ethics question

[billw55]

From a pairs game at an ACBL sectional tournament.

 

I pulled out my cards and looked at them; the hand was already sorted into suits. I held a distributional hand with four spades to the ace. Now, my experience is that often when the cards are sorted, it is due to a post-mortem at the previous table. It occurred to me almost immediately that they may have been analyzing it because four spades made, but was not bid.

 

Sure enough, a competitive auction developed where four spades by me was an option. I decided that it was correct on the merits of the hand, regardless of the possible unauthorized information, and went ahead and bid it. Sure enough, it made. So we scored it up, moved to the next board, and I played out the session without comment.

 

This has been bothering me on and off ever since. What are my ethical responsibilities in such a situation? I regret that I cannot remember the full hand and auction, which might make a difference - but still, any thoughts?

[dicklont]

The hand and the bidding matter a lot.

Without them you cannot judge how obvious 4♠ is.

 

Anyway, you could (should?) have called the director right away to tell him that your hand was sorted.

The player before you is at fault for that.

 

This has brought you in a very difficult situation.

It looks like the hand is not playable by you anymore so at that time you surely should have notified the director.

[pooltuna]

From a pairs game at an ACBL sectional tournament.

 

I pulled out my cards and looked at them; the hand was already sorted into suits. I held a distributional hand with four spades to the ace. Now, my experience is that often when the cards are sorted, it is due to a post-mortem at the previous table. It occurred to me almost immediately that they may have been analyzing it because four spades made, but was not bid.

 

Sure enough, a competitive auction developed where four spades by me was an option. I decided that it was correct on the merits of the hand, regardless of the possible unauthorized information, and went ahead and bid it. Sure enough, it made. So we scored it up, moved to the next board, and I played out the session without comment.

 

This has been bothering me on and off ever since. What are my ethical responsibilities in such a situation? I regret that I cannot remember the full hand and auction, which might make a difference - but still, any thoughts?

Don't worry about it! 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.

[aguahombre]

I won't sidetrack the thread with my opinion about failing to scramble the cards before passing them. But, when you get them already suited beware of assumptions --just play bridge. Your guess as to why they are suited could be very wrong, so I wouldn't worry about the ethics of it.

 

the hand might have been passed out. That does not mean it was a good idea.

In your case, they might have been discussing how they could have stayed out of game, not how they could get to it.

Maybe they were recreating the play or discussing the defense.

Maybe it was Pooltuna messing with you.

Maybe they thought you were handicapped and needed help.

[jdonn]

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.

[billw55]

To clarify, the hand was sorted into suits, but not by rank within the suits. To me this strongly suggests a post mortem: a passout or a "favor" would likely result in a complete sort.

 

True my thought was not the only possible reason for a post-mortem; but it is what I thought and it did make at my table.

 

jdonn, it sorta sounded like pooltuna was kidding to me ...

[jdonn]

If he is kidding I pre-apologize, but I don't think he is.

[Trinidad]

This happened to one of my opponents just last week. Before he did anything, he was thinking a little bit what to do about it. (Obviously, at that time I don't really understand what he was thinking about.)

 

My solution would be to call the TD, based on my general principles. But not everybody shares my general principles. The solution that my opponent found was quite simple and elegant. He just told us before the bidding started that his hand was sorted. By this he leveled the playing field. And he gave us the option to call the TD. Which we, despite my general principles, declined to do.

 

Rik

[Hanoi5]

It occurred to me almost immediately that they may have been analyzing it because four spades made, but was not bid.

 

Now, you're either Nostradamus or this didn't happen exactly this way. I think you just used some reasoning which led to a good decision but what if they were discussing at the other table why that hand couldn't bid 4♠? Or why it was better to defend with such hand?

 

Anyway, if you didn't listen to anything else and just made a good and lucky inference, good for you. But remember to tell the Director some people are not shuffling their cards which can now be penalized, probably for this same reason. And if you feel too bad (or if I'm mistaken and taking any inference from the way the cards are arranged is indeed wrong) then your only resource is calling the Director and telling him: you'll probably get an average then, or Ave+ (?).

[TimG]

My solution would be to call the TD, based on my general principles. But not everybody shares my general principles. The solution that my opponent found was quite simple and elegant. He just told us before the bidding started that his hand was sorted. By this he leveled the playing field. And he gave us the option to call the TD. Which we, despite my general principles, declined to do.

I don't think it does level the playing field. The person with the sorted hand is much more likely to be the one with the critical decision.

 

Think about it this way: is the playing field leveled when my partner breaks tempo and my opponents are aware of the BIT?

[jdonn]

My solution would be to call the TD, based on my general principles. But not everybody shares my general principles. The solution that my opponent found was quite simple and elegant. He just told us before the bidding started that his hand was sorted. By this he leveled the playing field. And he gave us the option to call the TD. Which we, despite my general principles, declined to do.

I don't think it does level the playing field. The person with the sorted hand is much more likely to be the one with the critical decision.

 

Think about it this way: is the playing field leveled when my partner breaks tempo and my opponents are aware of the BIT?

