Exposed Card

[jdonn]

1: How can you take the cards from the board without touching them?

2: Why do you need to see the (faces of the) cards in order to verify that you have exactly thirteen?

3: What is the problem with your responsibility if you handle the cards properly?

 

I have no comment to your suggestion for sabotaging an event. Bridge is a game for gentlemen and ladies; I expect players to act accordingly.

1: You only have to touch 2 of them. I'm sure you can figure out why that is the case. In fact except for very slight contact on the edges it would be quite impossible to remove your cards while touching any more than 2!

2: You don't have to. I thought we were talking about a card being face up, not about counting your cards.

3: I do not consider it improper to count your cards above the table. Nor do I see why you get to decide what is proper especially when it's something most people don't do.

 

I don't suggest sabotaging an event, that was obvious sarcasm. My point was (aside from the unfairness of penalizing someone because another player left a card face up) you are creating a free way for people to cheat. Based on your logic we should not have rules regarding taking advantage of UI either because gentlemen and ladies would never do such a thing...

[TimG]

My opponents bid to a thin slam and make it when my queen of trumps is onside. I flip the queen of trumps, put it in the middle of the hand, and replace the cards in the board. The queen is exposed when the cards are counted at the other table and the board becomes unplayable. Have I really not broken any Law?

[dburn]

My opponents bid to a thin slam and make it when my queen of trumps is onside.  I flip the queen of trumps, put it in the middle of the hand, and replace the cards in the board.  The queen is exposed when the cards are counted at the other table and the board becomes unplayable.  Have I really not broken any Law?

None that I know of. I suppose it might be considered a breach of Law 90B:

 

The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty: [...] errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in one’s hand, playing the wrong board, etc.) that require an adjusted score for any contestant.

 

but technically, fouling a board in a knock-out match will not always result in an adjusted score, merely in the play of a replacement board.

 

It is all very well to say that the people who wrote the Laws omitted to provide that cards should be returned face down to the board because this was too obvious to need stating, but I am afraid that such arguments have no legal standing whatsoever. Law 7C should be amended in the next revision, and in the meantime, if you want to make it an infraction to return a card to the board face up, you had better petition the various Regulating Authorities under whom you play accordingly.

[pran]

1: How can you take the cards from the board without touching them?

2: Why do you need to see the (faces of the) cards in order to verify that you have exactly thirteen?

3: What is the problem with your responsibility if you handle the cards properly?

 

I have no comment to your suggestion for sabotaging an event. Bridge is a game for gentlemen and ladies; I expect players to act accordingly.

1: You only have to touch 2 of them. I'm sure you can figure out why that is the case. In fact except for very slight contact on the edges it would be quite impossible to remove your cards while touching any more than 2!

2: You don't have to. I thought we were talking about a card being face up, not about counting your cards.

3: I do not consider it improper to count your cards above the table. Nor do I see why you get to decide what is proper especially when it's something most people don't do.

 

I don't suggest sabotaging an event, that was obvious sarcasm. My point was (aside from the unfairness of penalizing someone because another player left a card face up) you are creating a free way for people to cheat. Based on your logic we should not have rules regarding taking advantage of UI either because gentlemen and ladies would never do such a thing...

Really :o

 

I was in doubt if more comments on this was worth the effort, but here goes:

 

If the board arrives at your table with the topmost card visible then there is little you can do about it except call the Director, and of course you are not at all at fault.

 

The moment you take the cards from the board you touch them. One, two or thirteen cards - you touch them as a collection of cards. What's the difference? From this moment you are the sole responsible for these cards.

 

It is perfectly possible to spread the cards a few millimeteres apart in your hand while counting them, and at the same time you will then discover if any of them is boxed without making it possible for anybody (including yourself) to see the face of a boxed card. So if you find that you do not have exactly thirteen cards you just call the Director without looking at any card, boxed or not.

 

Finally, if you have noticed any boxed card among your (exactly) thirteen cards you simply replace it correctly in your hand while protecting against others to see its face.

