Out of Sorts

[gordontd]

What we conclude from this is that a requirement to sort the hand into suits at the end of play would be a much better rule. Moreover it would be timesaving, since you will do just the same amount of sorting if you receive your hand sorted and sort it at the end. I believe the only criticism of such a rule is that it is difficult for a minority to comply, but surely they can get someone to help.

Sounds like a terrible idea. It really would be easy to see the shape of the hands of the players who re-order their suits the way they like, to say nothing of the scope for deliberate cheating. And it wouldn't take the same amount of time, since some of the time spent sorting is also used in assessing the value of the hand.

 

The current regulation is fine, as long as it's followed.

[Vampyr]

What we conclude from this is that a requirement to sort the hand into suits at the end of play would be a much better rule.

 

I would find such a requirement incredibly annoying. Players pushed for time would find it especially onerous. Honestly I doubt that there are very many people who wouldn't consider this a serious reduction in their enjoyment of the game.

 

Moreover it would be timesaving, since you will do just the same amount of sorting if you receive your hand sorted and sort it at the end.

 

How does spending the same amount of time translate into "timesaving"? Actually it would take more time, since the way I and many others count our cards unsorts them.

 

I believe the only criticism of such a rule is that it is difficult for a minority to comply, but surely they can get someone to help.

 

Traditionally the person who receives the cards at the next table "helps", by sorting them herself. This seems the best solution...

[iviehoff]

How does spending the same amount of time translate into "timesaving"?

Because you no longer have to spend the time you currently waste shuffling them.

 

I think if you regularly received sorted hands you would soon adopt a different way of counting them that did not reorder the cards.

 

As for Gordon's comment on people moving the suits around, are not prepared hands often delivered sorted into suits, and often in that annoying-to-many order that puts the reds together in the middle? If people do feel the necessity to re-sort the cards in a way that reveals information to people watching, is that not their own fault, in the same category of any other kind of extraneous info revealed? Is it not also an offence against the proprieties deliberately to observe such sorting? I think it is considerable exaggeration to say that this is a "big problem". Rather I think people would quickly get used to it, learn how to cope without revealing information, and think what a wonderful improvement it is.

 

In the old days when you were at liberty to sort hands at the end, my own reaction on following a player who sorted the cards was "thank you, that's really kind", regardless of how their particular idiosyncrasies of sorting differed from mine. Did anyone else think any different? Curmudgeons if they did.

[barmar]

As for Gordon's comment on people moving the suits around, are not prepared hands often delivered sorted into suits

I think that only happens if the hand was prepared with a new deck. How often do clubs and/or tournament organizers replace all their decks, so that everything is starting fresh?

[barmar]

It is all of the information that is worth an estimated 2 IMPs. And only when the board has been previously played. Say I pick up: ♦4 ♣K ♥2 ♣9 ♠A ♠K ♠J ♦3 ♣A ♠8 ♦Q ♦J ♣2. I would think as follows (were I so inclined):

a) That spade order AKJ in sequence is interesting. I think they were probably trumps, and declarer did not finesse the queen. Perhaps partner has it, or we have 9, and the singleton queen fell, which is why three rounds were played. If we agree spades, I will not bother asking for the queen of trumps.

I think you got the hand backwards. Unless the previous player quits their tricks in an unusual manner, the card on the left when you fan the handis the last card played, not the first. So he DID finesse the queen.

 

I'm not disputing that there are occasional hands where you can make use of this information to bid or make a contract that you might not have otherwise. I just disagree on the frequency. If the previous player took the finesse, you probably would have anyway. And who's to say that this was only a 25% slam, maybe it's a slam that everyone in the world will bid, and they bid it at the other table, so it's a wash. My point is that you have to be able to infer something that you couldn't have discovered in the normal bidding and play. Maybe once in a while it might give a clue on a 2-way finesse.

 

How much did Reese-Shapiro gain with their finger signals regarding the heart suit (assuming you believe the cheating accusation -- let's not get into the debate over their guilt)? My guess is that the potential gain from this is less.

[Vampyr]

 

In the old days when you were at liberty to sort hands at the end, my own reaction on following a player who sorted the cards was "thank you, that's really kind", regardless of how their particular idiosyncrasies of sorting differed from mine. Did anyone else think any different? Curmudgeons if they did.

 

Well. Under this regulation I would be very unfortunate, having developed arthritis in my fingers, and being forced to rely on these hand-sorters who are apparently hanging around.

