A sorted hand

[barmar]

Here the UI has been received a result of an opponent's deliberate decision to leave the hand sorted, so does a Law dealing with accidentally received UI apply in this case?

How do you know it was a deliberate decision? Maybe he just forgot to shuffle, which seems more likely. The only common case of deliberately sorting a hand is when there's a handicapped player at the other table, who requests that you sort the hand to make it easier for him. And then there's the cheating scheme described above.

 

And if you're going down that road, just what WOULD constitute accidentally-received UI? Other situations that are usually considered within this scope are overhearing the postmortem at another table, but surely they were talking deliberately.

[gnasher]

It's reasonable to assume that the player at the other table didn't intend to give UI. The fact that he negligently made the UI available doesn't make the receipt of the UI any less accidental.

[Vampyr]

How do you know it was a deliberate decision? Maybe he just forgot to shuffle, which seems more likely.

 

"Forgot to shuffle"? Most hands are not sorted at the end of play.

 

Anyway, the creation of the UI may or may not have been accidental, but the receipt was certainly accidental. Unless Jeffrey is suggesting that the two players have some prearranged signals?

[Phil]

Perhaps we need to shuffle the cards even before we look at them?

[mrdct]

Most hands are not sorted at the end of play.

True, but many hands are claimed at trick 1 or 2 and there are several reasons why a hand may arrive sorted, so I'm at a loss to understand how a person could conclude that a board was passed-in at the previous table just because his hand arrived sorted so I don't think there is necessarily any 'accidental UI' that you need to be calling the director about.

 

Coming back to the OP and what South may ethically or unethically do over 4♥, it doesn't really look like a hand likely to have been passed-in at other tables given that east apppears to have opened in 4th seat without length in ♠ and then has competed to game after a simple negative double by his passed-hand partner. We are also told the scoring is IMPs, so what's to be gained by doubling anyway?

[blackshoe]

Here the UI has been received a result of an opponent's deliberate decision to leave the hand sorted, so does a Law dealing with accidentally received UI apply in this case?

 

First, we don't know it was a deliberate decision. People do things without thinking all the time. Second, how is the recipient to know whether the perpetrator did it deliberately or accidently? I think "accidently" in this case means that the receiver didn't do anything designed to gain the information. He just happened to find the hand sorted when he took it out of the board.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps we need to shuffle the cards even before we look at them?

 

Perhaps we do, but the laws do not (yet) require it.

[aguahombre]

How many posters would be willing to admit that, given the team conditions, the following would actually occur:

 

---They would say nothing at the outset.

---They would bid the hand as if nothing extraneous was known.

---They would not double 4H.

---As the auction progressed, they would be more convinced the hand was not passed out.

---Nobody would ever know the hand was pulled out sorted.

---Their conscience would be clear.

??

[mrdct]

How many posters would be willing to admit that, given the team conditions, the following would actually occur:

 

---They would say nothing at the outset.

---They would bid the hand as if nothing extraneous was known.

---They would not double 4H.

---As the auction progressed, they would be more convinced the hand was not passed out.

---Nobody would ever know the hand was pulled out sorted.

---Their conscience would be clear.

??

Yes

Yes

Yes

Wouldn't have been in my considerations

My opponent at the other table may know

Yes

 

In my entire bridge career, I have only once seen a player (a quintessential SB-type) call the TD because their hand arrived sorted and it pissed me off incredibly as the TD lazily decided to scrub the board. It was actually a really interesting hand that I was denied the opportunity to bid and play. Stop being such conspiracy theorists and just play each hand on its merits.

 

If there was any potential grey area with my actions on a sorted hand that I received, I'd tell my opponents at the end of the board that my hand arrived sorted and if they think I may have used EI feel free to get the TD to look at it. Sure to win some ethical brownie points and certainly keep the conscience clear if that was remotely an issue.

 

I'm pretty sure nobody at my local bridge club follows this forum, so as a scientific experiment when I play tomorrow night (as playing director) I am going to sort my hand after every board and see if anyone notices and/or calls me. We pretty much always play a Howell movement so I'll get a reasonable sample size. It's a mixed standard club of generally beginner-standard retirees at the senior citizens centre, but usually get two or three of our life masters along so probably typical rural duplicate.

