Leading to tricks after the first

[pran]

Since the comment used the word 'if' and since it was a direct consequence of the posts I think it would be acceptable from anyone else. Therefore it is just as acceptable from Ed who follows the same rules.

 

If someone slows play down in an unacceptable fashion for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent then the TD has the power to deal with it. That has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

The discussion is whether a player is allowed to disconcert opponents by not showing his card when asked for a reasonable time: no, he isn't.

 

Also the discussion is whether a player is allowed to disconcert opponents by leading to the next trick with the current one not quitted: no, he isn't.

 

The reasons given for these actions are fairly fatuous which is what seems to be winding several other people up.

 

Just to summarise: bad behaviour is controlled by the Laws. Bad behaviour just because a player feels someone else is behaving badly is illegal and unnecessary. Leading to the next trick when the present is not quitted is bad behaviour.

While I agree with most of this I still have a problem with your statement:

 

Also the discussion is whether a player is allowed to disconcert opponents by leading to the next trick with the current one not quitted: no, he isn't.

 

When I have seen such leads it has always been because the player was unaware that one of the other players had not turned his card face down and not with the intention of disconcerting anybody.

 

You can of course use Law 74B1 against him because of his lacking attention, but is that really an advisable approach against a player who apparently intends no harm with his play in what he apparently thinks is proper tempo? And from all my experience I flatly refuse any assertion that such (slightly) premature leads can cause any problem.

 

If you have found a law (other than L74B1) making it illegal to lead to the next trick with the current one not quitted (although completed) I would appreciate learning what law that could be rather than just reading words like fatuous as part of your argumentation.

[AlexJonson]

This topic is about changing L44G to state explicitly that you cannot lead to the second or subsequent tricks until the previous trick has been quitted as described in L65A...

 

This is (IMO) a perfectly sensible suggestion for clarification of a specific aspect of correct procedure.

 

The problem is complicated by the fact that L65A is not too cleverly written either, so that various people believe it allows a player to not quit the current trick for an undefined period of time, while they 'think', while Cascade, perfectly reasonably (whether or not you agree with him), says L65A should not be read as intending to allow a player to sit thinking, with his card faced.

 

It is clear that a player can keep his card faced while he inspects the current trick. It is no help that L66A is not too cleverly written either. As a result some people think that L66A overrides L65A and requires that all players keep their cards faced until the player requesting the inspection turns his. But of course L66A doesn't say anything like that, and Cascade quite reasonably (whether you agree with him or not) takes the view that after you have allowed your quitted card to be inspected you can revert to the stipulations of L65A and turn it over.

 

So it seems to me we have a reasonable debate about what some of the Laws are intended for, and that personal criticism, whether or not conditional, is not called for.

 

Of course none of this overrides the TDs responsibility to keep the game proceeding in an orderly way and I think Bluejak is entirely right to take the sort of actions he mentions.

[Cascade]

What do you mean by "buying time to think"? If other players feel the way you do, you have to keep all the cards faced if you wish to think at the end of the trick; otherwise the opponents might lead to the next trick before you are ready.

 

That is their right.

 

The trick has been won. Its time to play the next trick.

 

It is wrong to vary one's tempo for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. But to simply lead to the next trick in normal tempo having won the previous trick is not an infraction.

 

Now, if you let the opponent lead before you are ready, you may not have planned whatever action you were going to take on the next trick, so you may not do it smoothly. Is this the problem? Do you feel that you have the right to know every time the play of a card is critical for the opponent, and worry that you lose that advantage if he takes the time to plan several tricks in advance or attempts to figure out what is going on in the hand?

 

Sorry, but you don't have the right to force opponents to give away their holdings by thinking only before they play a card.

 

If the opponents give away their holdings that is their problem.

 

There are lots of times to think about the current trick and the hand as a whole. You don't have to think only before you play a card. You can think while others are playing cards. You can think while others are thinking. However if a player needs to break tempo to think and this gives away information that is entirely that player's problem. (Unless an opponent has played unusually quickly to cause a tempo problem - see the thread I started called Rodwell Quote.)

 

You don't "let" an opponent lead. The opponent who has won the previous trick is on lead and is allowed to lead in normal tempo. There is no rule that allows an opponent to control when the leader can play a card. I play my cards when I am ready, my opponent also plays cards when ready. We are each responsible for problems caused by our own variations in tempo.

[Cascade]

Since the comment used the word 'if' and since it was a direct consequence of the posts I think it would be acceptable from anyone else. Therefore it is just as acceptable from Ed who follows the same rules.