[barmar]

Well. Under this regulation I would be very unfortunate, having developed arthritis in my fingers, and being forced to rely on these hand-sorters who are apparently hanging around.

I have many times played in games where a player at the next table was disabled like this, and requested that the person playing the boards before him sort at the end. No one has ever refused. This is clearly one of those laws that can easily be worked around when special conditions require. The clear intent of the law requiring shuffling at the end of a hand is to remove information about how the hand was played, and sorting does this very well (better than shuffling, but not as quickly).

 

Regarding sorting at the beginning versus end. Yes, they take about the same amount of time. But at the end of a hand, you're often rushed if you're running late, and players are likely to time-consuming skip a step like this if they're being hurried to move on. But giving the cards a quick shuffle before putting them back in the board is much easier at that time.

[gnasher]

How can you conclude this? How can you know what information others draw from the order of the cards they pick up? And how do you know how many of them note the significant features of the hand before sorting it, as it take only a few seconds?

I don't know either of these things, and I didn't say I'd reached any conclusion. The words "I think" indicated that what followed was merely an opinion. You might have worked that out from the context too.

 

As for why I think this, it's because I think most people are honest, most bridge players play for enjoyment, and of the few who are inclined to use "shady practices to acquire information" not many have the ability to do so.

[blackshoe]

I have many times played in games where a player at the next table was disabled like this, and requested that the person playing the boards before him sort at the end. No one has ever refused. This is clearly one of those laws that can easily be worked around when special conditions require. The clear intent of the law requiring shuffling at the end of a hand is to remove information about how the hand was played, and sorting does this very well (better than shuffling, but not as quickly).

 

Regarding sorting at the beginning versus end. Yes, they take about the same amount of time. But at the end of a hand, you're often rushed if you're running late, and players are likely to time-consuming skip a step like this if they're being hurried to move on. But giving the cards a quick shuffle before putting them back in the board is much easier at that time.

Around here the request usually comes from the director, and most players think it unwise to refuse a request from the director - correctly, IMO.

 

I have nonetheless had a director (and sometimes a player) stand over me waggling his fingers impatiently while I'm shuffling. Frequently, btw, this occurs after the clock has given the three minute warning, but before the round has been called, which is most annoying.

[Vampyr]

I have many times played in games where a player at the next table was disabled like this, and requested that the person playing the boards before him sort at the end. No one has ever refused.

 

Yes, it is fine to occasionally sort the cards for the next player. I don't mind doing this, and I don't know anyone who does. But doing it all the time would be really annoying. (Plus, anyone who really didn't want to sort for a player at the next table could always change seats with their partner.)

[Vampyr]

I have nonetheless had a director (and sometimes a player) stand over me waggling his fingers impatiently while I'm shuffling. Frequently, btw, this occurs after the clock has given the three minute warning, but before the round has been called, which is most annoying.

 

How thoroughly do you shuffle the cards? It seems to me that the process is so short that it would be hard for anyone to find time to waggle their fingers.

[barmar]

Yes, it is fine to occasionally sort the cards for the next player. I don't mind doing this, and I don't know anyone who does. But doing it all the time would be really annoying. (Plus, anyone who really didn't want to sort for a player at the next table could always change seats with their partner.)

If it were normal practice, I think everyone would just get used to it and not think much of it. It would be annoying during the transition, but pretty soon you'd forget that you ever did anything else.

 

I've never played anywhere with curtain cards, but surely filling them in and then checking them after each board is even more tedious (I'll bet most people sort their hands to do this), and they're common in many places.

[barmar]

How thoroughly do you shuffle the cards? It seems to me that the process is so short that it would be hard for anyone to find time to waggle their fingers.

Maybe he's like the player in my club I mentioned earlier, who spends 15-20 seconds repeatedly riffle-shuffling his hand.

[Vampyr]

I've never played anywhere with curtain cards, but surely filling them in and then checking them after each board is even more tedious (I'll bet most people sort their hands to do this), and they're common in many places.

 

I'd be interested in learning some of the "many places" where curtain cards are common, but anyway I don't see the connection.

[lamford]

I think you got the hand backwards.

No, the person in my example was left-handed, or sorted the cards with the face of the lowest card in his pocket on the right. Or he counted them, reversing the order. The order specified was the order in which they were played last time, shall we say. In the OP I wrote: "He picked up his hand, bottom card first".