 

I'm betting that "zero" is a pretty strong favourite for the number of TD calls I receive on this issue.

[gordontd]

In my entire bridge career, I have only once seen a player (a quintessential SB-type) call the TD because their hand arrived sorted and it pissed me off incredibly as the TD lazily decided to scrub the board.

 

My estimate is that I've been called about this somewhere between ten and twenty times since the new laws came in.

[aguahombre]

I think at pairs, there are obligations to a whole field to be considered --and maybe an obligation to the person who didn't shuffle that he be made aware of his transgression.

 

The conditions were not that in the OP, and no indication that it happened again in the match.

[WellSpyder]

My estimate is that I've been called about this somewhere between ten and twenty times since the new laws came in.

And what have you done about it when you have been called?

[gordontd]

And what have you done about it when you have been called?

Read them L16C, and read the culprit L7C, in tones dependent on the circumstances. I remember being quite robust on the most recent occasion, but can't remember any other details about it.

[lamford]

Read them L16C, and read the culprit L7C, in tones dependent on the circumstances. I remember being quite robust on the most recent occasion, but can't remember any other details about it.

Life ban from YC, wasn't it? I guess there have been a few non-shufflers, judging by the lower attendance at the Summer Party!

[bluejak]

Vul is actually unknown, scoring is IMPs. The kicker is that when South (the OP) took his hand out of the board, it was completely sorted, as shown in the diagram. He inferred several things from this: that the board was passed out at the other table, that all four hands have roughly 9-11 HCP, that all four hands are relatively balanced. All this suggested to him that he should double 4♥. His question was whether he has UI, and whether he is constrained to pass. That's an interesting question, but this other one occurred to me: suppose the TD decides he has UI, and so is constrained to pass. Thus, if he might have doubled, his side might have attained a better score. That's the very definition of "damage" which should be redressed if it was due to an opponent's infraction. Here, ultimately, it seems to me that his opponent's failure to shuffle his cards is an infraction of Law 7, and so indeed he has been damaged by an opponent's infraction, and is entitled to an adjustment. What say you all?

 

Bonus question: Suppose we decide he's entitled to an adjustment in the case above. Now suppose that he did in fact double. Aren't the opponents entitled to an adjustment on the basis of use of UI? If so, has this South shot himself in the foot, are the laws flawed, or is there some other reason he doesn't get the benefit of defeating the doubled contract?

Having read this and no replies so far, this occurs to me:

 

When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information.

Why did the player not tell the TD immediately? Ok, perhaps it is understandable that he did not when he picked up his cards, but after pass Pass Pass? What was he thinking?

 

So my immediate view is that the player at the last table must be penalised, and this player should be penalised as well. Well, not penalised, but he should get Ave-, his opponent Ave+, for letting the bidding get to a position where there was a major problem caused by this.

 

Incidentally, you ask if the Laws are flawed: if the players ignore them then they do not work, true. That’s flawed players not flawed Laws. Law 16C is so simple and players do not follow it. Grrrrrrr.

[Vampyr]

I'm pretty sure nobody at my local bridge club follows this forum, so as a scientific experiment when I play tomorrow night (as playing director) I am going to sort my hand after every board and see if anyone notices and/or calls me. We pretty much always play a Howell movement so I'll get a reasonable sample size.

 

That depends on how many boards you get through before you ban yourself from the event for the deliberate and willful breach of L7C. I am guessing that one warning, one PP and finally, ejection, is about right. So you will have a sample size of 1 or 2, depending on whether you have 3-board rounds or 2-board rounds.

[mjj29]

Why did the player not tell the TD immediately? Ok, perhaps it is understandable that he did not when he picked up his cards, but after pass Pass Pass? What was he thinking?

 

So my immediate view is that the player at the last table must be penalised, and this player should be penalised as well. Well, not penalised, but he should get Ave-, his opponent Ave+, for letting the bidding get to a position where there was a major problem caused by this.

If the player had called the TD and the TD had allowed play to continue "standing by to award an adjusted score", and deems that he _should_ award an adjusted score, do you think it can ever be an assigned score and not an artificial one? And, if it is an assigned score, is it legal to split the score, treating both sides as non-offending, in a non-12C1(e) jurisdiction (the latter point being the interesting one).

