[barmar]

 TimG, on 2012-August-12, 06:45, said:

In these cases, haven't you given considerable thought to which way you will finesse before you led the suit to begin with? It's not typical to lead a suit in which you have a two-way finesse and then stop to count things and consider the combination only after one defender has followed, one thinks before leading the suit. I think declarer should generally know what they will do if an opponent follows low (or with a meaningful spot). This doesn't mean declarer can't take an additional moment to consider a pause or hitch or whatever from an opponent, or to count once again just to make sure. But, I don't think declarer should be in need of "tank time" after leading the suit and seeing one defender's card.

if you're hoping that "table feel" will guide you, you may have to wait until after leading.

[FrancesHinden]

 TimG, on 2012-August-12, 06:45, said:

In these cases, haven't you given considerable thought to which way you will finesse before you led the suit to begin with? It's not typical to lead a suit in which you have a two-way finesse and then stop to count things and consider the combination only after one defender has followed, one thinks before leading the suit. I think declarer should generally know what they will do if an opponent follows low (or with a meaningful spot). This doesn't mean declarer can't take an additional moment to consider a pause or hitch or whatever from an opponent, or to count once again just to make sure. But, I don't think declarer should be in need of "tank time" after leading the suit and seeing one defender's card.

Specifically for a two-way finesse you might be right, but it's quite common for me to stop and think after the first two cards have been played to a trick.
Typically a position is something like

KJ10x opposite A98xx

and I have extra information from the bidding/play to date that makes me think hard about playing RHO for Qxx. I won't make that decision until after I've cashed the king, led the jack and RHO has played low because there's a reasonable chance that either the queen has appeared by then or RHO has shown out. There's no point taking a long time over a decision that you might not need to make.

[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2012-August-08, 03:03, said:

I'm beginning to wonder if it's L90 we should be using.

I'm beginning to wonder if no law is actually broken. It is easy for someone to prevent the opponent seeing the hand being sorted, for example by doing so below the level of the table. Perhaps it is just good practice to sort your hand in a way that the opponent can get no information.

And I cannot see how one can conclude anything if the person sorting selects a random card and places it in the correct position in relation to the other cards. All that the viewer can glean is that the seventh card was selected and was placed in the fourth place. If someone foolishly starts with spades and concludes with clubs, they are just making a mistake, and this is correctly punished. There is no need for laws to protect these hapless individuals.

[lamford]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-August-08, 15:20, said:

This means that you get many people taking their cards from the board, looking at them, and then moving a number of cards equal to their number of aces.

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.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2012-August-15, 19:48, said:

There is no need for laws to protect these hapless individuals.

Are you seriously suggesting blaming the victim? Was he "asking for it" by sorting his hand in such an easy-to-read manner?

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2012-August-15, 19:48, said:

I'm beginning to wonder if no law is actually broken.

Why do you think 74C5 isn't being broken?

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-16, 01:22, said:

Why do you think 74C5 isn't being broken?

Which of the following do you think the action might be (my extra punctuation)?
a) looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or
b) at another player’s hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards, or
c) of observing the place from which he draws a card.

Note that it does not say "for example", here. In my opinion, a) refers to the player himself or herself, b) refers to the faces of the cards and c) can only apply to the play as "drawing" a card is not part of the sorting process. Do you think differently? And in the case of a), I don't think changing it to read "during the hand" would matter much.

[gordontd]

 lamford, on 2012-August-16, 02:48, said:

c) can only apply to the play as "drawing" a card is not part of the sorting process.

I wondered in #36 above if it might be.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2012-August-15, 22:51, said:

Are you seriously suggesting blaming the victim? Was he "asking for it" by sorting his hand in such an easy-to-read manner?

Actually, it is pretty difficult to convey information to an opponent by sorting your hand normally, so, yes. But why not have screens which players can "hide" their hands behind, and that will make it harder for them to show their cards to people, a much greater problem? And while we are protecting the weak, we can remove the revoke penalty and make insufficient bids correctable free of charge ...

[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2012-August-16, 04:17, said:

I wondered in #36 above if it might be.

But even if "drawing" is part of the sorting process, it is the replacement of the card after drawing that conveys information, not the drawing. The card might have started anywhere, assuming the cards have been shuffled.

[gordontd]

 lamford, on 2012-August-16, 04:17, said:

Actually, it is pretty difficult to convey information to an opponent by sorting your hand normally,

I used to play bridge with a former military cryptologist, who said that he had to avoid looking at me while I sorted my hand because he could tell too much about it from my sorting. I think I sort fairly normally.

