[gwnn]

lamford, on 2012-August-22, 16:18, said:

Quite small; around 10 hands only. It was tedious and unenjoyable. But I have performed similar (much larger) tests on recorded shoes simulating blackjack in casinos, and do know that the information gleaned from a shuffle is significant. I would estimate that the information is worth about 2 IMPs a board in bridge, but that is a pure guess.

With 2 IMP's/board you could make almost any team of 6 people able to solve BM2000 level 3 to win the Bermuda Bowl. And all this because on some hands (say, 25%) they know to some degree of confidence (say 50%) what the trump suit was in the previous table (OK and some tiny hints about the play to much smaller degrees of confidence)?

[gwnn]

I think even knowing to 100% degree of confidence the cobtract and result from the other table would be a largely useless piece of information (as long as you do not know the opening lead, for instance).

[barmar]

Knowing the contract at the other table is only helpful if you would not have gotten to the same contract on your own, and if the other table was actually in the best contract.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2012-August-29, 12:20, said:

Knowing the contract at the other table is only helpful if you would not have gotten to the same contract on your own, and if the other table was actually in the best contract.

Would you care to play a match where I know the contract at the other table but you don't? You can choose the stake.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2012-August-22, 00:41, said:

If off-topic nitpicking is allowed, can I point out that it was a simile or possibly an analogy, but definitely not a metaphor?

I think it's just a saying.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2012-August-29, 17:17, said:

Would you care to play a match where I know the contract at the other table but you don't? You can choose the stake.

No, but I still think 2 IMPs/board is a significant overestimate.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2012-August-30, 03:18, said:

No, but I still think 2 IMPs/board is a significant overestimate.

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.
b) The cards were probably shuffled quickly at the other table, as I would have expected the trumps to have been played earlier than that.
c) The club king and ace are separated. They might have been shuffled apart, but more likely they were not played on consecutive tricks. They probably were not trumps. Alternatively clubs were led, and we won with one of those, and the other was played later.
d) the spade 8 probably ruffed something, which is why it is not next to its other colleagues.
e) If partner has the ♦A, then the diamond finesse is probably right, as the ♦ Q was followed by the J.
f) based on the above I would bid a 25% slam and expect to make it.

In all those cases, the possibility is that the cards were shuffled to that sequence. But that will occur much less often than two or three cards having been played in that order before.

Perhaps, I can spot you 2 IMPs per board, only on those boards which are played first at the other table. We choose our partners. My compass-mate's cards are shuffled just into three parts and interchanged. Yours are put into a machine. £10 an IMP at TGRs?

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2012-August-26, 02:07, said:

I don't. I think that the number of such people is tiny.

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?

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2012-August-30, 18:53, said:

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 think it would be quite noticeable if a player took a few seconds looking at their hand before starting to sort it. I would suggest most players start to sort before getting sight of the whole hand, and that they start on that a fraction of a second after turning their cards towards them. In that context, a few seconds looking at the whole hand would be a conspicuously long time.

[iviehoff]

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.

[gordontd]

iviehoff, on 2012-August-31, 04:48, said:

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]

iviehoff, on 2012-August-31, 04:48, said:

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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]

Vampyr, on 2012-August-31, 05:14, said:

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]

iviehoff, on 2012-August-31, 08:03, said:

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]

lamford, on 2012-August-30, 03:42, said:

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]

iviehoff, on 2012-August-31, 08:03, said:

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]

Vampyr, on 2012-August-31, 18:28, said:

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]

lamford, on 2012-August-30, 18:53, said:

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]

barmar, on 2012-September-01, 12:42, said:

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]

barmar, on 2012-September-01, 12:42, said:

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.)