[Trinidad]

iviehoff, on 2013-November-05, 10:35, said:

This is not a necessary condition. I've come across a few cases of a player having lifted up a hand with a card with a different coloured back - and in such cases it is not necessarily the case that there is a 53 card deck.

I've seen that too from time to time: a board where a card was missing and a card from a different deck added to it.

I don't think that the TDs of those games have the ambition to improve their TD skills by visiting these forums...

Rik

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2013-November-05, 09:44, said:

This calculation doesn't correspond with the observation from experience that we are almost always dealing with a 12-13-13-14 case and practically never with a 13-13-13-14 case. The reason is that we also need to accomodate for the respective probabilities that a card changes hands from one player to another and the probability that a card is moved from one deck to another.
Rik

I agree that by far the most common at the start of the hand is 12-13-13-14, and the TD often has to find someone who has played the board at our club to rectify the error, and he or she rarely fines the culprits. However, those are usually identified (the wrong hands, not the culprits) either by counting or by looking at the hand. Surely one or other player would notice that they have an unusual distribution? In this example, dummy had 14 cards, and if someone else had 12, it seems that they bid the hand that way, as I have not seen a card move from one hand to another during the auction. I guess it depends on the ability of the players; one of my students once passed a 15-count as she was 3-3-3-3 and outside her no-trump range (12-14), and she did not think she could open a 3-card suit.

If, for all deals arriving at the table, 12-13-13-14 is 10 times more likely than 13-13-13-14 (which I can well believe), and a player is 90% to notice an incorrect number of cards when counting or viewing them, then the chance of 13-13-13-14 after the auction is the same as that of 12-13-13-14, I think.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2013-November-05, 19:51, said:

If, for all deals arriving at the table, 12-13-13-14 is 10 times more likely than 13-13-13-14 (which I can well believe), and a player is 90% to notice an incorrect number of cards when counting or viewing them, then the chance of 13-13-13-14 after the auction is the same as that of 12-13-13-14, I think.

That's correct (if the probability that player A will count his cards is not correlated to the probability that player B will count his cards).

However, I would guess that the ratio of the likelihoods for a 12-13-13-14 and a 13-13-13-14 arriving at the table is far greater than 10. But I obviously don't have any data to back that up. (I can come up with funky theories, though, but that would be more suited for the water cooler. )

Rik

[mycroft]

From experience, the probability that Player A will not count her cards is correlated quite strongly with the probabililty that Player B will not count her cards - provided Player B is Player A's partner. Not corr. ~ 1.0, but nowhere near 0 either.

[blackshoe]

There may be something to this. I always count my cards; so does my regular partner. I always call for cards from dummy by naming the denomination and rank of the card; so does my regular partner. I can't say whether I've influenced her to always count her cards, but I know that I've influenced her in how she calls for cards from dummy, because she used to use the same terms most people still do: low, high, "spade", whatever.

[McBruce]

Trinidad, on 2013-November-05, 09:44, said:

(Good TDs make sure that two subsequent boards will not have the same color for the backs of the cards.)

I do preduplicating at many large ACBL tournaments. The same boards come back to me several times over the course of the week. Because almost all tournaments end with a Swiss teams, at the start of every tournament I have the same problem, one that returns whenever there is a Swiss teams during the week. I do whatever I can to ensure that no two consecutive boards will have the same card backs and in fact try to make groups of three have different colours. But when the players themselves pull out the cards to shuffle, for Swiss Teams (which as noted is almost always shuffle and play in the ACBL) usually all four players work on the process at once, pulling out cards from a board, shuffling and dealing, then looking about for an empty board to place the cards in...which quite often is NOT the board they pulled those cards from. The result is that after a pair game, when I get the boards back, I can be fairly confident that the cards will be different colours in each group of three boards. When I get a set and boards 1-12 have backs of blue, blue, blue, black, black, green, green, red, red, green, red, black -- it is clear that a Swiss teams has happened somewhere...

[blackshoe]

When I'm shuffling for a Swiss, I do try to remember to make sure the boards have alternating back colors, particularly when I'm north. I don't always succeed though. Particularly when we arrive at the table and "we've already made the boards."

[pran]

McBruce, on 2013-December-27, 16:40, said:

I do preduplicating at many large ACBL tournaments. The same boards come back to me several times over the course of the week. Because almost all tournaments end with a Swiss teams, at the start of every tournament I have the same problem, one that returns whenever there is a Swiss teams during the week. I do whatever I can to ensure that no two consecutive boards will have the same card backs and in fact try to make groups of three have different colours. But when the players themselves pull out the cards to shuffle, for Swiss Teams (which as noted is almost always shuffle and play in the ACBL) usually all four players work on the process at once, pulling out cards from a board, shuffling and dealing, then looking about for an empty board to place the cards in...which quite often is NOT the board they pulled those cards from. The result is that after a pair game, when I get the boards back, I can be fairly confident that the cards will be different colours in each group of three boards. When I get a set and boards 1-12 have backs of blue, blue, blue, black, black, green, green, red, red, green, red, black -- it is clear that a Swiss teams has happened somewhere...

Quite interesting information, but for a different reason: What is the expected life of your card packs?

I have been supplying machine-dealt boards since 1990 with the same boards being re-dealt and used about 50 times a year. We have an absolute rule that my customers may never shuffle and deal boards manually. My experience is that I shall have to replace boards after some 20 to 25 years, and I believe other suppliers of machine dealt boards have similar experiences.

Compare that to the expected life of cards in clubs where they shuffle and deal cards manually for each event, they typically have to replace their cards each year or so.

So whatever event, Swiss or otherwise, my customers receive and use machine-dealt boards for the complete events. In the long run that pays off for everybody.

[barmar]

McBruce, on 2013-December-27, 16:40, said:

But when the players themselves pull out the cards to shuffle, for Swiss Teams (which as noted is almost always shuffle and play in the ACBL) usually all four players work on the process at once, pulling out cards from a board, shuffling and dealing, then looking about for an empty board to place the cards in...which quite often is NOT the board they pulled those cards from.

In my experience, they put them back in the board right in front of them, which is usually the one they took them out of.

However, there are some of us who intentionally swap boards while this is going on. We try to arrange for the last board to be dealt to have the lowest number, so they can simply slide the cards to the players, or deal them directly to the players, instead of putting them in the board just to have them immediately removed. I admit is technically illegal. Try and stop me.

[blackshoe]

According to the folks responsible for our duplimate machine here, "we are lucky to get three years" out of a deck of cards. At our games, food of some kind is available throughout the game, so that may be the difference.

[hautbois]

What is the argument for low variation on card backings. Why aren't there unique backings for each of the 36 decks in a set of boards? Is there some fear that if the backings aren't the one style of league branded cards the decks might be stolen or replaced with marked cards?

Take it further and there's a marketing opportunity for sponsors to donate cards.

[pran]

hautbois, on 2013-December-28, 13:18, said:

What is the argument for low variation on card backings. Why aren't there unique backings for each of the 36 decks in a set of boards? Is there some fear that if the backings aren't the one style of league branded cards the decks might be stolen or replaced with marked cards?

Take it further and there's a marketing opportunity for sponsors to donate cards.

It does occationally happen that a single card in a pack becomes destroyed or lost and must be replaced.

First time this happens you end up with 51 spare cards available for future replacement needs, thereafter you have spare cards available for a long time to come.

Oops! Did you say 36 different back sides? Sorry mate, then you will have to keep track of some 1800 spare cards. Forget it, just trow the incomplete pack in the bin and buy a new complete pack of cards.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-December-28, 12:44, said:

According to the folks responsible for our duplimate machine here, "we are lucky to get three years" out of a deck of cards. At our games, food of some kind is available throughout the game, so that may be the difference.

WOW! (Manual shuffling is what really wears on the cards. Number two cause is soaking the cards with coffee, beer etc.)

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2013-December-28, 13:57, said:

WOW! (Manual shuffling is what really wears on the cards. Number two cause is soaking the cards with coffee, beer etc.)

Apparently we're doing something wrong. Wish I knew what it was. <shrug>

[aguahombre]

We should get the Duplimate package complete with the open-up boards for the cards. In 67 years, we will have paid for it by not purchasing new decks.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-December-27, 16:57, said:

Particularly when we arrive at the table and "we've already made the boards."

I had this experience once or twice while playing at the Nationals last summer. However, I always made the boards again.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-December-27, 16:57, said:

Particularly when we arrive at the table and "we've already made the boards."

Vampyr, on 2013-December-29, 04:01, said:

I had this experience once or twice while playing at the Nationals last summer. However, I always made the boards again.

And Your attitude is fully justified:

Law 6C said:

A member of each side should be present during the shuffle and deal unless the Director instructs otherwise.

True, this Law says "should", but then we have

Law 6D1 said:

1.If it is ascertained before the auction first begins on a board that the cards have been incorrectly dealt or that during the shuffle and deal a player could have seen the face of a card belonging to another player there shall be a new shuffle and deal. [...]

and there can be no doubt that unless a member of each side was present during the shuffle and deal a player could have seen the face of a card belonging to another player !

[barmar]

hautbois, on 2013-December-28, 13:18, said:

What is the argument for low variation on card backings. Why aren't there unique backings for each of the 36 decks in a set of boards?

Card manufacturers weren't willing to shell out for the Deluxe Crayola set.

[mycroft]

In the ACBL, that should is more strong, by regulation: "Unless instructed otherwise by a tournament director, a member of each side must be present and seated before cards are removed from a board." General Conditions of Contest for All Events, PLAY, 9.

That doesn't stop our teams players from being "helpful" and shuffling while they're waiting for the teams playing there the next round - leaving a card of some sort saying "Shuffled". Which has led to "helpful" things like a 4-board (out of 9) match, when the boards had been placed on a chair by the team there round 7, and a scoreslip had fallen on it, upsidedown, that read "Shuffled". "We didn't do it, it's not our fault!" "You're right, you didn't do it. That's what makes it your fault. But since neither side shuffled the hands, I'm just throwing them out. I could, of course, fine both sides 3 IMPs/board that was unplayable, but that seems excessive."

Between that, and the boxed cards, and the "we disagree on how many tricks were taken. Of course, the board's been shuffled, so we can no longer check." and the "why aren't they shuffled" at our (stationary) table, I am *so happy* about this local practise.

[GreenMan]

mycroft, on 2013-December-30, 15:46, said:

In the ACBL, that should is more strong, by regulation: "Unless instructed otherwise by a tournament director, a member of each side must be present and seated before cards are removed from a board." General Conditions of Contest for All Events, PLAY, 9.

Hmm, I had forgotten that was there. In a Swiss I sometimes pull cards out and start shuffling while I'm waiting for the opps to arrive, but I don't start dealing until they do. (I also turn a card in each board as soon as I get to the table.) Now I see I've been doing it wrong.