[blackshoe]

Having read this and no replies so far, this occurs to me:

 

Why did the player not tell the TD immediately? Ok, perhaps it is understandable that he did not when he picked up his cards, but after pass Pass Pass? What was he thinking?

 

So my immediate view is that the player at the last table must be penalised, and this player should be penalised as well. Well, not penalised, but he should get Ave-, his opponent Ave+, for letting the bidding get to a position where there was a major problem caused by this.

 

Incidentally, you ask if the Laws are flawed: if the players ignore them then they do not work, true. That’s flawed players not flawed Laws. Law 16C is so simple and players do not follow it. Grrrrrrr.

 

I don't know why he didn't call the TD immediately. I suspect it didn't occur to him that he should. As to what he was thinking, again I don't know. I suspect he was thinking about all those inferences I mentioned.

 

How can you award an ArtAS after the bidding has already started?

[bluejak]

If the player had called the TD and the TD had allowed play to continue "standing by to award an adjusted score", and deems that he _should_ award an adjusted score, do you think it can ever be an assigned score and not an artificial one? And, if it is an assigned score, is it legal to split the score, treating both sides as non-offending, in a non-12C1(e) jurisdiction (the latter point being the interesting one).

I believe it to be normal for it to be an assigned score. Why should it be normally bean artificial one?

 

Of course it is legal to split the score: if you hear something from another table, both sides are non-offending, and a split score would be the norm.

 

:ph34r:

 

I don't know why he didn't call the TD immediately. I suspect it didn't occur to him that he should. As to what he was thinking, again I don't know. I suspect he was thinking about all those inferences I mentioned.

 

How can you award an ArtAS after the bidding has already started?

It can be a similar situation to those where the EBU believes assigning is impossible in practice, so rules under Law 12C1D. The actual hand is a good example. The number of possibilities when assigning after the first four calls seems endless. However, it is possible I was thinking of a previous Law book.

[blackshoe]

It can be a similar situation to those where the EBU believes assigning is impossible in practice, so rules under Law 12C1D. The actual hand is a good example. The number of possibilities when assigning after the first four calls seems endless. However, it is possible I was thinking of a previous Law book.

 

You've said yourself that 12C1D should be a last resort (not in those words, but certainly with that meaning, unless I completely misunderstood you) when a result has been obtained. In the actual case here, the earliest the TD might have been called is after the third round of bidding - after East bid 4♥. So the final contract is likely to be one of 4♥, 4♥X, 4♠, or 4♠X. Considerably fewer possibilities. :huh:

[barmar]

I've called the TD about sorted hands, but the main thing I wanted to get out of it is that he remind the player at the other table of his obligation to shuffle. I don't think I've ever asked him for advice on my ethical obligations, nor have they given me much unbidden.

[mrdct]

That depends on how many boards you get through before you ban yourself from the event for the deliberate and willful breach of L7C. I am guessing that one warning, one PP and finally, ejection, is about right. So you will have a sample size of 1 or 2, depending on whether you have 3-board rounds or 2-board rounds.

I think I'll be OK for a couple of reasons:

• 
   
  
• The Law 7C reference to shuffling the cards before returning them to the board is a "should" not a "must".
  
• Under Law 9A4 there is no obligation on me to draw attention to an infraction by my own side.
  

[mjj29]

I believe it to be normal for it to be an assigned score. Why should it be normally bean artificial one?

 

Of course it is legal to split the score: if you hear something from another table, both sides are non-offending, and a split score would be the norm.

Well, that's what I naturally assumed, but 12C1(e) was the only law I could see that explicitly permits it - obviously I've missed something, I was hoping you could point out where.

[gordontd]

Well, that's what I naturally assumed, but 12C1(e) was the only law I could see that explicitly permits it - obviously I've missed something, I was hoping you could point out where.

12C1f

[mjj29]

12C1f

Sure, that allows scores not to balance where you're directed to give split scores (ie SEWoG and 12C1e explicitly say that), but it's less clear that you can give a non-balancing score in other cases that just say 'award an adjusted score', but perhaps that is enough for the director to just award them on his own initiative.