Law 57

[euclidz]

When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick

 

I must be missing something because I can't see how that is physically possible. What am I not seeing?

[Vampyr]

When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick

 

I must be missing something because I can't see how that is physically possible. What am I not seeing?

 

The offender wins the trick and then leads to the next. Or declarer plays without noticing that offender's partner is still thinking about the previous trick. Or declarer is running a long suit from dummy and the discards get out of order.

[billw55]

We had a pair for a while at club that would do something like this. If I was declaring and cashed a winner, both opponents would immediately and simultaneously flash their card, then turn it down, all in about one second, before I could play from the other hand. Then when I did eventually follow from the other hand, they would do it again as if it was a new trick.

 

Not really the same thing but it reminded me of it, just as defenders playing out of turn.

[pran]

When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick

 

I must be missing something because I can't see how that is physically possible. What am I not seeing?

This happens whenever a defender leads (i.e. plays the first card) to a new trick before his partner has played his card to the last previous (i.e. the "current") trick. It is irrelevant whether this "lead" is in rotation or out of turn.

 

However, if a defender "leads" (other than the opening lead) out of turn and his partner has indeed played to the last previous trick then the applicable law is Law 49.

 

Be aware that Law 57 also applies to a defender's play (not lead) out of turn before his partner has played.

[blackshoe]

When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick

 

I must be missing something because I can't see how that is physically possible. What am I not seeing?

Well, suppose declarer leads a non-trump, and his LHO, seeing that dummy must follow suit, plays the ace. He "knows" he's winning the trick, so he turns over his ace (irregularity!) and immediately leads (irregularity!).

[noahapteke]

Often find these kind of situations. One that frequently pops up is the "Singleton" conundrum which is when at trick one the partner leads and dummy comes down and has a singleton and before declarer even has time to call for a card the other defender has played saying "There was no other card to play." I personally think that declarer needs that time to think and often needs leads and signals info before he is ready to play. So in my opinion players playing out of turn should be penalized

[pran]

Often find these kind of situations. One that frequently pops up is the "Singleton" conundrum which is when at trick one the partner leads and dummy comes down and has a singleton and before declarer even has time to call for a card the other defender has played saying "There was no other card to play." I personally think that declarer needs that time to think and often needs leads and signals info before he is ready to play. So in my opinion players playing out of turn should be penalized

Another red herring!

RHO has certainly played out of turn (before declarer called the card from dummy).

But he did not play before his partner to the current trick so this has nothing to do with Law 57!

[pran]

Well, suppose declarer leads a non-trump, and his LHO, seeing that dummy must follow suit, plays the ace. He "knows" he's winning the trick, so he turns over his ace (irregularity!) and immediately leads (irregularity!).

And the severity of this irregularity is that partner (RHO) is told which card LHO will lead to the next trick before he (RHO) has decided which card he will play to the current trick. Law 57 applies with its full force!

[RMB1]

Often find these kind of situations. One that frequently pops up is the "Singleton" conundrum which is when at trick one the partner leads and dummy comes down and has a singleton and before declarer even has time to call for a card the other defender has played saying "There was no other card to play." I personally think that declarer needs that time to think and often needs leads and signals info before he is ready to play. So in my opinion players playing out of turn should be penalized

Welcome to International Bridge Laws Forum!

 

Don't worry about "red herrings" - some posters dismiss almost everything than anyone else posts. :)

[blackshoe]

Often find these kind of situations. One that frequently pops up is the "Singleton" conundrum which is when at trick one the partner leads and dummy comes down and has a singleton and before declarer even has time to call for a card the other defender has played saying "There was no other card to play." I personally think that declarer needs that time to think and often needs leads and signals info before he is ready to play. So in my opinion players playing out of turn should be penalized

 

 

Another red herring!

RHO has certainly played out of turn (before declarer called the card from dummy).

But he did not play before his partner to the current trick so this has nothing to do with Law 57!

While the "singleton conundrum" may be a red herring wrt to law 57, noah makes a valid point. I think though that declarer still has the option to think about the hand - the fact that his RHO jumped the gun doesn't lose declarer his rights.

 

Law 44B: After the lead, each other player in turn plays a card, and the four cards so played constitute a trick.

 

The Introduction to the laws says that when the laws say a player "does" something, that establishes correct procedure, but without any suggestion of penalty. So playing out of turn here does not rate a penalty under law 44B. However, a penalty might* be issued under several provisions of Law 74.

 

* 'might' because it seems issuing procedural penalties is anathema to most directors, especially at club level.

[mycroft]

My standard one is "declarer is clearly about to run suit. I want to think about things now - but nobody else has anything to think about (they think, anyway). I leave my card to Trick 2 up. Declarer plays trick 3, and partner follows. So does dummy. Declarer sees a card from me, so plays to Trick 4. Partner follows..." I just love getting there and then saying "can I see the trick again please?" Their faces as they figure out which trick I meant :-)

[pran]

While the "singleton conundrum" may be a red herring wrt to law 57, noah makes a valid point. I think though that declarer still has the option to think about the hand - the fact that his RHO jumped the gun doesn't lose declarer his rights.

Sure he made a valid point, but (as you write) not related to Law 57.

