Boxed Card Law

[peachy]

Law 7C could easily have two words added to it: "face down".

 

Returning Cards to Board

After play has finished, each player should shuffle

his original 13 cards, after which he restores them face down

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.

 

In another thread it has been argued that boxing a card or cards when returning them to the board pocket is not illegal. It should be.

[axman]

Law 7C could easily have two words added to it: "face down".

 

Returning Cards to Board

After play has finished, each player should shuffle

his original 13 cards, after which he restores them face down

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.

 

In another thread it has been argued that boxing a card or cards when returning them to the board pocket is not illegal. It should be.

The primary mission of law is to provide solutions to players' problems; including technics that avoid problems.

 

Need it be said that specifying that cards be returned face down is such a technic? But further, such a provision ought not be construed as unilaterally indemnifying future players' carelessness as such things are 'a matter of people getting along with each other'. In other words, such a provision is not necessarily sufficient:

 

It also is helpful for the law to admonish players to be prepared for the unexpected, such as a caution to count cards out of sight of the other players.

[campboy]

Gets my vote. Note that proposed wording merely "establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized" according to the introduction to the laws; this seems about right to me. Certainly it should be made clear that returning boxed cards is not correct procedure (what if people started doing it deliberately?).

[pran]

Law 7C could easily have two words added to it: "face down". 

 

Returning Cards to Board

After play has finished, each player should shuffle

his original 13 cards, after which he restores them face down

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.

 

In another thread it has been argued that boxing a card or cards when returning them to the board pocket is not illegal.  It should be.

There is no need to change law 7C!

 

Law 7B already requires each player to count his cards face down.

Technically Law 7B allows no exception for boxed cards, it applies to all thirteen cards whether boxed or not.

 

This could imply that Law 7B already requires each player to be prepared for the possibility of boxed card(s). (And handling cards in preparedness for possibly being boxed is really not that much of a burden.)

[campboy]

I do not understand. Are you saying that Law 7C does not need changed since 7B requires the next player to count his cards face down? That only helps if the face-up card is not the top one -- at the moment there is no more requirement to pass the board on with the top card face-down than there is for any other card!

[bluejak]

Law 7B has nothing to do with it. I like and approve of the suggested change to Law 7C.

[jdonn]

I would have thought that goes without saying. But apparently when it comes to laws/legality/lawyers then nothing goes without saying, so it should be said.

[pran]

Law 7B has nothing to do with it. I like and approve of the suggested change to Law 7C.

So the argument is that under the current laws restoring all my thirteen cards face up to the pocket is no irregularity?

 

Ridiculous.

 

And be aware that in a set of laws; if a superfluous clause to confirm the obvious is inserted in one law but not in another the implication is that the "obvious meaning" is not intended where the clause is omitted.

 

Law 7B has the important effect of eliminating the (negative) consequences from all but the most extreme violations of Law 7C.

[pran]

I do not understand. Are you saying that Law 7C does not need changed since 7B requires the next player to count his cards face down? That only helps if the face-up card is not the top one -- at the moment there is no more requirement to pass the board on with the top card face-down than there is for any other card!

I am saying that Law 7C already requires the cards to be returned properly to the pocket, that goes without saying.

 

A collection of laws must be consistent. If every obviouos detail is specified in one law but a similarly obvious detail is not specified in another then the legal question is: Why the difference?

 

And the legal answer is: "Because that detail is not relevant where not specified".

[nige1]

Law 7C could easily have two words added to it: "face down". 

Returning Cards to Board After play has finished, each player should shuffle his original 13 cards, after which he restores them face down 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.

In another thread it has been argued that boxing a card or cards when returning them to the board pocket is not illegal.  It should be.

I like Peachy's improvement but perhaps the law should go further and insist that you sort your hand before returning it face-down to the board, because ...

• Shuffling the hand, before putting it back in the board, wastes time. Sorting the hand, instead, would waste less time, because many players sort their hands, after taking them from the board.
  
• Some players find it hard to manipulate cards. It is hard for them to shuffle (or sort) their hands before putting them back in the board and most directors will release them from that obligation. It would be less hassle for handicapped players, however, if their hands arrived sorted.
  
• It is hard to tell if a player has shuffled his hand because, after a thorough shuffle, all permutations are equally likely. It is easy to to tell whether a hand has been sorted. Hence it is easier to enforce the law.
  

[655321]

I like Peachy's improvement but perhaps the law should go further and insist that you sort your hand before returning it face-down to the board, because ...

• 
   
  
• Shuffling the hand, before putting it back in the board, wastes time. Sorting the hand, instead, would waste less time, because many players sort their hands, after taking them from the board.
   