[billw55]

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.

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2012-August-16, 02:48, said:

Which of the following do you think the action might be (my extra punctuation)?
a) looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or
b) at another player's hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards, or
c) of observing the place from which he draws a card.

Note that it does not say "for example", here. In my opinion, a) refers to the player himself or herself, b) refers to the faces of the cards and c) can only apply to the play as "drawing" a card is not part of the sorting process. Do you think differently? And in the case of a), I don't think changing it to read "during the hand" would matter much.

As I said in post #37, "as for" means that what follows is an example or examples. If what followed were definitive, it would simply be "for".

The law that is being broken is "looking ... at another player's hand ... for the purpose [for example] of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card."

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-August-16, 07:35

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-16, 07:32, said:

The law that is being broken is "looking ... at another player's hand ... for the purpose [for example] of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card."

the last part does not have "as for the purpose" in, and his purpose is not observing the place from which the player draws the card (that is of no relevance and is merely an indication of where the card alighted in a random shuffle). His purpose is of "observing the place in which the player replaces the card". I bow to gordontd's greater experience of such things, as I cannot see how one can get any meaningful information except perhaps from the number of cards partner moves. If no card is moved, that must increase the chance of the hand having been passed out, but a breach of 7C will probably have occurred.

[aguahombre]

I don't think Andy and Lamford's debate can have any value until they address the Law, which Andy insists (and I hope correctly, but don't know) only gives examples of purposes for looking at the opponent's hand. What Lamford is posting does not seem to agree with that contention, but rather ignores Andy's assertion.

[lamford]

 aguahombre, on 2012-August-16, 19:25, said:

I don't think Andy and Lamford's debate can have any value until they address the Law, which Andy insists (and I hope correctly, but don't know) only gives examples of purposes for looking at the opponent's hand. What Lamford is posting does not seem to agree with that contention, but rather ignores Andy's assertion.

I agree I did not address Andy's assertion correctly. Firstly I cannot find any definition of "as for the purpose" indicating that what follows is by way of example. If it said "such as for the purpose" I think Andy would be correct. But, in any case, the purpose needs to be similar to that intended by the clause which would seem to be to prevent, for example, one deciding that the opponent is more likely to have QJ doubleton than stiff J, because the card selected was the antepenultimate in one direction. The purpose of "seeing his cards" must relate to the fronts of the cards, not the backs, and the place where he draws a card must refer to the play period not the sorting. But even if we accept that it includes the sorting period - a big stretch - we then have to say that any purpose is illegal if we are to punish the person for observing where the player replaces the card when sorting. That is not "drawing a card". We might otherwise say that seeing how an opponent holds his cards, his fanning of the cards, and the number of fingers that show how many hearts he has are all unauthorised ....

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2012-August-16, 19:41, said:

Firstly I cannot find any definition of "as for the purpose" indicating that what follows is by way of example.

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

"19. Introducing instances exemplifying or illustrating a general designation: like and including, such as, of the kind of; for instance, for example. Also occas. in specifying use: namely, to wit. Now chiefly elliptical for such as."

The examples include:
"I pluck'd aboue Five different Sorts..as Wild-Time, Lavender."
"A surface generated by the revolution of any closed plane curve, as a circle or ellipse, about an axis outside its boundary."

There are other instances of this usage in the Laws, for example:
"When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by ..."
"A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by ..."
"But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick."

I agree that this usage isn't particularly common, and it would be better if the Laws were worded differently, but it's no surprise to find the Laws using language that verges on the archaic.

[RunemPard]

I keep my hands under the table at most times at our club...just in case I got a peeping tom...

Mostly during play, but sometimes during sorting.

[barmar]

One of my partners recently mentioned that the way I count my cards at the beginning of a deal sometimes exposes the corners, if I do it above the table with the cards at an angle (my counting style is to hold the cards face down in my left hand, with my right hand just to the right of it, and use my left thumb to repeatedly slide a card from the left to the right). Since then I've tried to hold my cards below the table when I'm doing this, and also when sorting.

[Mbodell]

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

I keep my hands under the table at most times at our club...just in case I got a peeping tom...

Mostly during play, but sometimes during sorting.

I do that too. Partly because I count the cards first without looking at the faces and it is not at all uncommon for me to then discover a faced card in my hand by whoever played the cards before me. So if my count is below the table and so is my hand for most of the play, it makes sense to sort there too.