[lamford]

I think it would be quite noticeable if a player took a few seconds looking at their hand before starting to sort it.

I think it would be quite noticeable if a player did not sort his hand at all. But there is nothing that I can find in the Laws which requires him to sort it. The only place I can find the requirement is in 41D before putting dummy down.

[barmar]

I'd be interested in learning some of the "many places" where curtain cards are common, but anyway I don't see the connection.

No idea, I just thought I'd heard them mentioned in threads in the past few years. But even if they're not common now, they were at one time in some countries, and people put up with them.

 

The connection is that the process of filling them in or checking that the hands all match them probably requires sorting your hands, and you do this at the end of each hand. But maybe I don't really understand how they're used. Perhaps players only check the hands against them if it looks like the board has been fouled.

[mycroft]

I have many times played in games where a player at the next table was disabled like this, and requested that the person playing the boards before him sort at the end. No one has ever refused.

Yes, it is fine to occasionally sort the cards for the next player. I don't mind doing this, and I don't know anyone who does. But doing it all the time would be really annoying. (Plus, anyone who really didn't want to sort for a player at the next table could always change seats with their partner.)

I haven't had anyone *refuse* refuse, but I have had them pull out "why should I have to?" and, much more commonly, gripe about having to sort *and* do all the things that the Lord of the Table (and yes, it usually is LadyOTT, but not always) has to do, three or four times during the session. Obviously, it's key to put in the score, and check the traveller, and put in their personal score (that has to be retrieved from the floor/purse), and switch the boards, and talk about the hand - there's no time to sort. And heaven help anyone who suggests that maybe for this session they just sit South (the players I'm thinking of that need cards sorted also have issues writing, so they punch in the numbers and partner keeps personal score. Frankly, I think that should be SOP, and I certainly suggest it any time anyone uses it as an excuse for why they shouldn't have to sort or why they're always late - to the same "but I'm the LOTT" reaction, of course, which always amuses me).

 

Regarding sorting at the beginning versus end. Yes, they take about the same amount of time. But at the end of a hand, you're often rushed if you're running late, and players are likely to time-consuming skip a step like this if they're being hurried to move on. But giving the cards a quick shuffle before putting them back in the board is much easier at that time.

Once you get used to it, sorting takes little or no more time - especially if the person you're sorting for doesn't mind having them "in suits, but not necessarily in order". Getting used to it *does* take time, and switching gears to remember takes time.

 

Having said that, the "norm" in England was to sort after playing, and there are still a couple of old Englanders that play in my tournaments that can't break the habit. I am used to calls round 2 of "director, my hand's sorted"; I have been known to look down a table or two, say, "Yep, I'm not surprised. This might not be the last time this session", and wander away. They usually Get It after two or three boards.

[bluejak]

Because you no longer have to spend the time you currently waste shuffling them.

Yes, but that time is completely trivial. It is very rare that the scoring has been done by the time my hand is in the board, duly shuffled. Sorting certainly takes longer, but not critically.

 

As for Gordon's comment on people moving the suits around, are not prepared hands often delivered sorted into suits, and often in that annoying-to-many order that puts the reds together in the middle? If people do feel the necessity to re-sort the cards in a way that reveals information to people watching, is that not their own fault, in the same category of any other kind of extraneous info revealed? Is it not also an offence against the proprieties deliberately to observe such sorting? I think it is considerable exaggeration to say that this is a "big problem". Rather I think people would quickly get used to it, learn how to cope without revealing information, and think what a wonderful improvement it is.

I also think Gordon is wrong that it leads to abuse for everyone to sort. It just won't happen even if it is made a rule.

 

I've never played anywhere with curtain cards, but surely filling them in and then checking them after each board is even more tedious (I'll bet most people sort their hands to do this), and they're common in many places.

Certainly tedious, though experienced players always write them out during the bidding. But you only have to do this on the first round.

[blackshoe]

Yes, but that time is completely trivial. It is very rare that the scoring has been done by the time my hand is in the board, duly shuffled. Sorting certainly takes longer, but not critically.

Usually, I'm North. If I enter the score first, it will be a moment or two after that's done before my hand's in the board. If I shuffle and replace my hand first, frequently I find the opening bid for the next board (and sometimes the second bid) on the table when I reach for my new hand. And I'm not generally considered a slow player, except by one partner who decided she could perform North's duties faster than I, and so insists that she sit North. Frankly, I don't think she's any faster than I am at it, and sometimes she's slower. :blink: