ethics question

[billw55]

I don't really understand your post. You are quoting me and emphasizing part of my quote, but your comments (other than the vague " :unsure: ... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[*]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.

[*]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.

[*]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.

[*]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.

[*]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]

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.

[Vampyr]

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.

 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.