 

With this simple procedure available I still maintain that deliberately spreading the cards on the table while counting them without first ascertaining that none of them is boxed is a careless handling of the cards, and that the player indeed is at fault if any of his cards becomes exposed as a consequence.

 

For curiosity notice that my advised procedure will protect against problems even if all except the topmost card are boxed. :)

 

Why anybody insists on making such a big fuzz about this and charge a previous player with allegedly having boxed a card is beyond me.

[jdonn]

My opponents bid to a thin slam and make it when my queen of trumps is onside. I flip the queen of trumps, put it in the middle of the hand, and replace the cards in the board. The queen is exposed when the cards are counted at the other table and the board becomes unplayable. Have I really not broken any Law?

I was thinking more like Versace is sitting north at the next table. Nothing like setting a (cost-free!) trap to sneak him in a penalty and help my chances.

[jdonn]

The moment you take the cards from the board you touch them. One, two or thirteen cards - you touch them as a collection of cards. What's the difference? From this moment you are the sole responsible for these cards.

The difference is my earlier point that you are saying a player is responsible for cards he has neither seen nor touched! I only repeat the same point because rather than respond to the post you quoted you simply reiterated your prior claim, which is why you were correct to doubt that the "effort" is worthwhile.

 

It is perfectly possible to spread the cards a few millimeteres apart in your hand while counting them, and at the same time you will then discover if any of them is boxed without making it possible for anybody (including yourself) to see the face of a boxed card. So if you find that you do not have exactly thirteen cards you just call the Director without looking at any card, boxed or not.

It is also perfectly possible to...

- Have a player leave the table any time his partner is asked about a bid to avoid UI.

- Place a stopwatch on the table and time 10 seconds after each skip bid before the next player acts.

- Make every single lead face down (not just the opening lead) to avoid leads out of turn.

- Never claim so bad claims are avoided.

And hundreds of other things. Who cares what is possible if it's something that virtually no one does and hardly more could be convinced to do? You are ruling against people for not doing something that they likely hadn't even considered or heard of and most wouldn't want to do in any case!

 

Why anybody insists on making such a big fuzz about this and charge a previous player with allegedly having boxed a card is beyond me.

Alleged?? Either others didn't see the card and there is no problem, or they did and the boxing is not alleged! Come on, seriously. The guy at the other table replaces a card face up and I get penalized for it, and you wonder why I would make a big fuzz (fuss?)?

[pran]

The moment you take the cards from the board you touch them. One, two or thirteen cards - you touch them as a collection of cards. What's the difference? From this moment you are the sole responsible for these cards.

The difference is my earlier point that you are saying a player is responsible for cards he has neither seen nor touched! I only repeat the same point because rather than respond to the post you quoted you simply reiterated your prior claim, which is why you were correct to doubt that the "effort" is worthwhile.

I am not aware that I have ever said a player is responsible for cards he has neither seen nor touched. His responsibility begins when he or his partner takes their cards from the board.

 

It is perfectly possible to spread the cards a few millimeteres apart in your hand while counting them, and at the same time you will then discover if any of them is boxed without making it possible for anybody (including yourself) to see the face of a boxed card. So if you find that you do not have exactly thirteen cards you just call the Director without looking at any card, boxed or not.

It is also perfectly possible to...

- Have a player leave the table any time his partner is asked about a bid to avoid UI.

- Place a stopwatch on the table and time 10 seconds after each skip bid before the next player acts.

- Make every single lead face down (not just the opening lead) to avoid leads out of turn.

- Never claim so bad claims are avoided.

And hundreds of other things. Who cares what is possible if it's something that virtually no one does and hardly more could be convinced to do? You are ruling against people for not doing something that they likely hadn't even considered or heard of and most wouldn't want to do in any case!

Would you please be so kind and explain why any of this bullshit could be relevant? (You are like many players apparently not aware of the reason for making the opening lead face down? It has nothing to do with avoiding lead out of turn.)

May I assure you that the procedure I describe has been followed in one way or another by the majority of players I have met at the table.

 

Why anybody insists on making such a big fuzz about this and charge a previous player with allegedly having boxed a card is beyond me.

Alleged?? Either others didn't see the card and there is no problem, or they did and the boxing is not alleged! Come on, seriously. The guy at the other table replaces a card face up and I get penalized for it, and you wonder why I would make a big fuzz (fuss?)?

What is alleged is not that the card was boxed, that in case is a fact, but that it was boxed by one particular player. Such an allegation is just a poor cover-up for the real culprit causing the card to become exposed.

[blackshoe]

Such an allegation is just a poor cover-up for the real culprit causing the card to become exposed.

Here, Sven, you go too far. If a card is boxed, the natural question is "who did it?" and the first likely candidate is the player who held the hand in question at the previous table. To accuse someone of trying to "cover up" something he (knowingly?) did or failed to do is just too much.

[dburn]

Such an allegation is just a poor cover-up for the real culprit causing the card to become exposed.

Here, Sven, you go too far. If a card is boxed, the natural question is "who did it?" and the first likely candidate is the player who held the hand in question at the previous table. To accuse someone of trying to "cover up" something he (knowingly?) did or failed to do is just too much.

I would not call that "the first natural question". This would be the case only if it actually were an infraction to return one's cards to the board with one or more of them face up.

 

But it isn't. No doubt it should be, but it isn't. Again, if you think it is - especially if you are bluejak and think that it "clearly" is - you need to say of which Law it is an infraction.

 

Believe me, I have every sympathy with jdonn and bluejak and blackshoe and others who suggest in their various ways that: if a player removes from the board a hand in which some cards are boxed; and if he attempts to fulfil his legal requirement to count his cards face down; and if in the course of so doing he exposes a card not through his own clumsiness but because it was face up in the first place; then that player should not be penalised.

 

Moreover, I cannot find anything in the Laws that actually says, as Sven repeatedly says, that a player is "solely responsible" for his cards from the moment he withdraws them from the board. Law 7 says only that no other player may touch them, but that is not the same thing at all. Suppose that this is the first round and, due to an error by the duplicating staff, the player's hand proves to contain two kings of diamonds - no one would suggest that this was the player's responsibility and that he ought to be penalised for an infraction of Law 1.

 

However, what a player is responsible for doing, once he has taken his cards out of the board, is counting them face down. If they aren't face down, that - as the Laws are presently constituted - is his responsibility (though not necessarily his fault), and if he exposes a card face up while counting, he has committed an error and is subject to the rectification provided by Law 24.

 

In bridge, as in life, it is no argument at all to say that because people habitually do not do things (such as checking for boxed cards, or wearing seatbelts in the back seats of taxis), therefore they are not legally constrained to do those things, and are not personally liable for the consequences of failing to do them.

[jdonn]

What is alleged is not that the card was boxed, that in case is a fact, but that it was boxed by one particular player. Such an allegation is just a poor cover-up for the real culprit causing the card to become exposed.

And who do you suppose really did it if not the last player to play the hand, hold the hand, and return the hand to the board? An evil monkey hiding in the closet?

 

I will for the most part ignore the rest of your post as you are running us both around in circles in the first part, and in the second part ask a question with an obvious answer (because it's comparable bullshit to that which you are suggesting), make a false statement about what I believe, and then make a completely unbelievable statement.

 

In bridge, as in life, it is no argument at all to say that because people habitually do not do things (such as checking for boxed cards, or wearing seatbelts in the back seats of taxis), therefore they are not legally constrained to do those things, and are not personally liable for the consequences of failing to do them.

Of course that would be an excellent point if counting your cards held very tightly in your hands close together so you can't see them were mandated in the laws.

[dburn]

In bridge, as in life, it is no argument at all to say that because people habitually do not do things (such as checking for boxed cards, or wearing seatbelts in the back seats of taxis), therefore they are not legally constrained to do those things, and are not personally liable for the consequences of failing to do them.

Of course that would be an excellent point if counting your cards held very tightly in your hands close together so you can't see them were mandated in the laws.

I don't play poker myself, but a lot of bridge players do, and I have watched the game being played many times on TV and in casinos.

 

I have observed the following curious phenomenon: when a player is dealt a couple of cards (face down, bien entendu), that player will contort his entire body into unnatural shapes that must incur severe muscular strain. Lifting one of his arms some way above his head, and bending the elbow of that arm at an angle never intended by Mother Nature, he will simultaneously with the thumb and forefinger of his other hand raise the cards no more than a millimetre or so from the table.

 

When, for a second or two, both arms meet, I conjecture that the indices of the cards are fleetingly visible to the holder thereof. The notion is of course that the player should not move his head by so much as a micron, otherwise: [a] the other players might gauge from such movement whether the cards were good or bad; and (more importantly) the stupid hat or sunglasses worn by the player might fall off.

 

Now, nothing in the rules of poker actually mandates the players to resemble collectively a bunch of crabs scuttling to the shore. Presumably, therefore, they do it because they don't want some other fellow to see their cards. Why (apart from simple considerations of human dignity) should bridge players not act likewise?

[jdonn]

Direct answer: Because no one in bridge expects a card in the board to be face up so it would be wasted effort 99.9% of the time, whereas in poker if you didn't take care to avoid exposing your cards they would be visible every hand.

 

Indirect answer: It doesn't matter whether they should or shouldn't. Just that bridge players aren't legally mandated to and that they don't.

[pran]

What is alleged is not that the card was boxed, that in case is a fact, but that it was boxed by one particular player. Such an allegation is just a poor cover-up for the real culprit causing the card to become exposed.

And who do you suppose really did it if not the last player to play the hand, hold the hand, and return the hand to the board? An evil monkey hiding in the closet?

Have you never experienced spectators or even players (illegally!) taking cards from a board, look at them and then restore the cards to the board? I have.

 

In Mitchell and Howell movements with sitouts I have even found it a rather common activity by the current sit-out players to inspect boards (with travellers) they have already played, but also players that have completed their round early is seen to perform such illegal activity.

 

And as I explain when I hit them with the law book: That is possibly the most common cause for (subsequently) fouled boards.

 

However, so long as players act reasonably carefully when taking their own cards from a board and count them boxed cards will never be any harm.

[bluejak]

Bluejak, as usual, seems to think that just because people do not do something (count their cards under the table), they are under no obligation to do it and can avoid any consequences from failing to do it. He is, as usual, wrong (and he might even see this for himself, if he reflects on his belief that people should always pull the Stop card before raising 2NT to 4NT, in case failure to do so creates unimaginable problems for the next player to call).

Let me get this straight. There are normal methods, established if you like by custom and practice, and general understanding, and there are other things that some players do and some do not do.

 

Now you tell me that I am, as usual, wrong, in your charming manner, because I believe that the method everyone believes in [present company excepted] of returning your cards to the board face down is a requirement: you, on the other hand think it is obvious that a method which is not even suggested by authorities nor is commonly followed is a requirement.

 

No, I don't think so.

[bluejak]

(You are like many players apparently not aware of the reason for making the opening lead face down? It has nothing to do with avoiding lead out of turn.)

When the procedure was brought in it was said to have more than one advantage. One of the advantages claimed was avoiding leads out of turn. At lesser club level it is the major advantage.

[pran]

(You are like many players apparently not aware of the reason for making the opening lead face down? It has nothing to do with avoiding lead out of turn.)

When the procedure was brought in it was said to have more than one advantage. One of the advantages claimed was avoiding leads out of turn. At lesser club level it is the major advantage.

At major events that is of course an advantageous side-effect. That the lesser club levels often ignore the clarification period procedure is a sad fact.

[bluejak]

I do not know what the reason for side in bold is: it is an effect, and one the law-makers claimed to have intended.

 

Not all clubs are as bad as all that, and players who follow the rules get fewer lead out of turn rulings.