A sorted hand

[bluejak]

I do not think you will find a Law that says you should give both sides the same score. So if we have no Law that says you should, and a Law that says you may not, I think the position clear.

 

If you have two non-offenders, how else can you assign?

 

:ph34r:

 

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:

Third round? I am disgusted that he did not call the TD after Pass Pass Pass. Now he knows he has a problem. Of course technically he could call the TD before the bidding starts but I accept few would. But now you know the pass-out problem is imminent.

 

:ph34r:

 

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.
  

I think it is time we sorted this 'should' and 'must' business out. If a Law says you should do something you are required to do so and it is an infraction if you do not do so. If a Law says you must do something you are required to do so and it is an infraction if you do not do so.

 

So what is the difference? The level of punishment is greater for must than for should. But neither wording allows you to not follow it.

[nige1]

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.

??

A player's conscience may be clearer, now that he has learnt that several directors would penalize him, for a belated call to report his tentative concerns. When he receives a suited hand, it is likely that the previous holder did not shuffle it. Nevertheless, he could well have done so. After a thorough shuffle, any particular sorted order is no less likely than any other specific random order. If the second player knows the rules, he may be aware that an infraction is possible but he can't be sure.

 

This is another argument for the rules insisting that hands be sorted after play: It is easier to establish that a hand has been sorted than that it has been shuffled. So the rule would be easier to monitor and to enforce.

[Vampyr]

This is another argument for the rules insisting that hands be sorted after play: It is easier to establish that a hand has been sorted than that it has been shuffled. So the rule would be easier to monitor and to enforce.

 

Not enforce. Penalise. No one would ever do it.

[gordontd]

This is another argument for the rules insisting that hands be sorted after play: It is easier to establish that a hand has been sorted than that it has been shuffled. So the rule would be easier to monitor and to enforce.

Easier to pass information too - which was one reason why they deliberately didn't say you should sort.

[nige1]

Easier to pass information too - which was one reason why they deliberately didn't say you should sort.

A sorted hand embodies less information because there are fewer sorted hands.

[Vampyr]

A sorted hand embodies less information because there are fewer sorted hands.

 

But you are looking at it backwards. A shuffled hand has too much "information" -- or in fact none; since it is assumed to be shuffled, any peculiarities in the arrangement of the cards can be put down to chance. A sorted hand, on the other hand ;) , can be produced in just a few basic forms; variations on these, or just a misplaced card or two, can convey lots.

[gordontd]

A sorted hand embodies less information because there are fewer sorted hands.

It's hard to pass information by sorting your hand in a particular way if you aren't expected to sort your hand in any way.

[pran]

I'm puzzled:

How can a player pass information to his teammates by sorting his hand in any particular way? Will it not be one of his opponents in the other room who picks up the cards he has passed on after playing?

 

(Assuming this thread concentrates on matches for teams of four where the cards are kept strictly within one and the same match)

[axman]

But you are looking at it backwards. A shuffled hand has too much "information" -- or in fact none; since it is assumed to be shuffled, any peculiarities in the arrangement of the cards can be put down to chance. A sorted hand, on the other hand ;) , can be produced in just a few basic forms; variations on these, or just a misplaced card or two, can convey lots.

 

Speaking to the validity of the assertion that an unsorted hand contains ‘too much’ information to be useful I will recount my personal experience:

 

When I am particularly bored, on some occasions [which number around 1-2 dozen a year] I will pick up a hand that I discern had not been mixed [as in the cards were in the order played] and before the auction I will readily [without much effort] discern the contract, the declarer, and the number of tricks taken [sometimes a range of tricks]. My success rate is well north of 75%.

 

I’ll augment the above anticipating the query, ‘then, why don’t you always do it?’ because it requires so much headwork to analyze every hand for ‘order of play’ before even considering what the order of the cards means that it would detract from the ability to play skillfully. The effect is particularly evident when compared to the times ‘when I just see it as if looking at a road map’.

 

I didn’t present the above as an argument for sorting cards [sorting cards is effectively a pointless vocation that consumes an immense amount of time and frequently is gotten wrong- two things that are immensely detrimental to the passions of bridge players].

[gnasher]

(sorry, misunderstood)

[AlexJonson]

If you have a rule about shuffling (good idea IMO) then a breach is an infringement (not necessarily the obsessional UI at Teams, but maybe UI at Pairs if there are side bets).

 

In 'normal space' I'm with the suggestion that I would usually play the hand and move on.

[Vampyr]

Speaking to the validity of the assertion that an unsorted hand contains ‘too much’ information to be useful I will recount my personal experience:

 

I don't think anyone has mentioned unsorted hands.

[gordontd]

I'm puzzled:

How can a player pass information to his teammates by sorting his hand in any particular way? Will it not be one of his opponents in the other room who picks up the cards he has passed on after playing?

 

(Assuming this thread concentrates on matches for teams of four where the cards are kept strictly within one and the same match)

 

I didn't think this thread was just about teams, but the answer to your question is that players can pass information to their team-mates by failing to sort an occasional hand - for example to warn of bad breaks and suggest caution, or to announce things sitting well and suggest bidding more. It's easy to notice that your opponent sorts a hand when s/he hasn't previously.

[axman]

I don't think anyone has mentioned unsorted hands.

 

But you are looking at it backwards. A shuffled hand has too much "information" -- or in fact none; since it is assumed to be shuffled, any peculiarities in the arrangement of the cards can be put down to chance. A sorted hand, on the other hand ;) , can be produced in just a few basic forms; variations on these, or just a misplaced card or two, can convey lots.

 

It is quite normal to presume that cards situated in an unorganized order have been mixed when they wewe not- as you stated above. I was pointing out that while not necessarily consistently, from time to time it is possible to discern cards that were not mixed- and yes, from which accuraate inferences could be derived that might be used materially- but not necessarily without peril.

[blackshoe]

I tried to post what I thought would be a fairly simple problem to discuss, to wit, what should the TD do if called in the middle of the auction by a player who now says his hand was sorted when he took it out of the board, and what should the player do vis à vis choice of calls. Yes, he should have called the TD right away when he discovered the hand was sorted. He didn't. Yes, it may be that requiring hands to be sorted instead of shuffled would be better. That's not what the current law says, so it's not relevant to this thread. I gave some facts; some want to argue that some other facts might apply. No. The facts are as I gave them.

 

I still don't have answers to the questions I originally posed, afaics. I would appreciate it if some of you would go back and review the OP, and answer the questions I posed. It would nice to have your rationale, as well. Which laws do you apply, and in what way?

[semeai]

I recall when I was starting out, this would happen occasionally at a particular club I played at. When it did, I tended to announce it to the table. I doubt that would be my solution now, and surely such behavior is frowned upon legally, but it always seemed to have a certain sense of fairness to it (if possibly in a randomizing sort of way), while letting the somewhat casual game go on.

 

Carry on with the legal discussion.