 

If someone slows play down in an unacceptable fashion for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent then the TD has the power to deal with it. That has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

The discussion is whether a player is allowed to disconcert opponents by not showing his card when asked for a reasonable time: no, he isn't.

 

Also the discussion is whether a player is allowed to disconcert opponents by leading to the next trick with the current one not quitted: no, he isn't.

 

The reasons given for these actions are fairly fatuous which is what seems to be winding several other people up.

 

Just to summarise: bad behaviour is controlled by the Laws. Bad behaviour just because a player feels someone else is behaving badly is illegal and unnecessary. Leading to the next trick when the present is not quitted is bad behaviour.

 

I don't think this is a very accurate summary of the discussion.

 

In particular I have not argued anywhere to not show a card or to lead to the next trick for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

 

You are facing your card for the benefit of the opponent. It is obvious that you must allow that opponent to take in the what card has been played. In most cases though it will not take too long to take in the rank and denomination of the card.

 

When you lead to the next trick you lead because it is your turn to lead. There is no requirement to wait until some other player has quit a trick. The purpose is not to disconcert an opponent simple progress the game in normal tempo.

 

I don't believe the arguments are fatuous. The arguments have been based on the laws. The thread is about whether the law needs to be changed. Some have argued no because they believe their current practice is supported by the law. However as far as I can tell they have not yet referenced the law that requires a player to not lead until all players have quit the previous trick.

 

I don't really care if the law is changed or not. I do care if interpretations are made, especially heavy handed interpretations involving DP and the like as David suggests, that punish or manipulate a player for doing what is not disallowed.

 

I can see nothing in the current law that suggests that its purpose is to allow a player who has not won a trick to purposefully delay the play to the next trick.

 

Finally, I don't think ad hominem attacks that are thinly disguised with a conditional "if" are any more acceptable than direct personal attacks. In this case the insult is in the condition not the conclusion. That is there is a difference between "If you are a *&^% then ..." and "If you .... then you are a *&^%".

[shyams]

Finally, I don't think ad hominem attacks that are thinly disguised with a conditional "if" are any more acceptable than direct personal attacks. In this case the insult is in the condition not the conclusion. That is there is a difference between "If you are a *&^% then ..." and "If you .... then you are a *&^%".

Agree completely.

[bluejak]

While I agree with most of this I still have a problem with your statement:

 

Also the discussion is whether a player is allowed to disconcert opponents by leading to the next trick with the current one not quitted: no, he isn't.

 

When I have seen such leads it has always been because the player was unaware that one of the other players had not turned his card face down and not with the intention of disconcerting anybody.

 

You can of course use Law 74B1 against him because of his lacking attention, but is that really an advisable approach against a player who apparently intends no harm with his play in what he apparently thinks is proper tempo? And from all my experience I flatly refuse any assertion that such (slightly) premature leads can cause any problem.

 

If you have found a law (other than L74B1) making it illegal to lead to the next trick with the current one not quitted (although completed) I would appreciate learning what law that could be rather than just reading words like fatuous as part of your argumentation.

I just do not understand this sort of post. Why on earth would anyone penalise someone who does something wrong unintentionally?

 

Just because you are not meant to lead to the next trick until this one is quitted does not mean I am going to penalise anyone for so doing in general. Of course you do not penalise for things like that unless there is something considerably more to it.

 

This incredible idea that you have to penalise for any infraction is beyond me. Fortunately it is beyond the vast majority of players and TDs also so it does not happen.

[mycroft]

I think that if there are disagreements that are not cleared in the laws between behaviours that there should be a clarification or new law that sets it - which is, of course, why this is here.

 

I think, Cascade, that if you pulled that "I'm just leading in natural tempo, you have to play to mine" when it goes play, play, play, pitch - and I suddenly realize I have to find a couple more pitches than I was planning on - and then you're claiming that I'm hitching to the next trick when I'm not done with the last - that when the TD arrives, things are going to be mildly unpleasant. Play at whatever speed you want - so will I. If that means I have to think to the last trick until I'm ready; well, that's my tempo. Yes, there are other places to think - but there are times when one needs to think and one doesn't have control of the trick or any other place to do it - and players should be able to control that tempo should they need it. The fact that the way they normally do it doesn't explicitly by law cause it to happen means that, again, the law needs to be clarified one way or the other.

