[1eyedjack]

I know it does not address the question regarding the legal rights or wrongs, or even proprietory rights and wrongs, but speaking personally as a player, I would have no objection to an opponent watching me sort my hand and derive whatever benefit he perceives. I am pretty confident that the perceived benefit will be greater than the actual benefit, and in the meantime he is using up a limited supply of mental resources which might be better devoted to other areas of his game, from which diversion I hope to gain.

[Mbodell]

 1eyedjack, on 2012-August-19, 02:28, said:

I know it does not address the question regarding the legal rights or wrongs, or even proprietory rights and wrongs, but speaking personally as a player, I would have no objection to an opponent watching me sort my hand and derive whatever benefit he perceives. I am pretty confident that the perceived benefit will be greater than the actual benefit, and in the meantime he is using up a limited supply of mental resources which might be better devoted to other areas of his game, from which diversion I hope to gain.

I've heard stories in team games (I don't know how apocryphal) that some teams have tried to cheat by passing information to partners by how sorted the hand is, so a player might watch so that if you don't move any cards to sort one message is passed, if you only move 1 or 2 cards, another message is passed, and if you move a lot of cards yet another message is passed. Off course this concern is thwarted if you either sort out of site or shuffle your hand before looking at it.

[TimG]

I paid some attention to how I sort my hand over the past weekend. I found that when I move more than one card, the cards are often of two different suits. I would expect it to be rather difficult to get distributional information in this case.

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-17, 01:01, said:

This is one of the definitions of "as" from the OED (the big one):

I don't think the definitions of "as" are that helpful in deciding the meaning of "as for", and I think "as by" is very different. The last sounds like an example is being given, but the first does not (although I could not find a definition of the latter which indicated that what followed was a mere example). And this is confirmed by looking up a range of definitions of "as for" which, while not precluding the commencement of examples, does not indicate that from the words themselves.

That does not mean that a TD or AC could not decide that the Laws intend to just give examples at that stage, but I do not think the wording indicates that what follows are merely examples.

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2012-August-20, 16:26, said:

I don't think the definitions of "as" are that helpful in deciding the meaning of "as for", and I think "as by" is very different. The last sounds like an example is being given, but the first does not (although I could not find a definition of the latter which indicated that what followed was a mere example). And this is confirmed by looking up a range of definitions of "as for" which, while not precluding the commencement of examples, does not indicate that from the words themselves.

That does not mean that a TD or AC could not decide that the Laws intend to just give examples at that stage, but I do not think the wording indicates that what follows are merely examples.

The "for" in "as for the purpose of" belongs to "the purpose of", not to the "as". If it read "as in order to", would you be arguing that we should be looking up meanings for "as in"?

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-20, 17:02, said:

The "for" in "as for the purpose of" belongs to "the purpose of", not to the "as". If it read "as in order to", would you be arguing that we should be looking up meanings for "as in"?

Ideally I would try to find a definition for as many consecutive words as possible, without taking them out of context. What we are trying to decide is whether "as for the purpose of" means "as, for example, the purpose of". I am arguing that the fact that "as" is often used to introduce a list of examples does not mean that "as for" means that what follows are examples, nor, for that matter, that "as for the purpose of" means that what follows is just an example. It could be, but that is not implicit in the wording.

[barmar]

"as for" is not a phrase with a definition of its own -- it's not a well known idiom, AFAIK. So the longest consecutive string of words with a definition is just "as", and it's just short for "such as", which is commonly used to introduce a non-exhaustive list of examples.

I agree that it's an uncommon way to phrase it, but I think the meaning is pretty clear. If they didn't intend to be giving just examples, they could have just written "for the purpose of" without the "as" qualifier. It would have been perfectly grammatical, and then clearly definitive.

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2012-August-20, 17:08, said:

Ideally I would try to find a definition for as many consecutive words as possible, without taking them out of context.

"For the purpose of" is a sequence of four words. By your test, isn't it better to find definitions for "as" and "for the purpose of", than "as for" and "the purpose of"? In a well designed game, a 4 and a 1 should score more than a 3 and a 2.

Anyway, here's a rather better test: Find a meaning of "as for" that you like. Then replace "as for" in the relevant law with that definition. Then see if it makes sense. Good luck with that.

If, instead, we define "as" to mean "for example", we get "looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or at another player's hand for example for the purpose of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card", which makes perfect sense, or would do if the WBFLC weren't so mean with their commas.

I don't understand why we're having this discussion. The intended meaning really is obvious if you read it carefully.

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-21, 00:31, said:

I don't understand why we're having this discussion. The intended meaning really is obvious if you read it carefully.

I agree that the intended meaning is to give examples. But the intended meaning is also to be "looking at the opponent's hand during the play". I would surmise that the "sorting period" wasn't considered. If it had been the Laws would have made that clear by saying "at any time", rather than "during the auction and play". Otherwise the players just leave their cards in the slot until both opponents have sorted their cards, and then take them out. Prior to that the auction period had not started for them, and their actions are legal.

And I still cannot see how one can get any advantage by seeing from where the opponent takes a card, nor where the opponent replaces it, during the sorting period.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2012-August-21, 02:06, said:

And I still cannot see how one can get any advantage by seeing from where the opponent takes a card, nor where the opponent replaces it, during the sorting period.

Didn't several people give examples when I expressed the same disbelief early in the thread?

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2012-August-21, 08:52, said:

Didn't several people give examples when I expressed the same disbelief early in the thread?

And, as I say, I still cannot see any advantage after reading those. Take the one from semeai about swapping two suits. It would seem just as likely that the person happened to have sorted BBRR or RRBB and chose to swap suits. I looked at a few opponents, when watching a round at Brighton, and I did not see any swapping of suits, or gathering of a large number of cards with a long suit. So, I express the same disbelief as you, and wonder if gordontd knows how his erstwhile partner could tell.