Perhaps you are less likely to take advantage of UI if you know the opponents are aware of it, and even further that they have been made cognizant that you are aware. It also makes clear you aren't trying to hide anything. To me it does make a difference that it's "out in the open".

[TimG]

My solution would be to call the TD, based on my general principles. But not everybody shares my general principles. The solution that my opponent found was quite simple and elegant. He just told us before the bidding started that his hand was sorted. By this he leveled the playing field. And he gave us the option to call the TD. Which we, despite my general principles, declined to do.

I don't think it does level the playing field. The person with the sorted hand is much more likely to be the one with the critical decision.

 

Think about it this way: is the playing field leveled when my partner breaks tempo and my opponents are aware of the BIT?

Perhaps you are less likely to take advantage of UI if you know the opponents are aware of it, and even further that they have been made cognizant that you are aware. It also makes clear you aren't trying to hide anything. To me it does make a difference that it's "out in the open".

I agree that it makes a difference, I just don't agree that it levels the playing field.

[billw55]

It occurred to me almost immediately that they may have been analyzing it because four spades made, but was not bid.

 

Now, you're either Nostradamus or this didn't happen exactly this way. I think you just used some reasoning which led to a good decision but what if they were discussing at the other table why that hand couldn't bid 4♠? Or why it was better to defend with such hand?

Of course, there are several possible explanations. I do not say otherwise. All I say is that when it actually happened, for whatever reason, this is the first one that occurred to me.

[pooltuna]

If he is kidding I pre-apologize, but I don't think he is.

no need to apologize. In truth most of the time when I pick up the cards I also shuffle them 3 or 4 times b4 putting back in(for those who try to draw inferences from the ordering). As for Davy Crockett, do not know my relatedness, altho had a distant relative die with him and some relatives married Daniel Boone descentants. That doesn't keep me from hunting JBear and having a random sorted hand is just that, random. Live with it.

[Vampyr]

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

Well, yes, and that seems to be the intention of the Lawbook, since the word "should" is used.

 

In any case, it is not fun to be unable to play a board normally for whatever reason, including picking up a sorted hand. I happen to count my cards in a way that "unsorts" them, thus avoiding this particular problem.

[barmar]

Don't worry about it! 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.

If you do it frequently, then the player following you in the movement would probably notice this, and he wouldn't make inferences about why any particular hand is sorted.

[ahydra]

Aren't the rules here "take what inferences you like, but if they lead to a bad result then that's your fault"? Unless you overheard the post-mortem at the previous table, the meaning of the hand being sorted could be anything really (though some things more likely than others). If you could hear them it might be an idea to call the director to protect yourself I guess.

 

On a side note, mathematically speaking, there is a (slim) chance that shuffling the cards at the end of the hand sorts them into suits. Should anyone be punished for that? :/

 

ahydra

[mycroft]

Well, the law says:

Extraneous Information from Other Sources

  1.  When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play [examples snipped] the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information.

at which point:

If the Director considers that the information could interfere with normal play, he may, before any call has been made:

a) adjust the players’ positions at the table [not applicable here, you've seen the hand]

b) if the form of competition allows of it, order the board redealt for those contestants [not likely]; or

c) allow completion of the play of the board, standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that unauthorized information may have affected the result; or

d) award an artificial adjusted score.

90% of the time the Director considers that the information doesn't interfere with normal play, and just tells the players to get on with it; in this case, I'd probably go with option c, and possibly award L12e) with all sides not at fault if it turns out to actually matter.

 

It used to be that Some Places (coughUKcough) trained its players to sort before replace (especially when checking against curtain cards), so 90% of "my hand's sorted" calls I've dealt with are board 1 of round 2. I see who is passing her cards, explain that I doubt it's going to be an issue, and the player figures it out when all the rest of her hands are also sorted. With the change in the Laws that mandates shuffling (as opposed to any other way of avoiding passing play information), that probably will die out in time.

[peachy]

It occurred to me almost immediately that they may have been analyzing it because four spades made, but was not bid.

 

Now, you're either Nostradamus or this didn't happen exactly this way. I think you just used some reasoning which led to a good decision but what if they were discussing at the other table why that hand couldn't bid 4♠? Or why it was better to defend with such hand?

Of course, there are several possible explanations. I do not say otherwise. All I say is that when it actually happened, for whatever reason, this is the first one that occurred to me.

Law 7.C says:

Returning Cards to Board

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.

 

It would have been entirely proper - I might even go as far as saying it was necessary - to inform the TD that the hand was sorted, which implies a post-mortem of some sort. Combined with the type of hand you had, the UI from the sorted hand to me would also indicate that maybe 4S made but was not really biddable. Your conscience was right, there was a problem.

[Trinidad]

I agree that it makes a difference, I just don't agree that it levels the playing field.

You are probably right. But it makes it about as level as the TD would have been able to make it.

 

And Josh is right too: 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), it is unlikely that he is going to take advantage of the UI.

 

Rik

[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]

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)

:unsure:

 

... 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]

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)

:unsure:

 

... 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.