sort your cards, don't shuffle them

[blackshoe]

Just got this (see below) in the mail. Personally, I think it's better than shuffling before you put your cards back in the board. I also think it's illegal, as it conflicts with Law 7C. And lastly, I think it's going to happen, and nobody is going to say "boo", because the ACBL doesn't give a damn what clubs do.

 

Comments?

 

"All the bridge clubs in Rochester are going to implement a new policy starting Oct 1. It may seem radical, but there are bridge clubs around the country that do this.

The new thing: sorting the cards into suits, not necessarily in numerical order, after playing the hand.

Right now we play a hand, put the cards away, pass it on, and let the next person sort their own cards. Why make this change? Here are some reasons:

1. Ever get cards sorted when they come to you? You know there is something going on. Was it passed out? How did we miss that slam? Plenty more. Sorting after the hand gets played takes care of this problem.

2. Ever get the cards boxed. One (or more) cards are turned over and potentially get exposed to other players.

3. Sometimes players need cards sorted ahead of time. This takes care of that problem. And it is actually faster to do it after you have just played a hand as you are familiar with it. Those that have the sorting issues, others at the table can help when sorting the cards after being played.

4. Sometimes the cards come to you with 15 cards in one hand and 11 in another. Why should happen? Sorting when getting done will avoid this problem.

Are there times that you might not find hands sorted when you get them? Yes:

1. The first round

2. The first time the board is played when on a bye stand.

Are there times you do not need to sort the cards into suits? Yes:

1. The last round of a pairs game

2. After a board has been played already by your teammates in a Swiss match.

It will probably take 2 sessions of playing before you remember to do this without prompting. But overall, this should make the game move smoother and actually a little faster."

[Vampyr]

What is going to be the penalty for those who don't do this?

[blackshoe]

What is going to be the penalty for those who don't do this?

 

Not stated. Experience with the clubs around here indicates the "penalty" will be that violators will be told they're supposed to sort their hands. Even after the 3000th time they don't. :o :(

[nige1]

Just got this (see below) in the mail. Personally, I think it's better than shuffling before you put your cards back in the board. I also think it's illegal, as it conflicts with Law 7C. And lastly, I think it's going to happen, and nobody is going to say "boo", because the ACBL doesn't give a damn what clubs do.

 

Comments?

 

"All the bridge clubs in Rochester are going to implement a new policy starting Oct 1. It may seem radical, but there are bridge clubs around the country that do this.

The new thing: sorting the cards into suits, not necessarily in numerical order, after playing the hand.

Right now we play a hand, put the cards away, pass it on, and let the next person sort their own cards. Why make this change? Here are some reasons:

1. Ever get cards sorted when they come to you? You know there is something going on. Was it passed out? How did we miss that slam? Plenty more. Sorting after the hand gets played takes care of this problem.

2. Ever get the cards boxed. One (or more) cards are turned over and potentially get exposed to other players.

3. Sometimes players need cards sorted ahead of time. This takes care of that problem. And it is actually faster to do it after you have just played a hand as you are familiar with it. Those that have the sorting issues, others at the table can help when sorting the cards after being played.

4. Sometimes the cards come to you with 15 cards in one hand and 11 in another. Why should happen? Sorting when getting done will avoid this problem.

Are there times that you might not find hands sorted when you get them? Yes:

1. The first round

2. The first time the board is played when on a bye stand.

Are there times you do not need to sort the cards into suits? Yes:

1. The last round of a pairs game

2. After a board has been played already by your teammates in a Swiss match.

It will probably take 2 sessions of playing before you remember to do this without prompting. But overall, this should make the game move smoother and actually a little faster."

On BLML I've always argued for sorting rather than shuffling but I think it should be by rank and suit. This can help some of my partners, who have dexterity problems. Also it is much easier to be sure that players are complying with this law than with current law.

[helene_t]

Even if many (most?) people won't sort their cards, it will have the benefit that picking up a sorted hand won't be unusual and thus won't suggest that the hand was interesting, or that it was passed out, or that it was claimed at trick one.

[1eyedjack]

"Storms" and "teacups" spring to mind. Seriously, have some legislators got a lot of time on their hands?

[jjbrr]

this is truly a stupid idea.

[Bbradley62]

If it's good for clubs, why not for tournaments? If this goes smoothly at the club level, it should be relatively easy to implement on the unit level.

[aguahombre]

Players at the club level waste enough time between hands without first sorting their hands, then showing what everyone should already know to everyone (That will happen), then starting their post mortem all before the next board, of course.

 

We accommodate the handicapped by seating a competent player in the prior position, who doesn't yap between hands.

 

I won't go with the strong "stupid" label for the idea, but don't like introducing a new procedure which will bring with it the same problems (non-compliance) as the old shuffling --with very limited advantages.

[jjbrr]

Not only does it have very limited advantages (I'd argue none) it also creates huge problems that I can't believe anyone would overlook.

 

Don't most people have a preferred way of sorting their hand every time? Ie spades on the left, hearts, clubs, diamonds on the right? Partner could (unintentionally!) tell me his shape every single hand just by rearranging the suits.

 

Secondly, how many times per session do you think is optimal for sticking a spade in with clubs for the next guy who plays the hand? Is three too many?

[Vampyr]

If it's good for clubs, why not for tournaments? If this goes smoothly at the club level, it should be relatively easy to implement on the unit level.

 

It won't go smoothly, because people will tend not to do it.

[blackshoe]

Interesting that all the responders want to discuss the merits of the change, and not one of you addressed the legality of it.

[aguahombre]

Interesting that all the responders want to discuss the merits of the change, and not one of you addressed the legality of it.

If it tries to go to a reg change beyond Clubs' semi-autonomy, I am sure many of us will jump in.

[Vampyr]

Interesting that all the responders want to discuss the merits of the change, and not one of you addressed the legality of it.

 

What is there to address? Everyone knows it's illegal.

[RMB1]

Currently, what if the frequency of players in ACBL clubs complying with the beginning of Law 7C.

 

"After play has finished, each player should shuffle his original thirteen cards, ..."

[aguahombre]

Currently, what if the frequency of players in American clubs complying with the beginning of Law 7C.

 

"After play has finished, each player should shuffle his original thirteen cards, ..."

Does that mean the 13 cards they ended up with are not what they started with? Or does it mean I must look at and remember the order of the thirteen cards as I first pulled them out of the board, put them back in that order, and then shuffle?

[blackshoe]

It means, Aqua, as I'm sure you're aware, that players pick up their thirteen cards from the quitted tricks in front of them, shuffle them, and then put them back in the board. I'm not sure whether there's an implication in "his original thirteen cards" that a player should look at the faces of the cards he picks up and verify they're the same ones with which he started, or that he should count his cards to ensure there are exactly thirteen, or both. On that, it seems like a good idea to do both even if the law doesn't require it, though I'm sure we all know players who won't be able to remember precisely which thirteen cards they had when they started this hand. I guess they'll have to just do the best they can.

 

As for the frequency of compliance with the current Law 7C, all I can say for sure is that it's better than it was five years ago.

[Vampyr]

When I take my cards out of the board, I count them in a manner that causes them to end up unsorted, even if they started sorted (The reason I know this is that at EBU congresses they use a lot of new packs of cards, so the hands are sorted when the boards are first given out). I wonder if a lot of people do the same (unsort them by counting, that is, not use new packs of cards B-) ).

[nige1]

Not only does it have very limited advantages (I'd argue none) it also creates huge problems that I can't believe anyone would overlook. Don't most people have a preferred way of sorting their hand every time? Ie spades on the left, hearts, clubs, diamonds on the right? Partner could (unintentionally!) tell me his shape every single hand just by rearranging the suits.

Your partner may convey even more information when sorting his hand, now, but you're not meant to look :)

Secondly, how many times per session do you think is optimal for sticking a spade in with clubs for the next guy who plays the hand? Is three too many?

Would be illegal in several ways :(

[mycroft]

So, before the latest revision of the Laws, it was a suggestion to shuffle, not a requirement, and many players in the UK by long-term habit would sort every hand. I had one or two of them playing here - frequently I'd get a call round 2 stating "my hand's sorted". I'd look two tables down, look back, and say "I'm not surprised. This might not be the last time."

 

This was getting less common in the UK (especially because of people who "don't sort them right" and others who read the resorting), and more officially discouraged; but the 1997 laws took that allowance out, and the UK has beat over their last hang-ons (or I haven't heard otherwise).

 

I think that going to "all sort" is going to be met at least as often in practise as "all shuffle", and the complaints are going to be just as good. Especially if a hand from a "never sorts" shows up sorted.

 

I wouldn't mind the law saying that you do one or the other, as long as you're consistent, and the cards don't come in play order. But that's not what the Law says, and going against it *now* is stupid. Especially as you're going to train club players, and they're going to go elsewhere to play tournaments (oh that's right, you're in "wouldn't drive 2 hours for a Regional" territory. Okay, "they're going to go to Nationals" :-) and have either to untrain, or face several L7 complaints.

[blackshoe]

Dan Plato, whose title is "Tournament Operations Assistant", replied as follows to my email to "rulings":

 

Applying the Laws of Duplicate Bridge is important (We actually have clubs write in asking that all revokes be charged two tricks--always!) but in a case like this ACBL would not choose to interfere with a perspective that still maintains the spirit of the law--preventing UI.

 

On the flip side-- I would hope that Club Management will also be encouraging and positive about those times when players forget to do the sorting, not assessing penalties in the spirit of that verb "should."

The message was actually much longer, quoting the Introduction regarding the use of "should" in the laws, and chastising me for saying "requires" instead of "should" and quoting as well Chapter 4 of the ACBL Handbook, which requires clubs to follow the laws, and discussing his belief that the purpose of the law is to prevent UI. Then he said what's quoted above.

[Vampyr]

We actually have clubs write in asking that all revokes be charged two tricks--always!

 

I'll bet that 99% of players in the world and 100% of directors would prefer this.

[Lanor Fow]

When I take my cards out of the board, I count them in a manner that causes them to end up unsorted, even if they started sorted (The reason I know this is that at EBU congresses they use a lot of new packs of cards, so the hands are sorted when the boards are first given out). I wonder if a lot of people do the same (unsort them by counting, that is, not use new packs of cards B-) ).

 

I probably should. At the moment I shuffle the cards before looking at them in ebu congresses when I don't know they have already been played. This has got me both strange looks and comments from oppos.

 

(edit to clarify) - I do this because the only cards out of place for me with the ebu new cards are the aces. Moving just the aces tends to give away quite a bit of UI

[aguahombre]

Being a little dense: If the boards are prepared in advance, who cares if they are new? If they are to be shuffled before starting the first round, who cares if they are new?

[Mbodell]

Logistically, does a table that is very late still need to sort the cards, or does that get passed on to the table behind them that is presumably ahead of them?