 

I think that what Vampyr is saying is so common behaviour, throughout the world, that the fact that it's not specifically cited in the Laws as correct behaviour would be surprising to most, and anyone that tried to argue that it is *not* correct behaviour, or more than that, not legal, would be looked at askew, at least.

 

The same goes for the "okay, you've seen it, I'm putting it away again." You don't get to determine for how long I need to see it to work out what's going on. Some people can only think visually, and without it face up, until it's in their own mental map, no processing can take place. So I think you'll get the "No, I said I'd like to see the trick" response from me and others until you leave it available for me to see until *I* don't need it any more.

[blackshoe]

Finally, I don't think ad hominem attacks that are thinly disguised with a conditional "if" are any more acceptable than direct personal attacks. In this case the insult is in the condition not the conclusion. That is there is a difference between "If you are a *&^% then ..." and "If you .... then you are a *&^%".

 

For the record, it was not intended as a personal attack. I don't know you, other than by your posts here, so I have no idea if you, at the bridge table, fit the description in the conditional. So if you don't fit the condition, the conclusion does not apply. I do stand by my opinion that for anyone who does fit the conditional, the conclusion does apply.

[Cascade]

For the record, it was not intended as a personal attack. I don't know you, other than by your posts here, so I have no idea if you, at the bridge table, fit the description in the conditional. So if you don't fit the condition, the conclusion does not apply. I do stand by my opinion that for anyone who does fit the conditional, the conclusion does apply.

 

Perhaps you should reread what you wrote. It certainly seems personal to me. The paragraph in question begins with my personal name. The second sentence uses a personal pronoun seemingly referring to the proper noun (me) in the first sentence. I can't see another way to read that.

 

Yes there is a condition. The condition however is suggestive. The statement in the fisrt sentence is that I am acting like a "Secretary Bird" and the suggestion in the second sentence is that the "Secretary Bird" is "that big a prick". The condition is if I act like this at the table but that does not diminish from the comparison to a "Secretary Bird" and the labeling of that character as a "prick".

 

From which it is hard to accept that the comment was "not intended as a personal attack".

[pran]

I just do not understand this sort of post. Why on earth would anyone penalise someone who does something wrong unintentionally?

 

Just because you are not meant to lead to the next trick until this one is quitted does not mean I am going to penalise anyone for so doing in general. Of course you do not penalise for things like that unless there is something considerably more to it.

 

This incredible idea that you have to penalise for any infraction is beyond me. Fortunately it is beyond the vast majority of players and TDs also so it does not happen.

What are you talking about???

 

I asked you for a clarification (law reference) on why it is (in your opinion) illegal for a player who has won the last trick to lead to the next trick before all four cards to the current (and completed) trick have been turned face down?

 

You carefully avoid that question and instead present some rubbish about not understanding why anybody would penalise.

 

If (as far as I have noted in this thread) anybody has suggested penalising a lead to the next trick before all cards to the last trick have been quitted it is you. I have certainly not suggested so; in fact my position is that so long as no law has been presented as making an action illegal there is no foundation for rectification or for penalising that action whether it is intentional or unintentional.

 

Let us agree that any (deliberate) action apparently taken for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent is a violation of Law 74. That is not, and never has been what this thread is about.

 

The questions are:

1: Do we have a law that forbids a premature lead to the next trick by the player who has won the last trick?

2: Do we need such a law?

 

My answers are "no" to both questions.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps you should reread what you wrote. It certainly seems personal to me. The paragraph in question begins with my personal name. The second sentence uses a personal pronoun seemingly referring to the proper noun (me) in the first sentence. I can't see another way to read that.

 

Yes there is a condition. The condition however is suggestive. The statement in the fisrt sentence is that I am acting like a "Secretary Bird" and the suggestion in the second sentence is that the "Secretary Bird" is "that big a prick". The condition is if I act like this at the table but that does not diminish from the comparison to a "Secretary Bird" and the labeling of that character as a "prick".

 

From which it is hard to accept that the comment was "not intended as a personal attack".

 

Fair enough. I withdraw the comment, and I apologize for having offended.

[axman]

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."

 

I do not believe that the contributions to this thread reflect the gravity of the issues.

 

To demonstrate I’ll relate a series of events that I have suffered many more than several times. Consider here that I sit east, picking up the action at T4 where pard led, dummy and I play and declarer detaches a card and places it in the discards in such a way that I can not see its face. The other two players quit their cards and declarer now exposes a card on the table, pard exposes a card, and declarer calls for dummy’s card. I now quit my card to T4 and the other three players quit their cards; and declarer exposes a card and then pard exposes a card.