[Vampyr]

 lamford, on 2012-August-15, 19:53, said:

Only on the first occasion the hand is played in that session, and only then if the organiser is negligent in not shuffling the hand after the hopper has dealt it.

Really, who at the EBU has time to shuffle the hundreds of boards used at the Brighton Congress? Anyway, if you want to be super-safe in this position, count your cards onto the table, as I do; this way the cards are never in the order you got them.

 billw55, on 2012-August-16, 06:52, said:

If four color cards were standard, it would much easier to play without sorting (or with more minimal / less revealing sorting). I wish that was the case.

Real four-colour cards would be very hard to get used to; but in the EBU it is standard to use four-colour-ish cards, which might help (a bit) those who would rather not sort.

[Vampyr]

 lamford, on 2012-August-21, 10:32, said:

And, as I say, I still cannot see any advantage after reading those. Take the one from semeai about swapping two suits. It would seem just as likely that the person happened to have sorted BBRR or RRBB and chose to swap suits. I looked at a few opponents, when watching a round at Brighton, and I did not see any swapping of suits, or gathering of a large number of cards with a long suit. So, I express the same disbelief as you, and wonder if gordontd knows how his erstwhile partner could tell.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[lamford]

 Vampyr, on 2012-August-21, 13:21, said:

Anyway, if you want to be super-safe in this position, count your cards onto the table, as I do; this way the cards are never in the order you got them.

All one needs to do then is mentally to reverse the order to gain significant information. Now AS QS rather than QS AS is the telltale tenace, as SB might have called it.

[Vampyr]

 lamford, on 2012-August-21, 17:41, said:

All one needs to do then is mentally to reverse the order to gain significant information. Now AS QS rather than QS AS is the telltale tenace, as SB might have called it.

It's not as if the cards are directly reversed. Of course you could, if you wanted to spend the effort, reconstruct the original pattern. Should you? I don't know. I was mainly talking about moving the aces in a hand direct from the dealing machine.

[bluejak]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-08, 07:33, said:

True, it would be reasonable to produce one whenever there is sufficient reason. Wouldn't you prefer a new law-book to an old law-book plus five years' WBFLC minutes?

No, certainly not.

While I do not say the L&EC has been wrong to update its Orange book and White book annually, it certainly has caused a lot of trouble amongst TDs and clubs. If you ask for a ruling from either book I would estimate the chance of the ruling being given from the current edition as considerably less than 30%.

It would be far worse with the Law book. In practice, ruling from an Orange or White book a couple of years out of date is rarely likely to matter, but a Law book is considerably more likely to matter.

 barmar, on 2012-August-08, 08:28, said:

I'm confused by this whole issue. How much information can one get just from watching the sorting? When I first read it, I assumed it was just a prelude to watching where they pull their cards from, which is prohibited.

The fact that you cannot see how to gain from it is surely irrelevant. If some people can then there is a problem if such people are doing it.

 Zelandakh, on 2012-August-09, 03:41, said:

If I played under those conditions I would lightly shuffle my hand before sorting.

Excellent. But most people do not, so should we not consider most people?

 lamford, on 2012-August-21, 02:06, said:

And I still cannot see how one can get any advantage by seeing from where the opponent takes a card, nor where the opponent replaces it, during the sorting period.

Same answer as above, the fact that you cannot is irrelevant: if some people can, then we have a problem.

[barmar]

 bluejak, on 2012-August-22, 09:39, said:

Same answer as above, the fact that you cannot is irrelevant: if some people can, then we have a problem.

I think you're misunderstanding the phrase "I cannot see how X". It doesn't mean "I can't X", it means "I don't believe anyone can X". In other words, we're disputing the claim that "some people can"; if we're right, then we don't have a problem.

Of course, we could be wrong. But just because someone claims he does it, it doesn't mean he actually does so successfully. People boast about all sorts of things, and sometimes they're deluding themselves.

[StevenG]

 bluejak, on 2012-August-22, 09:39, said:

While I do not say the L&EC has been wrong to update its Orange book and White book annually, it certainly has caused a lot of trouble amongst TDs and clubs. If you ask for a ruling from either book I would estimate the chance of the ruling being given from the current edition as considerably less than 30%.

It would be far worse with the Law book. In practice, ruling from an Orange or White book a couple of years out of date is rarely likely to matter, but a Law book is considerably more likely to matter.

But if TDs are expected to give weight to WBFLC minutes when ruling, then surely an updated law book would disseminate to club level much more quickly.

[semeai]

 barmar, on 2012-August-22, 19:10, said:

I think you're misunderstanding the phrase "I cannot see how X". It doesn't mean "I can't X", it means "I don't believe anyone can X". In other words, we're disputing the claim that "some people can"; if we're right, then we don't have a problem.

Of course, we could be wrong. But just because someone claims he does it, it doesn't mean he actually does so successfully. People boast about all sorts of things, and sometimes they're deluding themselves.

I gave some examples of how one could gain by looking at hand sorting. Frances gave another. Do you think those examples aren't something someone could possibly take advantage of?

Frances's example seems particularly clear cut as something that would be very easy to notice.

I wouldn't try to notice any of these personally, and I'm sure some who think they are are deluded, but it does definitely seem possible to gain by watching an opponent sort, at least if that opponent is not particularly careful.

[blackshoe]

You are not supposed to look "intently" at what other players are doing. It seems to me that in order to get any info from how an opponent is sorting, you have to look "intently". So if you may have gained from what you've seen, you've committed an infraction.