sort your cards, don't shuffle them

[mycroft]

If they're dealt from new decks through an auto-dealer, the cards will be read in order and placed in order (except, I guess, for the minor aces, or all aces depending on the way the deck is built). If they're dealt from played decks through an auto-dealer, the cards will be read in the order they were played, and the hands will look "shuffled".

 

If you have to sort the cards and make the boards, as we do with hand records (and is almost unheard of outside NA) then obviously, it doesn't matter if they're presorted.

[ahh]

how many players sort their hands into suits and then rank the cards ? only the ones that don't know that many/some/ few or 1 of their opponents are likely to 'slot' i .e. watch carefully where the cards they play come from in their hand to work out suit patterns. So if I have to play under the proposed changes 1st thing I will do is to shuffle the hand before I look at it and then sort my hand randomly which is exactly what I do now. Big fuss over nothing .

[pran]

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.

 

There never was any suggestion (and certainly no requirement) in the laws before 2007 that the cards should be shuffled or arranged in any particular way when being returned to the board.

 

I do, however, remember reading some stories about players inspecting their cards without first sorting them in order to obtain some knowledge on the last play of that Board, and I suspect such stories to be the main reason for the new Law 7C?

[mycroft]

Got my years mixed up, I'm getting old.

[barmar]

how many players sort their hands into suits and then rank the cards ?

I'll bet at least 90%, probably more like 95%. And of the rest, I'll bet most of them sort into suits, but don't rank the cards.

 

Every time I've kibitzed a champion player at an NABC, or operate Vugraph, they sort their cards. It's possible they're doing it for the benefit of the kibitzers, but I doubt it.

[lamford]

I also think it's illegal, as it conflicts with Law 7C.

 

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

The usual interpretation of shuffle is "randomly shuffle", so I suppose you are right. It could be argued that the meaning "to move from one place to another, transfer or shift" is also a shuffle, and putting them into suits with the cards randomly within suits is still a shuffle.

[Trinidad]

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

If you post in "Changing Laws & Regulations" the proposed change is by definition illegal under the current laws. Otherwise a change wouldn't be necessary, would it?

 

In principle, I am sympathetic towards the idea of changing this rule. It saves time. However, there are practical problems, such as UI from players rearranging their hand that make it a bad idea.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

In principle, I am sympathetic towards the idea of changing this rule. It saves time.

 

Interesting. Each player sorts her hand once; how does doing it after the hand save time compared with doing it before? In fact, sorting after would probably prompt/prolong a time-wasting post mortem.

[barmar]

If you post in "Changing Laws & Regulations" the proposed change is by definition illegal under the current laws. Otherwise a change wouldn't be necessary, would it?

If you're proposaing a change to the Laws, that's true (unless you're just proposing a clarification). But this thread is about a club regulation, and blackshoe was pointing out that we should be discussing whether the regulation is legal under the Laws.

[barmar]

Interesting. Each player sorts her hand once; how does doing it after the hand save time compared with doing it before? In fact, sorting after would probably prompt/prolong a time-wasting post mortem.

Sorting after takes less time than shuffling after and sorting before. We have one player in our club who shuffles so many times before putting his cards back in the board, it sometimes seems like he takes longer than sorting his cards.

 

It also kills a second bird with one stone: It prevents UI from the order of the cards received if the previous player forgot to shuffle.

[aguahombre]

If you're proposing a change to the Laws, that's true (unless you're just proposing a clarification). But this thread is about a club regulation, and blackshoe was pointing out that we should be discussing whether the regulation is legal under the Laws.

Letting "legal under the Laws" slide for the moment, it seems Dan Plato (shared by Ed) has given us our answer. To paraprase: yes it is illegal, Chapter 4 tells us clubs should follow the rules, and the ACBL won't be interfering in this situation if we don't follow them at the club level.

 

That leaves us with not much to discuss regarding legality, but a whole lot to discuss about the pros and cons of the issue itself. The players in areas where this is being considered or implemented should speak out loudly and clearly to their powers that be. The ACBL will not be getting involved.

[Vampyr]

The ACBL will not be getting involved.

 

The ACBL has to get involved to some extent if this regulation is implemented; it will have to withdraw membership from the clubs in question -- remove them from its website, and in general not support the clubs or allow them to participate in interclub activities, issue masterponts etc.

[barmar]

Does ACBL have a stated policy that they withdraw the sanctions of clubs that violate the Law?

 

Even if they do, it seems like the response the club received essentially said "We're going to look the other way" regarding this violation. So they're not enforcing that policy in this case. It's a self-made policy, they can choose to ignore it if they want. What's someone going to do, sue them over this? On what grounds?

[jeffford76]

The ACBL has to get involved to some extent if this regulation is implemented; it will have to withdraw membership from the clubs in question -- remove them from its website, and in general not support the clubs or allow them to participate in interclub activities, issue masterponts etc.