 

I should think that declarer’s first card was not played to T4 and the second one was. Doesn’t that make pard’s next card the lead to T5? And, possibly OOT? And, has not pard’s playing a card at T6 cause a defective trick whereby I did not play to T5?

 

The reason that I left my card faced was to find out which card declarer played to T4. Does anyone really believe that the TD will rule that declarer’s second card belonged to T4. Do you believe that it is right headed for a player to [improperly] perpetrate a series of events that cascades into entrapping an opponent into establishing a revoke via a defective trick?

 

There should be enough meat here to spark some lively and terrifying thought. For them who want to fashion law it behooves you to carefully consider the issues that are crucial to present to the players as important and the words used to convey the messages- lest you do no better than the WBF.

[bluejak]

Yes, Law 74.

 

Whether we need a more specific Law I have no opinion about.

[Cascade]

Yes, Law 74.

 

Whether we need a more specific Law I have no opinion about.

 

So I have this right: You think that a player whose turn it is to play and who therefore plays a card is somehow in breach of the "CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE" law simply because he played his card at his turn to play.

 

I think this is clutching at straws.

[Vampyr]

So I have this right: You think that a player whose turn it is to play and who therefore plays a card is somehow in breach of the "CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE" law simply because he played his card at his turn to play.

 

What you seem not to understand is that it is not the player's turn yet if other people are still examining the previous trick.

[Vampyr]

Anyway, no one would wish to play this way (leading to tricks while another trick is not yet completed) so what is the point of discussing whether it is legal?

[Cascade]

What you seem not to understand is that it is not the player's turn yet if other people are still examining the previous trick.

 

Indeed I don't understand.

 

My understanding is that the player that won a trick is free to lead. The trick is won when, at the moment, four cards have been played to it. From those four cards we can easily and obviously determine the winner and therefore the leader to the subsequent trick.

[barmar]

I do not believe that the contributions to this thread reflect the gravity of the issues.

 

To demonstrate I’ll relate a series of events that I have suffered many more than several times. Consider here that I sit east, picking up the action at T4 where pard led, dummy and I play and declarer detaches a card and places it in the discards in such a way that I can not see its face. The other two players quit their cards and declarer now exposes a card on the table, pard exposes a card, and declarer calls for dummy’s card. I now quit my card to T4 and the other three players quit their cards; and declarer exposes a card and then pard exposes a card.

 

I should think that declarer’s first card was not played to T4 and the second one was. Doesn’t that make pard’s next card the lead to T5? And, possibly OOT? And, has not pard’s playing a card at T6 cause a defective trick whereby I did not play to T5?

Did you really mean "should think"? Perhaps "might think" would be more appropriate. Or is this a difference between British and American nuances?

 

But why would you think this? Even if you didn't see the face of declarer's card, you probably saw him pull the card from his hand. If a player plays his card in a fashion that you can't see it, you should simply say so: "Sorry, I couldn't see your card" and they should happily face it for you. While most people do understand that keeping your card faced is an implicit request for everyone else to show their cards, why depend on this when you can make the request clearly?

[pran]

After the lead, each other player in turn plays a card, and the four cards so played constitute a trick. ([...])

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

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

So Law 44B defines that a trick is complete when each of the four players has played a card to that trick.

 

Law 65A specifies the proper action when a trick is (already) complete (as defined in Law 44B).

 

Law 44G states that the lead to a next trick is from the hand in which the last trick was won. Naturally this is not known until the trick is complete, but there is nothing in law 44G (or in any other law) that requires the lead to be delayed until after all four players have turned their cards face down. (David's reference to Law 74 stands on its own as a statement without any substance).

 

However, we have

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.

which on certain specified conditions may kick in whether or not a lead has been made to a subsequent trick. This law does not in any way imply that such lead is an irregularity, but an effect is that (further) plays to the next trick must be delayed until inspection of the current trick is completed. It is also obvious that such inspection can only give cause to retraction of cards already played to the next trick if the inspection reveals a revoke in the just completed trick (in which case Law 62 applies).

[bluejak]

So I have this right: You think that a player whose turn it is to play and who therefore plays a card is somehow in breach of the "CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE" law simply because he played his card at his turn to play.

 

I think this is clutching at straws.

Let us get this straight. Bridge is played in a particular way, one trick is played, when it is finished and the cards are turned down, another trick starts. You get a total arsewipe who decides it would be fun to upset the others at the table and play to the next trick when they are clearly and demonstrably not ready. This is going to upset them, but the arsewipe does not care: he plays, saying "Show me a Law that says I cannot do this".