[Vampyr]

My standard one is "declarer is clearly about to run suit. I want to think about things now - but nobody else has anything to think about (they think, anyway). I leave my card to Trick 2 up. Declarer plays trick 3, and partner follows. So does dummy. Declarer sees a card from me, so plays to Trick 4. Partner follows..." I just love getting there and then saying "can I see the trick again please?" Their faces as they figure out which trick I meant :-)

 

This sort of thing was discussed some time ago. A lot of people feel that there is no legal requirement that player must wait until the current trick is quitted before playing to the next one. I think that this should be made explicit in next year's version.

[gordontd]

This sort of thing was discussed some time ago. A lot of people feel that there is no legal requirement that player must wait until the current trick is quitted before playing to the next one. I think that this should be made explicit in next year's version.

A lot? I can only recall one person.

[Vampyr]

A lot? I can only recall one person.

 

LOL maybe that person just posted a lot.

[pran]

This sort of thing was discussed some time ago. A lot of people feel that there is no legal requirement that player must wait until the current trick is quitted before playing to the next one. I think that this should be made explicit in next year's version.

If you read Laws 44 and 65A (carefully) you should notice that leading to the next trick before the current trick is completed and quitted is a violation of correct procedure. There is no need for any change in the laws here.

[Vampyr]

If you read Laws 44 and 65A (carefully) you should notice that leading to the next trick before the current trick is completed and quitted is a violation of correct procedure. There is no need for any change in the laws here.

 

I agree with you but not everyone does.

[sfi]

My standard one is "declarer is clearly about to run suit. I want to think about things now - but nobody else has anything to think about (they think, anyway). I leave my card to Trick 2 up. Declarer plays trick 3, and partner follows. So does dummy. Declarer sees a card from me, so plays to Trick 4. Partner follows..." I just love getting there and then saying "can I see the trick again please?" Their faces as they figure out which trick I meant :-)

 

Unfortunately, once your partner plays to trick 3 you can no longer inspect trick 2. Law 66A covers this.

[pran]

Unfortunately, once your partner plays to trick 3 you can no longer inspect trick 2. Law 66A covers this.

Correct procedure is to object to any lead to the next trick before you have quitted your play to the last trick.

But if your partner is the offender with such a premature lead to the next trick then of course you have no more rights on the last trick.

[axman]

If you read Laws 44 and 65A (carefully) you should notice that leading to the next trick before the current trick is completed and quitted is a violation of correct procedure. There is no need for any change in the laws here.

 

Parsing the law:

 

44G. Lead to Tricks Subsequent to First Trick

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

 

Says [after the first trick] that whoever leads to a trick won the previous trick.

 

Say what?? There is a difference between the winner of a trick has the right to lead to the next trick, and, defining the leader to a trick as the winner of the previous trick.

 

Also notable:

 

LAW 65A. Completed Trick

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

 

65A requires cards to be quitted immediately after four cards have been played [it seems possible that one player might play more than one card to a trick, perhaps in order to correct revoke]. However, it does not follow that not waiting for the quitting nullifies play to the next trick.

[blackshoe]

Axman: read the Introduction to the Laws regarding the meanings of various words.

 

Agree with Sven that correct procedure is to object when someone leads to the next trick before all four cards are quitted on the current trick. Correct procedure in objecting is one (or two) word(s): "Director(, please).

[barmar]

Parsing the law:

 

44G. Lead to Tricks Subsequent to First Trick

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

 

Says [after the first trick] that whoever leads to a trick won the previous trick.

 

Say what?? There is a difference between the winner of a trick has the right to lead to the next trick, and, defining the leader to a trick as the winner of the previous trick.

 

It's clearly intended as "the hand in which the last trick was one makes the lead to the next trick." It would be clearer if they had written "is made from" instead of just "is".

 

This is so well known to all bridge players (it's probably the same in all games in the trick-taking family that descended from whist), I can't imagine anyone other than SB trying to get away with parsing it as anything other than what we all know it to mean.

[pran]

Parsing the law:

 

44G. Lead to Tricks Subsequent to First Trick

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

 

Says [after the first trick] that whoever leads to a trick won the previous trick.

 

Say what?? There is a difference between the winner of a trick has the right to lead to the next trick, and, defining the leader to a trick as the winner of the previous trick.

 

Also notable:

 

LAW 65A. Completed Trick

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

 

65A requires cards to be quitted immediately after four cards have been played [it seems possible that one player might play more than one card to a trick, perhaps in order to correct revoke]. However, it does not follow that not waiting for the quitting nullifies play to the next trick.

 

Even if a player leads or plays a card that must win a trick in progress, the winner of that trick is not formally determined until each player has contributed one card to that trick (Laws 44B and 44E or 44F).

 

Technically a card is an exposed card (Laws 48 or 49) if it is led to the next trick before the prescribed procedures in Laws 44 and 65 have been followed.

[nige1]

This sort of thing was discussed some time ago. A lot of people feel that there is no legal requirement that player must wait until the current trick is quitted before playing to the next one. I think that this should be made explicit in next year's version.

A lot? I can only recall one person.

Might be me :( I suggested that, unless you are claiming, it should be illegal for you to lead to the next trick until all players quit the current trick. It would simplify the game for players :) but deprive directors of intriguing cases :(

[Vampyr]

Might be me :( I suggested that, unless you are claiming, it should be illegal for you to lead to the next trick until all players quit the current trick. It would simplify the game for players :) but deprive directors of intriguing cases :(

 

LOL ummmm....