  
• Some players find it hard to manipulate cards. It is hard for them to shuffle (or sort) their hands before putting them back in the board and most directors will release them from that obligation. It would be less hassle for handicapped players, however, if their hands arrived sorted.
   
  
• It is hard to tell if a player has shuffled his hand because, after a thorough shuffle, all permutations are equally likely. It is easy to to tell whether a hand has been sorted. Hence it is easier to enforce the law.
   
  

I like nige1's improvement but perhaps the law should go further and specify the exact order of sorting: Spades on the left (top), then Hearts, then Clubs (red/black) then Diamonds. Within each suit, Aces on the left, then Kings, etc.

 

Now that this is agreed we can move on to the penalty phase of the discussion. How many matchpoints/IMPs should each missorted card cost the offender? The base level fine would be incurred in the case of a 3 and a 2 being swapped. A completely missorted hand, or one where the suits are in the wrong order would be correspondingly much more expensive (26 times more expensive? 52 times more expensive?)

 

I feel sure that this suggestion would cause a large increase in every player's enjoyment of the game.

[jdonn]

I like Peachy's improvement but perhaps the law should go further and insist that you sort your hand before returning it face-down to the board, because ...

• 
   
   
   
  
• Shuffling the hand, before putting it back in the board, wastes time. Sorting the hand, instead, would waste less time, because many players sort their hands, after taking them from the board.
   
   
   
  
• Some players find it hard to manipulate cards. It is hard for them to shuffle (or sort) their hands before putting them back in the board and most directors will release them from that obligation. It would be less hassle for handicapped players, however, if their hands arrived sorted.
   
   
   
  
• It is hard to tell if a player has shuffled his hand because, after a thorough shuffle, all permutations are equally likely. It is easy to to tell whether a hand has been sorted. Hence it is easier to enforce the law.
   
   
   
  

I like nige1's improvement but perhaps the law should go further and specify the exact order of sorting: Spades on the left (top), then Hearts, then Clubs (red/black) then Diamonds. Within each suit, Aces on the left, then Kings, etc.

 

Now that this is agreed...

Agreed? I do not agree! I do not like receiving my hand sorted, nor do I approve of passing it to the next table sorted. In fact when duplicating boards at the table I make it a point to shuffle my hand before placing it in the board.

 

Everyone likes their hand sorted differently and they generally move 1 or 2 suits around when they receive a pre-sorted hand. Any dirty scoundrels paying attention to someone who does that can then figure out very much information about their suit lengths as soon as a card is played.

 

I also, though I'm not claiming this is my legal right to have available, use the sorting time to think about my hand. This makes it less clear if I had to think a little extra before choosing my first action.

[nige1]

I like nige1's improvement but perhaps the law should go further and specify the exact order of sorting: Spades on the left (top), then Hearts, then Clubs (red/black) then Diamonds. Within each suit, Aces on the left, then Kings, etc.

Now that this is agreed we can move on to the penalty phase of the discussion. How many matchpoints/IMPs should each missorted card cost the offender? The base level fine would be incurred in the case of a 3 and a 2 being swapped. A completely missorted hand, or one where the suits are in the wrong order would be correspondingly much more expensive (26 times more expensive? 52 times more expensive?)

I feel sure that this suggestion would cause a large increase in every player's enjoyment of the game.

:) :) :)

[jdonn]

He GOT ME!

[campboy]

And be aware that in a set of laws; if a superfluous clause to confirm the obvious is inserted in one law but not in another the implication is that the "obvious meaning" is not intended where the clause is omitted.

OK, I'll bite.

 

The clause to confirm the blindingly obvious is present in Law 7B2: "each player counts his cards face down". Thus, by your own argument, the fact that the same clause is not to be found in 7C means that there is no requirement for the cards to be returned face down. The two laws, as you say, should be consistent.

[peachy]

Law 7B has nothing to do with it.  I like and approve of the suggested change to Law 7C.

So the argument is that under the current laws restoring all my thirteen cards face up to the pocket is no irregularity?

 

Ridiculous.

 

And be aware that in a set of laws; if a superfluous clause to confirm the obvious is inserted in one law but not in another the implication is that the "obvious meaning" is not intended where the clause is omitted.

 

Law 7B has the important effect of eliminating the (negative) consequences from all but the most extreme violations of Law 7C.

What "violations of Law 7C" do you mean?

[peachy]

I am saying that Law 7C already requires the cards to be returned properly to the pocket, that goes without saying.