 

Law 74: it is not clutching at straws: it is dealing with people who deliberately upset others by acting as tosspots.

[blackshoe]

More specifically, I think, Law 74A.

[Cascade]

Let us get this straight. Bridge is played in a particular way, one trick is played, when it is finished and the cards are turned down, another trick starts. You get a total arsewipe who decides it would be fun to upset the others at the table and play to the next trick when they are clearly and demonstrably not ready. This is going to upset them, but the arsewipe does not care: he plays, saying "Show me a Law that says I cannot do this".

 

Law 74: it is not clutching at straws: it is dealing with people who deliberately upset others by acting as tosspots.

 

More insults ho hum.

 

1. I do not believe the combined affect and purpose of Law 65A and Law 66A is allow a player to delay the game or to buy time to think.

 

2. I do not believe that bridge is played this way everywhere and by everyone.

 

3. My experience is that you are much more likely to find a player using this delaying tactic (for want of a better phrase) among the minority of better players. The club I play at has graded sessions - graded according to ability or experience (or maybe Masterpoints) - I would doubt that on the lower grades you would find any player delaying the game in this way. Even on the top graded night I cannot recall for example one player on the most recent Tuesday night delaying the game in the way you say. There may have been an occasional ask to see a card - I did it once myself when I had not taken in the relevant spot cards but not to stop another playing leading.

 

4. Rarely I have seen someone try to delay the game at tournament by this tactic when it is not their turn to play.

 

I believe it is a habit that has crept into the game by some (a minority, usually better players) that is not explicitly allowed and a sensible reading of the laws suggests it is not allowed (see Sven Pran's post above). For the most part it is tolerated. However when it gets to the point where David is suggesting that a player who is simply playing a card to the next trick after he has won a trick is doing so to deliberately upset another player when that player probably just thinks its my turn to play I should play and further that David wants to slap that player with a penalty for simply playing a card in turn then things have gone too far.

 

If the game is really to be played so that a player not on lead is allowed to delay the lead of another player then I think that should be explicit in the laws.

 

I don't really care although I do not believe that such a change to the laws would be a significant enhancement to the game.

[mjj29]

 

1. I do not believe the combined affect and purpose of Law 65A and Law 66A is allow a player to delay the game or to buy time to think.

 

 

Firstly, there's an obvious difference between someone leading because they did not see that another player still wishes to review the previous trick and a player leading despite them knowing another player does not want to yet continue. I think we all agree that to do anything *in order* to disconcert another player is illegal and leave it at that.

 

However, I also would like to object to your 'in order to delay the game' point of view. If I must do some thinking, why is doing it now rather than at my turn to play delaying the game? The same amount of thought will go on over the whole hand, moving it around doesn't delay the game. Indeed, in some cases, various bits of the laws tell us that we should not break tempo when it's our turn to call (for example, when holding a singleton) so waiting until then may be actively bad.

 

If I think while reviewing the trick it a) is obvious that I need to think - it's not like I'm hiding that whether I do it now or at my turn to play, b) makes it clear that I'm not thinking about a tempo-sensitive position where I must avoid breaking tempo, which surely must be right in order to comply with that section of the laws.

 

'buying time to think' is a strange phrase - I'm going to take this long to think at some point and I am perfectly entitled to as long as I need during the hand (subject to the round time limit), I'm not gaining extra thinking time by thinking now rather than later.

 

Is it preferable if the laws define correct procedure as waiting until all reviews of the current trick have been completed and the cards quitted before leading to the next? I think so, if only to prevent mixing up of cards to tricks. Should people who lead without noticing a review is complete be punished? No, of course not. I certainly think it _is_ legal to think during a trick review in order to make it clear to people that you are thinking about the hand as a whole and avoid BITs in tempo-sensitive positions.

[bluejak]

You have a right to think about the hand at any time where thinking will not mislead opponents.

 

Strangely, there have always been a number of people, a large number, here and on other forums, who believe you only have a right to think at times they decree. I have never understood this.

[AlexJonson]

You have a right to think about the hand at any time where thinking will not mislead opponents.

 

Strangely, there have always been a number of people, a large number, here and on other forums, who believe you only have a right to think at times they decree. I have never understood this.

 

So we will now allow this thread to die after the repulsively insulting posts from Bluejak. I know that people respect his experience and skills,

 

But where are any sensible posters to decry Bluejak's behaviour.