[Vampyr]

mrdct, on 2011-July-20, 04:45, said:

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]

bluejak, on 2011-July-20, 10:28, said:

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]

bluejak, on 2011-July-20, 10:28, said:

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]

mjj29, on 2011-July-20, 13:21, said:

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.

blackshoe, on 2011-July-20, 13:22, said:

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]

bluejak, on 2011-July-20, 17:37, said:

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.

[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]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-20, 10:57, said:

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]

bluejak, on 2011-July-20, 17:37, said:

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]

mjj29, on 2011-July-21, 02:39, said:

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]

gordontd, on 2011-July-21, 03:14, said:

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.

[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?

blackshoe, on 2011-July-20, 17:53, said:

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.

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.

mrdct, on 2011-July-20, 20:48, said:

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]

aguahombre, on 2011-July-19, 23:26, said:

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]

nige1, on 2011-July-21, 08:23, said:

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]

nige1, on 2011-July-21, 08:23, said:

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]

gordontd, on 2011-July-21, 09:55, said:

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]

nige1, on 2011-July-21, 10:53, said:

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]

nige1, on 2011-July-21, 10:53, said:

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]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-21, 11:24, said:

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)