There is no word *properly* in the law 7C, so the law says no such thing. And a good thing too, because then someone would need to define what is proper and what is not proper. I never thought it needed to be spelled out that cards are returned to the pocket face down. However, when talking about a law, we should stick with the actual written law, not add your own edits [*properly*] to the text.

[peachy]

He GOT ME!

Your troll sniffer was turned off :)

 

However, I do not believe Nigel meant to be a troll. He was doing what he has been doing for a long time - expressing his views on how he wants things to be.

[Mbodell]

I am saying that Law 7C already requires the cards to be returned properly to the pocket, that goes without saying.

There is no word *properly* in the law 7C, so the law says no such thing. And a good thing too, because then someone would need to define what is proper and what is not proper. I never thought it needed to be spelled out that cards are returned to the pocket face down. However, when talking about a law, we should stick with the actual written law, not add your own edits [*properly*] to the text.

And actually we sometimes intentionally return the cards face up. For instance in a swiss team or ko match we'll sometimes face one of the hands after we've played the board for the second time in a match (I.e., if the board started with our team mates then when we finish it we'll face a hand). This leaves the boards set up and obvious for which ones need to be shuffled and also makes it easier for the caddies to know which boards need to be passed.

 

It isn't necessary that we do this, but it is (currently) hardy illegal.

[gordontd]

And actually we sometimes intentionally return the cards face up. For instance in a swiss team or ko match we'll sometimes face one of the hands after we've played the board for the second time in a match (I.e., if the board started with our team mates then when we finish it we'll face a hand).

Somebody playing a match at my club this weekend did that with half the set of boards. I suppose they don't realise how irritating and time-consuming it is for the person who deals the boards by Duplimate to have to turn them all around again before dealing.

[pran]

OK, I got (all of?) you where I wanted - trapped in your own arguments:

 

1: When a player while counting his cards exposes one or more of them because they were boxed Law 24 applies and his fault is that he did not count his cards face down as ordered in Law 7B.

 

2: If the Director then identifies (to his own satisfaction) the player who restored some of his cards boxed to the pocket the Director is still unable to show any law that this player has violated and thus has no foundation for penalizing him. So long as the player has restored all his 13 cards (after shuffling them) he has complied with Law 7C even if some of his cards are now boxed.

 

BTW if Law 7C should be changed in any way, I fancy it should be changed in such a way that this law can be enforced while preventing UI to be passed: Specifying that the cards are sorted (rather than shuffled), and the sort order should be specific (compare how Law 41D specifies the sorting of Dummy's cards).

[mjj29]

2: If the Director then identifies (to his own satisfaction) the player who restored some of his cards boxed to the pocket the Director is still unable to show any law that this player has violated and thus has no foundation for penalizing him. So long as the player has restored all his 13 cards (after shuffling them) he has complied with Law 7C even if some of his cards are now boxed.

And this, IMO, is wrong. While you may or may not have a reasonable argument to say that it should be caught without trouble by the next player, I don't think it should be legal to set traps for subsequent players who are less careful than you.

 

Similarly, it is illegal to restore 14/12 cards to the board, even though the next table should count them and discover it before looking at their cards.

[campboy]

BTW if Law 7C should be changed in any way, I fancy it should be changed in such a way that this law can be enforced while preventing UI to be passed: Specifying that the cards are sorted (rather than shuffled), and the sort order should be specific (compare how Law 41D specifies the sorting of Dummy's cards).

It currently specifies that they be shuffled instead -- why does that not avoid UI issues?

 

Anyway, while I agree that your 1 and 2 are a correct statement of what the law currently says, I believe that a] it was an oversight rather than an intention to not require cards to be returned face down, and b] it should be corrected in the next laws.

[gordontd]

BTW if Law 7C should be changed in any way, I fancy it should be changed in such a way that this law can be enforced while preventing UI to be passed: Specifying that the cards are sorted (rather than shuffled), and the sort order should be specific (compare how Law 41D specifies the sorting of Dummy's cards).

My understanding is that the WBFLC deliberately required that cards be shuffled rather than sorted, because of the succeptibility of sorting to cheating through communication with another table.

[paulg]

BTW if Law 7C should be changed in any way, I fancy it should be changed in such a way that this law can be enforced while preventing UI to be passed: Specifying that the cards are sorted (rather than shuffled), and the sort order should be specific (compare how Law 41D specifies the sorting of Dummy's cards).

My understanding is that the WBFLC deliberately required that cards be shuffled rather than sorted, because of the succeptibility of sorting to cheating through communication with another table.

Not easy to do this unless you sort another player's cards? However, finding the ♦Q between the ♥K and ♥J in a sorted hand would be more of a concern.