Leading to tricks after the first

[blackshoe]

The law is not specific about leading to a trick after the first when one or more players have not quitted the previous trick. Law 44G says "The lead to the next trick is from the hand in which the last trick was won". I would add "This lead should (shall?) not be made until all four players have quitted the last trick (see Laws 45G, 65A, and 66A)". Comments?

 

For reference:

 

Law 45G: "No player should turn his card face down until all four players have played to the trick."

Law 65A: "When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table."

Law 66A: "So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced."

[bluejak]

It would certainly help if it was specific. While currently I am sure it is being interpreted sensibly, relevant wording would be better.

[gnasher]

Sounds good. Then I could go back to looking irritated when people do it to me.

[AlexJonson]

I would think it was enough to mirror your quote from 65A and miss out shall or should.

 

In my own experience, players lead to the next trick prematurely because they haven't noticed there is a card unturned.

[pran]

I would think it was enough to mirror your quote from 65A and miss out shall or should.

 

In my own experience, players lead to the next trick prematurely because they haven't noticed there is a card unturned.

And what problem does that cause?

 

"If it ain't broke then don't fix it"

[AlexJonson]

And what problem does that cause?

 

"If it ain't broke then don't fix it"

 

Interesting if unoriginal comment, but evidently misdirected to me in the context.

[Vampyr]

Sounds good. Then I could go back to looking irritated when people do it to me.

 

Don't just look irritated. Pretend you didn't notice the lead, then ask for another look at the trick that you are still on. Next, wake up to the fact that there are 5 cards exposed at once, and call the director over to sort it out. What fun! This player might think twice before trying this with you again.

[bluejak]

I think I shall try that. :)

[Cascade]

Don't just look irritated. Pretend you didn't notice the lead, then ask for another look at the trick that you are still on. Next, wake up to the fact that there are 5 cards exposed at once, and call the director over to sort it out. What fun! This player might think twice before trying this with you again.

 

I think this is being deliberately disruptive. I would imagine that it is clear a violation of Law 74A2.

[blackshoe]

Clearly? I don't think so. Unless your position is that the mere fact that someone gets irritated means that 74A2 has been violated. Which will make for an interesting and much longer game.

[Cascade]

What Stefanie described seem to me to be a deliberate attempt to annoy the opponents.

 

First she is suggesting you pretend not to notice the lead then ask for another look at the previous trick. It seems that what she is suggesting is that you ask for that other look for no reason other than you are allowed to. Her motive is made clear in the last sentence in which she is trying to educate the opponent so that he will be reluctant to do something that is not against the laws again.

 

I think she and others should just play bridge and not engage in these superfluous silly games.

 

Perhaps I am wrong but the right to inspect the faces of the other cards seems to be designed so that a player cannot quit a trick without you seeing its face. Once you have seen its face I know what card was played I can't think of any sensible reason why you would want to see the card again - it will still be the ♥3 or whatever. There is no other information available from the card played. So asking for a second look wouldn't normally be needed (I have seen situations where a player for some reason is distracted and doesn't take the card in and asks a second time but that is completely different than just asking because you can and to try and disrupt the tempo of the opponent.)

[Vampyr]

so that he will be reluctant to do something that is not against the laws again.

 

...

 

Perhaps I am wrong but the right to inspect the faces of the other cards seems to be designed so that a player cannot quit a trick without you seeing its face.

 

Yes, you are wrong, and it is against the laws to play a trick while another trick is still in progress. Do you believe that when declarer is running a suit it is acceptable for all of the defenders' plays to remain face-up on the table? This is the consequence of what you are suggesting. Law 65A defines when a trick is completed, and Law 66A notes the right to see the cards face-up. You and these other nonsense posters think that it is acceptable to continuously flash your card in a twirling motion in response to another player's repeated requests to see the trick and you think that I am trying to annoy the opponents?

 

Why are you posting such crap?

[barmar]

I have an occasional partner who gets very annoyed because many players turn their card over the moment the last card is played to the trick. He's constantly asking these players "Please leave your card up so I can see it." I guess he waits until all cards have been played to make a mental note of the spots. An in the case of 4th hand's card, it may have been only visible fleetingly before they turned it. I don't find it as annoying as him, I find I'm able to see the cards as they're being played; on the other hand, he's a much better player than me, and I'll bet he takes note of the exact spot cards in cases where I probably just notice that it's some spot card, and this is harder to do with a fleeting glance.

 

These players aren't violating 65A, since 4 cards have been played to the trick. But 66A gives him the right to request to see the cards. And I think if they do this repeatedly after being asked to keep their cards visible for a few moments, they're violating 74A2.

[pran]

Yes, you are wrong, and it is against the laws to play a trick while another trick is still in progress. Do you believe that when declarer is running a suit it is acceptable for all of the defenders' plays to remain face-up on the table? This is the consequence of what you are suggesting. Law 65A defines when a trick is completed, and Law 66A notes the right to see the cards face-up. You and these other nonsense posters think that it is acceptable to continuously flash your card in a twirling motion in response to another player's repeated requests to see the trick and you think that I am trying to annoy the opponents?

 

Why are you posting such crap?

It is not crap.

 

And you will do much better by quoting an applicable law instead of just stating that something is against the laws.

So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced.

The lead to the next trick is from the hand in which the last trick was won.

1. A fifth card contributed to a trick by a defender becomes a penalty card, subject to Law 50, unless the Director deems that it was led, in which case Law 53 or 56 applies.

 

2. When declarer contributes a fifth card to a trick from his own hand or dummy, it is returned to the hand without further rectification unless the Director deems that it was led, in which case Law 55 applies.

 

Can you please reveal which law you have found that makes it illegal for the player who has won a trick to lead to the next trick, or even for the next player in rotation to play to that lead, before all four cards in the last trick have been turned face down?

 

What is clear from the laws I have quoted above (and others) is that each player should have turned his last played card face down before playing to the next trick and that he thereafter may not turn his card face up again except on instruction by the Director.

[Vampyr]

 

Can you please reveal which law you have found that makes it illegal for the player who has won a trick to lead to the next trick, or even for the next player in rotation to play to that lead, before all four cards in the last trick have been turned face down?

 

What is clear from the laws I have quoted above (and others) is that each player should have turned his last played card face down before playing to the next trick and that he thereafter may not turn his card face up again except on instruction by the Director.

 

You seem to have answered your own question. And the law you have not quoted is 65A, which defines when a trick is completed.

 

And I'm sorry, the idea that a hand can be played while one or more players' cards to some or all of the previous tricks remain face up is indeed crap.

[pran]

You seem to have answered your own question. And the law you have not quoted is 65A, which defines when a trick is completed.

 

And I'm sorry, the idea that a hand can be played while one or more players' cards to some or all of the previous tricks remain face up is indeed crap.

You have to do better than that.

 

Law 65A does not prohibit a player who has just won a trick to lead to the next trick while one of the other players still has his card in the just completed trick face up. It doesn't even prohibit the next player in rotation after this lead to play to that lead.

[Vampyr]

You have to do better than that.

 

Law 65A does not prohibit a player who has just won a trick to lead to the next trick while one of the other players still has his card in the just completed trick face up. It doesn't even prohibit the next player in rotation after this lead to play to that lead.

 

Fine, have it your way. If you think that there is no prohibition on having two, four, or all thirteen tricks in progress at once, play that way, and rule that way. I don't care.

[pran]

Fine, have it your way. If you think that there is no prohibition on having two, four, or all thirteen tricks in progress at once, play that way, and rule that way. I don't care.

What on earth are you talking about?

 

Allowing the player that has just won a trick to lead to the next trick before all other players at the table have turned their just played card face down is not allowing any player to play without having all his own previously played cards turned face down.

 

Law 66A secures any player's right to information from a completed trick so long as he still has his own last played card face up and his side has not yet played to the next trick. Whether an opponent has led to the next trick is irrelevant in this connection. But there is no law that makes such lead by an opponent an irregularity.

[blackshoe]

Well, the topic here is basically whether there should be such a law.

[pran]

Well, the topic here is basically whether there should be such a law.

Quite.

 

And as I have already said: "If it ain't broke then don't fix it".

 

Is there any problem if a player in turn to lead makes his lead while another player still has his last played card visible?

 

If that other player wants to review the last trick and such review is legal (see Law 66A) then everybody simply face their cards played to that trick. Once he is satisfied then everybody turn their so faced cards face down again, and play proceedes normally without any problem, at least no problem that I can imagine.

 

Of course a Director whose prime interest is to hand out PP's may want such a law, but for those of us whose interest is the game of bridge itself such an additional law would simply be garbage.

[bluejak]

Is there any problem if a player in turn to lead makes his lead while another player still has his last played card visible?

None whatever. I tell him not to do it again, and if he does I give him a DP.

[Cascade]

None whatever. I tell him not to do it again, and if he does I give him a DP.

 

Seems dictatorial.

 

The player has not violated any law. So you by fiat make an instruction that he may have difficulty following since it may be his habit to play to a trick in normal tempo when he has won. And then you think slapping him with a DP for failing to following your instruction (not the law) on what really is a minor matter will solve the (non) problem.

[Cascade]

Yes, you are wrong, and it is against the laws to play a trick while another trick is still in progress.

 

Which law?

 

Do you believe that when declarer is running a suit it is acceptable for all of the defenders' plays to remain face-up on the table? This is the consequence of what you are suggesting.

 

No it is not. The law says that when - at the time - all four cards are played then the players are required to turn their cards face down. There is nothing that suggests because one or more players are tardy in this responsibility that the player on lead is not allowed to lead.

 

Law 65A defines when a trick is completed, and Law 66A notes the right to see the cards face-up. You and these other nonsense posters think that it is acceptable to continuously flash your card in a twirling motion in response to another player's repeated requests to see the trick and you think that I am trying to annoy the opponents?

 

I think that if a player asks you to face a card and he has the right to do that then you face your card so that he can see it. Having done so you can turn it down. If it happens that you have misjudged and he has not seen it, or if occasionally he forgets, and asks to have the card faced again you comply.

 

However I think having a card faced simply to delay the game, even to delay the game so that you can buy some time to think is not a concept that is written in the laws.

 

Why are you posting such crap?

 

1. Obviously I do not believe it is crap

 

2. I do believe it is consistent with what is written in the laws

[bluejak]

Seems dictatorial.

 

The player has not violated any law. So you by fiat make an instruction that he may have difficulty following since it may be his habit to play to a trick in normal tempo when he has won. And then you think slapping him with a DP for failing to following your instruction (not the law) on what really is a minor matter will solve the (non) problem.

We have a method of playing the game: to play otherwise involves seriously upsetting other people. The fact that there is no Law that explicitly says the way it is played is not relevant: this is not BLML. We run bridge games in the normal way, using custom and practice if necessary.

 

We have a Law that forbids upsetting other people needlessly: you have a player who upsets other people needlessly and continues to do so when warned.

 

It is not dictatorial to give such a person a DP: it is normal TD practice.

[blackshoe]

Is there a problem? Possibly. It seems likely to be confusing, at best, to have five cards face up on the table when one is trying to work out the significance of the plays to the last trick. At worst, the leader may turn the wrong card.

 

Is it "not broke"? I don't believe so, or I wouldn't have started this thread. And if there's a director anywhere whose prime interest is to hand out PPs, he's in the wrong business, and not likely to be in it long.