn't.

Does the "auction period" start before the "auction"?

[gordontd]

 TimG, on 2012-August-08, 07:09, said:

Does the "auction period" start before the "auction"?

Yes. L17A says: "The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner withdraws his cards from the board."

The definition of auction says "It begins when the first call is made."

[gnasher]

 gordontd, on 2012-August-08, 05:38, said:

A new law-book every few weeks doesn't strike me as an improvement on what we have.

True, it would be reasonable to produce one whenever there is sufficient reason. Wouldn't you prefer a new law-book to an old law-book plus five years' WBFLC minutes?

[gordontd]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-08, 07:33, said:

True, it would be reasonable to produce one whenever there is sufficient reason. Wouldn't you prefer a new law-book to an old law-book plus five years' WBFLC minutes?

Oh yes, I'd be happy to have more frequent revisions, but Nigel's suggestion would lead to all sorts of confusion and uncertainty as everyone used a different version. We already encounter that to some extent with the Orange & White books, even though they are only updated every year, have the most recent changes colour-coded, and we have it impressed on us to only use the current version.

[barmar]

 TimG, on 2012-August-08, 07:07, said:

I think it's convenient to have them quoted in the threads where they are being discussed.

Brief quotes are fine, as a convenience (I do it myself). But several huge chunks are annoying. If there's more quoted material than commentary in your post, you may have quoted too much.

[Vampyr]

 gordontd, on 2012-August-08, 05:38, said:

A new law-book every few weeks doesn't strike me as an improvement on what we have.

I thought it was pretty clear that Nigel meant for this to be done at the conclusion of a major revision of the Laws for a few months preceding the publication of the print version, in order to assist in producing a finished version that says what it means. After all, the WBFLC can issue minutes and interpretations as frequently as is required to keep themselves amused, but for the vast majority of Lawbook users, the print verion is the only thing they will ever see.

[barmar]

I'm confused by this whole issue. How much information can one get just from watching the sorting? When I first read it, I assumed it was just a prelude to watching where they pull their cards from, which is prohibited.

[gordontd]

 barmar, on 2012-August-08, 08:28, said:

I'm confused by this whole issue. How much information can one get just from watching the sorting?

I should imagine it varies quite a lot, depending on who you are watching. I saw someone (who has been playing for at least five years) sort her hand by putting the cards face down on the table in suits. She seemed a bit puzzled when I told her she couldn't do that!

But the player in question believes he gets useful information from it, and it doesn't matter either way to determining the question of whether or not it's allowed.

[barmar]

 gordontd, on 2012-August-08, 08:49, said:

But the player in question believes he gets useful information from it, and it doesn't matter either way to determining the question of whether or not it's allowed.

If he's wrong about getting useful information, then what's the damage?

Do we actually know that he believes the information is useful by itself, and not just as preparatory information for clocking the hand?

Anyway, I'm with the person who pointed out that 74C is just examples, not exclusive. Ruling against this behavior seems to be in the spirit of 74C5. IMHO, "observing the place from which he draws a card" opens the door to any behavior involving observing the player's arrangement of their hand.

[semeai]

 barmar, on 2012-August-08, 08:28, said:

I'm confused by this whole issue. How much information can one get just from watching the sorting? When I first read it, I assumed it was just a prelude to watching where they pull their cards from, which is prohibited.

Several ways:

1. A common way to sort your hand is insertion sort with the total order induced by ♠ > ♥ > ♣ > ♦. Theoretically this gives no info about suit lengths, but there are some practical problems:

a. It's natural to guess the spacing between different cards as you add them to your hand. Then, if your ethically-questionable opponent (EQO) is watching and you suddenly are wedging lots of cards into a smaller and smaller gap in your hand, EQO may guess you have a long suit.

b. Hands with no clubs or hearts will often lead to the swapping of two suits to maintain alternating colors. If you usually just insert cards, but on one particular hand EQO sees you swap two suits, EQO may guess you have a void.

2. Some players sort their hand into suits and then rearrange the suits. EQO may be able to guess suit lengths by how big the piles being swapped past each other are.

3. Some players use a sort of selection sort: They fan out their hand and then pick out all the cards in one suit, then all the cards in the next suit, etc. If they just do this using a total order and pause every 3-4 cards this wouldn't give suit info, but if they are more likely to pause between suits, EQO may be able to guess suit lengths.

And so on.

[gnasher]

 gordontd, on 2012-August-07, 12:08, said:

L74C5 says "during the auction and play", not during the auction period.

Actually, in "looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or at another player's hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card", the phrase "during the auction and play" applies only to looking at other players. The prohibition on looking at the player's hand applies throughout.

Of course, this doesn't prohibit looking intently at his face whilst he's sorting, which might be more useful anyway.

[aguahombre]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-08, 10:01, said:

Actually, in "looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or at another player's hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card", the phrase "during the auction and play" applies only to looking at other players. The prohibition on looking at the player's hand applies throughout.

Yeh, I noticed that. Unfortunately it does not address the problem --looking at the player's hand for the purpose of seeing how he arranges them.

[gordontd]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-08, 10:01, said:

Actually, in "looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or at another player's hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card", the phrase "during the auction and play" applies only to looking at other players.

As I understand it, he's not trying to see their cards or observing the place from which they draw their cards... unless (and this thought has just occurred to me) he is observing the place from which they draw their cards in the process of sorting.

[gnasher]

"as for the purpose of" means that what follows is an example of the purposes, not the only possible purpose. If they meant to provide a complete list of prohibited purposes, they would have written simply "for the purpose of".

Looking at how he arranges them is a purpose similar to those in the examples, and therefore covered by this law.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-August-08, 10:55

[lalldonn]

Lol the bridge laws forum is like a married couple. I'm constantly amazed how much discussion and argument can be generated by people who all agree about the main point. Just sayin'

[gordontd]

Looks like we've got there... finally!

[phil_20686]

I have never really understood these objections to watching other players. "intently" means fixedly, not "with intent". I am allowed to watch `with the intent' of picking up information, i am just not allowed to look `fixedly' i.e. stare.

Watching how they sort their hands/clocking their hands, was specifically prohibited. Apart from that, watching their face and mannerisms is fair game. So is taking `fake finesses' to get a read on whether they will hesitate with low cards in the suit, when you play AQJ opposite KTx by leading the J from the closed hand.

I mean, watching mannerisms and tempo is specifically allowed, and it makes no sense to say that mannerisms excluded facial expressions. My dictionary has a mannerism as "a habitual gesture or expression".

A plain text reading seems clear to me, you can look at their mannerisms, expressions, tempo, and gestures. You cannot attempt to discomfort them through staring or coffeehousing. You may take your time at any point to consider oppositions mannerisms, expressions, tempo and gestures, as a part of the information available throughout the hand.