 

Really? Why do you think they have to do this? It seems clear from the quoted email they have no intention of doing anything. The ACBL Laws Commission when asked about the robot duplicate games already said that just because something doesn't follow the laws of bridge doesn't mean that the ACBL can't issue masterpoints for it.

[Vampyr]

I don't get why the WBF allow the ACBL to regard the Laws as optional.

[mycroft]

Remember, the ACBL thinks that they are the final arbiter of the Laws in North America (for historical and copyright reasons), and they are currently willing to go along with the WBF commission to promulgate the same set of Laws that the WBF promulgates for purposes of the rest of the world.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL has to get involved to some extent if this regulation is implemented; it will have to withdraw membership from the clubs in question -- remove them from its website, and in general not support the clubs or allow them to participate in interclub activities, issue masterponts etc.

Yeah, right. Good luck with that.

[blackshoe]

Does ACBL have a stated policy that they withdraw the sanctions of clubs that violate the Law?

 

Even if they do, it seems like the response the club received essentially said "We're going to look the other way" regarding this violation. So they're not enforcing that policy in this case. It's a self-made policy, they can choose to ignore it if they want. What's someone going to do, sue them over this? On what grounds?

From the ACBL Codification:

 

2.2 ACBL management has the right to cancel a club director’s accreditation for cause upon thirty days notice to the club director. Either of the following shall constitute “cause” for cancellation of accreditation:

a) direction of a club game out of compliance with ACBL regulation

b) unsuitable club venue.

Also:

 

5.1 The ACBL grants a club game sanction on the condition that the club conduct all game sessions in full compliance with ACBL regulations. To retain a sanction the club manager must observe both the letter and the spirit of ACBL regulations.

 

You really want to be part of an organization that says "these are the rules; we will enforce them or not as we see fit"?

[barmar]

I don't get why the WBF allow the ACBL to regard the Laws as optional.

Maybe because they would be shooting themselves in the foot if they disenfranchised one of their largest members?

 

We're "too big to fail".

[Vampyr]

how many players sort their hands into suits and then rank the cards ?

 

I would be very surprised if anyone did this.

[akwoo]

 

You really want to be part of an organization that says "these are the rules; we will enforce them or not as we see fit"?

 

As long as their judgement of 'fit' is reasonable (and reasons are made public) rather than arbitrary, yes. Laws are made to serve people, not the other way around.

 

In my club there is a legally blind (but not completely blind) regular. It takes her about 2 minutes to sort her cards. When she is playing it makes sense for her to receive cards sorted, and, especially at Howell movements where almost no one knows who is playing the board next, it makes much more sense to go to all-sort rather than just sorting for her.

 

(As I've stated before, anything resembling strict enforcement of rules would mean no bridge within 80 miles of me.)

[barmar]

In my club there is a legally blind (but not completely blind) regular. It takes her about 2 minutes to sort her cards. When she is playing it makes sense for her to receive cards sorted, and, especially at Howell movements where almost no one knows who is playing the board next, it makes much more sense to go to all-sort rather than just sorting for her.

There's practically universal understanding that adjustments should be made for exceptional situations. So just as we already relax the "must shuffle" rule when you're passing your cards to the infirm player, surely we would relax the "must sort" rule when the infirm player is passing their cards (although someone else at the table could sort her cards for her after the hand is over).

[blackshoe]

As long as their judgement of 'fit' is reasonable (and reasons are made public) rather than arbitrary, yes.

Won't happen.

 

Laws are made to serve people, not the other way around.

In the broad general sense laws are (or should be) made to protect individual rights and otherwise to allow people to live as they wish. In a game, the rules, whatever you call them, are made to ensure every player is treated fairly, and all know what the rules are — which can't happen if the rules are malleable according to the whim of some small group.

[akwoo]

In the broad general sense laws are (or should be) made to protect individual rights and otherwise to allow people to live as they wish. In a game, the rules, whatever you call them, are made to ensure every player is treated fairly, and all know what the rules are — which can't happen if the rules are malleable according to the whim of some small group.

 

We just have very different political philosophies.

 

In my view, laws are meant to be a written summary and record of a societal consensus on the appropriate collective action to take in specified situations. (And, with an appropriate notion of 'society' - this applies to both laws and rules.)

[nige1]

In the broad general sense laws are (or should be) made to protect individual rights and otherwise to allow people to live as they wish. In a game, the rules, whatever you call them, are made to ensure every player is treated fairly, and all know what the rules are — which can't happen if the rules are malleable according to the whim of some small group.

We just have very different political philosophies. In my view, laws are meant to be a written summary and record of a societal consensus on the appropriate collective action to take in specified situations. (And, with an appropriate notion of 'society' - this applies to both laws and rules.)

IMO those are Utopian views. In practice, laws seem to be written by and for lawyers.